Not related to the current food conversation, and I know this is like a really minor thing, but I wish they would change the UI to more closely resemble classic BG, with the character portraits on the side, character sheets, inventory on the right, etc. I think that would be a relatively easy way to make it feel more like the older games and less like DOS2. Little nostalgic things like that would be so easy to change. Is there any functional reason why they shouldn't do that, that I'm unaware of? I admittedly know nothing about making a game, so maybe there's a good functional reason
I only asked to share criticism on things you really tried in the game, not based on YT videos or internet sites, or we'd have a SoD situation all over again.
So then criticism only from people who have bought the game, which also means mostly only from people who like the game and not really critics of the game? Because the overwhelming majority of critics will have not bought the game. Just want to be clear of the new rules on this subforum to avoid being in violation of them.
Is this really supposed to be a "pure complaints only" thread? Then why did @kanisatha post the question about food and romance here instead of in the discussion thread? It wasn't pure criticism either, and the answer might or might not have contained positive information about the game.
And to remain on topic: What I really dislike about BG3 is that it seems to drive people into unnecessary conflicts.
*casts Defensive Harmony and Chaotic Commands* (and yes, I know, that's not 5E)
Tadpole
At any point in the EA, does using the tadpole result in any meaningful negative consequences for you?
Does NOT using the tadpole result in any meaningful benefits or rewards?
Combat
Does killing (or otherwise harming, including robbing) innocents result in any meaningful negative consequences?
Does evading combat provide any XPs?
Movement
Many in the Larian forum are complaining about how cumbersome it is to move your whole party and to get companions to follow you, especially through hazardous areas without anyone taking damage. Your thoughts?
Companions
Any further news on my very first question some days ago, which was whether, when consistently choosing the "good" options and decisions, companions like Shadowheart, Astarion, and Lae'zal eventually get mad at you or at least end up with a poor regard for you?
Just a fair warning, to answer these questions from @kanisatha I have to give some small spoilers. If the mods want to take this post and put it in the spoiler thread that's cool.
Tadpole
Oh yeah, there are consequences to using it. Positive consequences, the hint of negative consequences down the road, and the introduction of a certain character. I can only imagine this isn't gonna turn out well for you. If you use them a lot a lot, even the dialogue options change.
Combat
Right now you lose out on combat exp and get nothing in return for skipping some battles. This has been a topic of major criticism and will likely be changed.
If you harm an innocent you will get surrounded by anyone who noticed you and you will have to talk, bribe, or fight your way out. It will likely have lasting consequences later on as well.
Movement
It's basically an EA thing. Companions wont jump to follow you when they should, or other minor pathfinding issues. All in all it's not terrible.
Companions
It won't kill your chances with them to do good deeds as long as you talk to them the right way and, annoyingly, pass certain dice rolls. This bothers me since companion influence shouldnt depend on luck.
I actually got a bit more into the Shadowheart romance the other night and it was surprisingly wholesome.
I am not *that* far in, but what is everyone's experience with enemies dropping the equipment they use in combat or not? In the very first fight against the Imps I noticed that the Imp who shot at me with a crossbow or bow actually dropped a sword - but not the ranged weapon.
I just don't find this game enjoyable. Part of it may be the fact that it's EA with a level cap of 4, but even then, the combat is just so slow and clunky and unexciting. It's such a snoozefest. I think they will eventually tone down the disastrous current design of elemental surfaces, so I'm not too worried about that (though it does absolutely blow right now), but the fact that the level cap of the full game is 10 doesn't give me much faith in combat becoming considerably more interesting.
Even Divinity's combat was more exciting than this as you could generally do more than one thing per turn. D&D 5e is tailored specifically for tabletop, its extremely simplified rules don't translate very well into a video game. It is possible to make turn-based combat interesting but BG3 doesn't seem to accomplish it, and that doesn't feel like a "this is EA" thing. That's going to remain part of the game, there's not much they can change in this regard.
As far as the story aspect goes, I had no high hopes in the first place. Larian's writing is awful and their games are written like cartoons, so I was at peace with that going in. The campiness and clichés galore is something I knew we would get, but I had hoped that the combat and character mechanics could compensate for that. I've never understood how anyone could like this type of storytelling, it's basically Spongebob-level campiness and so rife with stereotypes and over-the-topness.
And then there is of course the fact that the game just feels like Divinity 3. All the actual hands-on gameplay is Divinity, just with different mathematics under the hood. The looks, the feel, the command feedback, the way you interact with everything in the game... they have done absolutely nothing to make it feel unique. When the combat is then so tedious on top, I really don't see what there is to like about BG3. It feels like they just hijacked the name in order to boost sales.
I don't know why, but i haven't seen a single person who has noticed how out of character the Illithid are in this game...
They are supposed to be very smart, and powerful psions, yet they behave like total imbeciles for some reason:
The game starts with Yartar being attacked during the day... Aren't Mind Flayers incredibly secretive and smart enough to understand that revealing themselves as a threat on the surface, will cause them problems? In BG3 they look like they forgot their brain on the shelf -and they throw a Palpatinethe rise of skywalker style in the first seconds of the game-, they jump into Avernus thinking the Devils will just sit idle and watch... when they see armed adventurers, the first thing they do is checking if they are mind controlled with their psionic powers and say "Some prisoners escaped!" no wait... that's not what happens... they look at you and say "You, Thrall! Grab the helm and get us out of here" i was so confused, i had to create this with the subtitle: when a real Mind Flayer looks at his cousins in BG3
Also why does Larian always create backstories that are too big for level 1 characters?
A super prodigy who was the lover of magic herself(Mystra) and has a nuke in his chest... really?
I don't really mind graphics and TB(they are minor compared to the story, imo) but i get no BG feel at all. I get they want a D&D game, but why did they have to call it BG3 if the story won't even be connected to the previous games(they say it will have heavy bonds, but they contradicted themselves by saying it will be a sequel of Descent into Avernus and Murder in Baldur's Gate, so it will be linked to the Novels, not the originals)?
@Bumba Yeah, Larian's type of storytelling caters to the lowest common denominator who just needs everything to be crazy and extreme. Nothing's down to earth, nothing's believable, everything is the wildest and most trope-filled thing that Larian could think of. It reads like bad fanfic, the kind where you can tell that the story does take place in a certain universe but the writer completely failed to capture the spirit and nuance of the setting because they just wanted to make it as wild as possible. I fully expect BG3 to feature a dragon you have to fight by level 6 at the latest, and probably time travel and slaying several gods before the level 10 cap.
I also noticed some of the monsters are thrown there without following lore criteria... many streams i've seen show fights against spectators in random caves or locations in the underdark.
Aren't spectators supposed to be guardians summoned to guard specific locations?
For example, in BG2, the spectator had been bound and was guarding an important chest.
Some encounters feel like as if Larian had designed the combat terrain and then shoved some random enemies in it.
A summoned spectator guards a location or a treasure of its summoner's choice for 101 years, allowing no creature but its summoner to enter the area or access the item, unless the summoner instructed otherwise. If the item is stolen or destroyed before the years have all passed, a summoned spectator vanishes. It otherwise never abandons its post.
...
When a spectator has fulfilled its service, it is free to do as it pleases. Many take up residence in the places they previously guarded, especially if their summoners have died. With the spectator's loss of purpose, the flickers of madness it displayed during its servitude flourish.
I also noticed some of the monsters are thrown there without following lore criteria... many streams i've seen show fights against spectators in random caves or locations in the underdark.
Aren't spectators supposed to be guardians summoned to guard specific locations?
For example, in BG2, the spectator had been bound and was guarding an important chest.
Some encounters feel like as if Larian had designed the combat terrain and then shoved some random enemies in it.
Hmm, this is the best example of a bad impression based on the YT video. The spectator part is a big spoiler for a very interesting quest. Something that cannot be judged without playing the game at all.
I also noticed some of the monsters are thrown there without following lore criteria... many streams i've seen show fights against spectators in random caves or locations in the underdark.
Aren't spectators supposed to be guardians summoned to guard specific locations?
For example, in BG2, the spectator had been bound and was guarding an important chest.
Some encounters feel like as if Larian had designed the combat terrain and then shoved some random enemies in it.
Hmm, this is the best example of a bad impression based on the YT video. The spectator part is a big spoiler for a very interesting quest. Something that cannot be judged without playing the game at all.
You keep making claims like this, but I don't see how it would make any difference. What's on screen doesn't change if your holding a controller or not. Your eyes works whether you're clicking mouse or not. Do journal entries and dialogue somehow change if you aren't the one playing?
I also noticed some of the monsters are thrown there without following lore criteria... many streams i've seen show fights against spectators in random caves or locations in the underdark.
Aren't spectators supposed to be guardians summoned to guard specific locations?
For example, in BG2, the spectator had been bound and was guarding an important chest.
Some encounters feel like as if Larian had designed the combat terrain and then shoved some random enemies in it.
Hmm, this is the best example of a bad impression based on the YT video. The spectator part is a big spoiler for a very interesting quest. Something that cannot be judged without playing the game at all.
You keep making claims like this, but I don't see how it would make any difference. What's on screen doesn't change if your holding a controller or not. Your eyes works whether you're clicking mouse or not. Do journal entries and dialogue somehow change if you aren't the one playing?
I thought it's not so much about the fact that you play or you watch someone else playing, more that you see something taken out of context. You know, like quoting a politician or someone and it sounds like a completely different statement if you don't know what they said the hour before and the hour after that.
I also noticed some of the monsters are thrown there without following lore criteria... many streams i've seen show fights against spectators in random caves or locations in the underdark.
Aren't spectators supposed to be guardians summoned to guard specific locations?
For example, in BG2, the spectator had been bound and was guarding an important chest.
Some encounters feel like as if Larian had designed the combat terrain and then shoved some random enemies in it.
Hmm, this is the best example of a bad impression based on the YT video. The spectator part is a big spoiler for a very interesting quest. Something that cannot be judged without playing the game at all.
You keep making claims like this, but I don't see how it would make any difference. What's on screen doesn't change if your holding a controller or not. Your eyes works whether you're clicking mouse or not. Do journal entries and dialogue somehow change if you aren't the one playing?
Of course they do. This is a really fun quest, one of the highlights of the Early Access content for me. Would you imagine a small version of Yoshimo story? Would you be able to just look at the YT video and say: hey, that thief is completely PC-friendly, he directly says so, what on earth did the developers think when they added a PC-friendly thief who knows the Shadow Thieves?
I also noticed some of the monsters are thrown there without following lore criteria... many streams i've seen show fights against spectators in random caves or locations in the underdark.
Aren't spectators supposed to be guardians summoned to guard specific locations?
For example, in BG2, the spectator had been bound and was guarding an important chest.
Some encounters feel like as if Larian had designed the combat terrain and then shoved some random enemies in it.
Hmm, this is the best example of a bad impression based on the YT video. The spectator part is a big spoiler for a very interesting quest. Something that cannot be judged without playing the game at all.
You keep making claims like this, but I don't see how it would make any difference. What's on screen doesn't change if your holding a controller or not. Your eyes works whether you're clicking mouse or not. Do journal entries and dialogue somehow change if you aren't the one playing?
Of course they do. This is a really fun quest, one of the highlights of the Early Access content for me. Would you imagine a small version of Yoshimo story? Would you be able to just look at the YT video and say: hey, that thief is completely PC-friendly, he directly says so, what on earth did the developers think when they added a PC-friendly thief who knows the Shadow Thieves?
Not if you're actually watching a playthrough of the game, no. Besides, when playing the game for the first time, a lot of players probably DID think Yoshimo was just the standard early game friendly npc.
@Arvia What context is lost when watching a full playthrough?
I also noticed some of the monsters are thrown there without following lore criteria... many streams i've seen show fights against spectators in random caves or locations in the underdark.
Aren't spectators supposed to be guardians summoned to guard specific locations?
For example, in BG2, the spectator had been bound and was guarding an important chest.
Some encounters feel like as if Larian had designed the combat terrain and then shoved some random enemies in it.
Hmm, this is the best example of a bad impression based on the YT video. The spectator part is a big spoiler for a very interesting quest. Something that cannot be judged without playing the game at all.
You keep making claims like this, but I don't see how it would make any difference. What's on screen doesn't change if your holding a controller or not. Your eyes works whether you're clicking mouse or not. Do journal entries and dialogue somehow change if you aren't the one playing?
Of course they do. This is a really fun quest, one of the highlights of the Early Access content for me. Would you imagine a small version of Yoshimo story? Would you be able to just look at the YT video and say: hey, that thief is completely PC-friendly, he directly says so, what on earth did the developers think when they added a PC-friendly thief who knows the Shadow Thieves?
Not if you're actually watching a playthrough of the game, no. Besides, when playing the game for the first time, a lot of players probably DID think Yoshimo was just the standard early game friendly npc.
@Arvia What context is lost when watching a full playthrough?
Well, if you're watching a complete playthrough and pay full attention all the time to everything the player does (something I wouldn't be capable of), then I guess it doesn't make much of a difference, except that you don't know how in some situations your own possibly different decisions would have affected the outcome.
Edited: For clarification, did you watch a full playthrough or are you discussing a matter of principle? (And that's a neutral question, I'm just curious, not trying to provoke)
@Arvia Asking on principle, since I very strongly disagree that playing the game is mandatory to be able to see flaws and benefits to it. I'm planning on watching a playthrough when the game leaves early access.
(And yes, I do pay attention to full playthroughs. Even going so far as to pause the video to read notes)
I played both of the Divinity: Original Sin games, and while I could see that there was a lot of quality and features, the games just didn't satisfy me. There was something wrong with them that I couldn't put my finger on at first, but slowly I realized what it was: everything in Larian's games has to be funny, quirky and bizarre. Everything is an intentional all-out cliché on traditional RPG tropes, like a deliberate parody of the genre. Everything has to be crazy and over the top, nothing's allowed to be mundane and believable. It's not a serious setting, it's RPG comedy.
Baldur's Gate had isolated pockets of comic relief and the occasional thematic exaggeration, but the games aren't completely saturated in fantasy troped cranked up to 150%. D:OS is what you'd get if you took BG but every companion was Minsc and Boo, every NPC was Noober, and every quest was the Machine of Lum the Mad. Larian's games completely lack the grit and believability of the BG series. When it was announced that they would make BG3, I was a little worried but prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Then we saw the previews and my worries grew. What they showed us came off more like Divinity 3 crammed into the Forgotten Realms. Here I'm not talking about the UI skin or the tooltip font, I'm talking about the tone and theme of the game itself. The cartoonish gameplay, the over-the-top visuals, the non-stop RPG clichés and the craziness of the game's fundamental concept where you're someone with a friggin' illithid tadpole implanted into your brain so you hijack a githyanki spaceship and crash it.
It gave me no indication of the grounded, realistic-within-Faerûn nature of BG. Punting a goblin thirty feet into the distance, killing an enemy by throwing your boots at it, spell-like visual effects from the mundane act of jumping... it was just more of what I didn't like about Divinity. While we didn't get to see a whole lot of the game, what we saw did not feel like a Baldur's Gate game at all. It felt like they wanted to boost the sales of their Divinity 3 by hijacking the beloved Baldur's Gate name, without any genuine intentions of living up to the legacy of the series.
I'll be watching streams on Tuesday to see if I was right, and if I was, I'm not buying it.
I agree with everything you said; DnD has a issue where everybody is putting their two-cents in for decades, and has pretty much corrupted the setting, creatures, and among other things.
There was never anything wrong with everybody putting their two cents into DnD. Many different writers of the novels, the PnP campaigns, and video games were able to create a setting that was consistent and believable enough to be able to draw yourself in. If I was reading a novel and then jumped into a video game I felt like it was the same setting, and it felt believable at all levels. I blame a lot of the recent terrible writing of DnD squarely on WoTC. Since 4e they have shown no concern at all for the lore of the settings they have built up for years up until this point and only care about making DnD look as flashy as possible to appeal to the lowest common denominator. In many ways, the superficial "epicness" and trope-filled caricatures that Larian is known for is the perfect fit for modern WoTC. Just look at how they market BG3 with Descent into Avernus and other barely related products that use the BG name for marketing purposes. They want the dollar bills, and don't understand anything about what their fans appreciate, and so they will take the easier road of making DnD into whatever is most popular in current year.
Oh and they treat many people who work for them like garbage. R.A Salvatore also complained about this in a facebook group of his.
I mean, it's quite clear this game is exactly what it was predicted to be from the beginning. This is Divinity: Original Sin III with a D&D license. That's what it is. "Baldur's Gate" is the name being used to sell units and build hype. The fact is, even if this WASN'T Baldur's Gate III and Larian had been forced to stick to their own world, it would still be getting massive amounts of praise and hype, because the overall consensus is that Divinity: Original Sin II isn't just one of the best RECENT RPGs, but one of the best ever made. And Baldur's Gate III is taking things even farther in that direction, but now they have the biggest name in the business to work with.
So, if you DIDN'T like the D:OS series, I can't stress enough that you are NOT going to like Baldur's Gate III. But we've known this before anyone played a minute of the Early Access. Wizards of the Coast choose Larian for this very specific reason. This is what they WANT the game to be.
I was never very impressed with D:OS and I don't know why so many people are in love with it. They were pretty bad RPGs in my opinion. The combat is awful, the writing is unbelievably bad, the character build mechanics (stats, skills, race, etc.) are extremely primitive and poorly balanced, and the gameplay itself just doesn't offer anything that I find appealing. It has some neat little gimmicks that are fairly innovative in a game of that type, but how much gameplay value is there really in being able to move furniture around and stuff like that?
I had hoped that the D&D ruleset would fix at least some of this, but I wasn't familiar with 5e and had no idea how much D&D had been dumbed down. Last time I had anything to do with it was 3.5, and 5e feels like some kind of beginner's module in comparison. I can see how it might lend itself better to tabletop than the admittedly very convoluted 3.5 (and, I'm told, 4e, which I know nothing about) but it's too primitive for a video game. I miss putting points into skills, building around race-based class restrictions and class-based item restrictions, seeing my character's combat prowess grow through BAB and APR as I leveled up, etc.
5e seems to reduce all kinds of systems into very simple mechanics like advantage and extremely standardized combat rolls. My unarmored mage has 15 AC while my platemail-wearing fighter has 18. My cleric, rogue and fighter all have the exact same attack bonus. My buff spells are permanent until rest so they're just always active, I don't have to think about when to use them or worry about running out. It's all so painfully streamlined that it takes away a lot of what I used to enjoy about D&D. My characters at level 4 feel exactly the same as they did at level 1. And since the full game caps out at level 10, I don't expect much to change.
Spectator in the iron flask, that one is already a bit more acceptable because the Zhents are involved
The problem is that there are more than one at the very start when you should deal with a bit less impressive creatures... When you should learn that even just a single wolf might be dangerous enough to TPK(of course that's not the case in 5e, since they have the ac of a rock).
A bigger problem is
Why is there a random spectator in a zone full of petrified Drow? Spectators cannot petrify and the room just has two gold piles that are laughable compared to what a mage capable of summoning a Spectator should want to ward.
A friend that has the game streamed it for me, so unless i missed something by falling asleep, playing the game is not mandatory.
This is an RPG and unlike multiplayer online shooters, soccer, racing games... story is the most important thing (should be, but for now, the game is just the usual overblown combatfest in Larian style with a pair of references). A pair of lore ties, and D&D gameplay won't be what will make me scream "Aw this game is soooo good".
Like i didn't play Torment for the combat (imo a bit wonky), i won't care about the gameplay here... but sure as hell i will care about the claim of it being "A sequel faithful to the originals" and about Larian's terrible writing.
To be fair Spectator's are not done well in 5th edition. They are simply much too low CR to be worth summoning for a decently powerful wizard having to use Beholder stalks as a summoning component. They are only CR 3. Maybe fine to guard the silverware, but that's it.
To be fair Spectator's are not done well in 5th edition. They are simply much too low CR to be worth summoning for a decently powerful wizard having to use Beholder stalks as a summoning component. They are only CR 3. Maybe fine to guard the silverware, but that's it.
The opposite problem is true as well. Wizards that are not that powerful, wouldn't be able to get beholder eyestalks very easily and would not really benefit from having a Spectator's services.
Powerful wizards would probably just summon Spectators to guard the entrances to their lairs and wear down eventual intruders (and by intruders, i mean either very low level PCs or just wandering thieves/curious/ insistent people.)
I really haven't played it very far, but, like the Divinity games, there is no option to properly and simply pause the game. Turn-based mode can pause the game, but it acts entirely different than how pausing the original games (or any other games with real time elements) works. Not sure why Sven hates having a proper pause option so much.
I haven't figured out how to highlight every object on the screen. I can highlight some corpses and a few types of containers, but that's about it. So many other possible objects available and it's very hard to spot many of them.
Comments
And to remain on topic: What I really dislike about BG3 is that it seems to drive people into unnecessary conflicts.
*casts Defensive Harmony and Chaotic Commands* (and yes, I know, that's not 5E)
Tadpole
At any point in the EA, does using the tadpole result in any meaningful negative consequences for you?
Does NOT using the tadpole result in any meaningful benefits or rewards?
Combat
Does killing (or otherwise harming, including robbing) innocents result in any meaningful negative consequences?
Does evading combat provide any XPs?
Movement
Many in the Larian forum are complaining about how cumbersome it is to move your whole party and to get companions to follow you, especially through hazardous areas without anyone taking damage. Your thoughts?
Companions
Any further news on my very first question some days ago, which was whether, when consistently choosing the "good" options and decisions, companions like Shadowheart, Astarion, and Lae'zal eventually get mad at you or at least end up with a poor regard for you?
Tadpole
Combat
If you harm an innocent you will get surrounded by anyone who noticed you and you will have to talk, bribe, or fight your way out. It will likely have lasting consequences later on as well.
Movement
Companions
I actually got a bit more into the Shadowheart romance the other night and it was surprisingly wholesome.
Even Divinity's combat was more exciting than this as you could generally do more than one thing per turn. D&D 5e is tailored specifically for tabletop, its extremely simplified rules don't translate very well into a video game. It is possible to make turn-based combat interesting but BG3 doesn't seem to accomplish it, and that doesn't feel like a "this is EA" thing. That's going to remain part of the game, there's not much they can change in this regard.
As far as the story aspect goes, I had no high hopes in the first place. Larian's writing is awful and their games are written like cartoons, so I was at peace with that going in. The campiness and clichés galore is something I knew we would get, but I had hoped that the combat and character mechanics could compensate for that. I've never understood how anyone could like this type of storytelling, it's basically Spongebob-level campiness and so rife with stereotypes and over-the-topness.
And then there is of course the fact that the game just feels like Divinity 3. All the actual hands-on gameplay is Divinity, just with different mathematics under the hood. The looks, the feel, the command feedback, the way you interact with everything in the game... they have done absolutely nothing to make it feel unique. When the combat is then so tedious on top, I really don't see what there is to like about BG3. It feels like they just hijacked the name in order to boost sales.
They are supposed to be very smart, and powerful psions, yet they behave like total imbeciles for some reason:
The game starts with Yartar being attacked during the day... Aren't Mind Flayers incredibly secretive and smart enough to understand that revealing themselves as a threat on the surface, will cause them problems? In BG3 they look like they forgot their brain on the shelf -and they throw a Palpatinethe rise of skywalker style in the first seconds of the game-, they jump into Avernus thinking the Devils will just sit idle and watch... when they see armed adventurers, the first thing they do is checking if they are mind controlled with their psionic powers and say "Some prisoners escaped!" no wait... that's not what happens... they look at you and say "You, Thrall! Grab the helm and get us out of here" i was so confused, i had to create this with the subtitle: when a real Mind Flayer looks at his cousins in BG3
Also why does Larian always create backstories that are too big for level 1 characters?
I don't really mind graphics and TB(they are minor compared to the story, imo) but i get no BG feel at all. I get they want a D&D game, but why did they have to call it BG3 if the story won't even be connected to the previous games(they say it will have heavy bonds, but they contradicted themselves by saying it will be a sequel of Descent into Avernus and Murder in Baldur's Gate, so it will be linked to the Novels, not the originals)?
Aren't spectators supposed to be guardians summoned to guard specific locations?
For example, in BG2, the spectator had been bound and was guarding an important chest.
Some encounters feel like as if Larian had designed the combat terrain and then shoved some random enemies in it.
...
So I guess they could be the maddened ones..?
Hmm, this is the best example of a bad impression based on the YT video. The spectator part is a big spoiler for a very interesting quest. Something that cannot be judged without playing the game at all.
You keep making claims like this, but I don't see how it would make any difference. What's on screen doesn't change if your holding a controller or not. Your eyes works whether you're clicking mouse or not. Do journal entries and dialogue somehow change if you aren't the one playing?
I thought it's not so much about the fact that you play or you watch someone else playing, more that you see something taken out of context. You know, like quoting a politician or someone and it sounds like a completely different statement if you don't know what they said the hour before and the hour after that.
Of course they do. This is a really fun quest, one of the highlights of the Early Access content for me. Would you imagine a small version of Yoshimo story? Would you be able to just look at the YT video and say: hey, that thief is completely PC-friendly, he directly says so, what on earth did the developers think when they added a PC-friendly thief who knows the Shadow Thieves?
Not if you're actually watching a playthrough of the game, no. Besides, when playing the game for the first time, a lot of players probably DID think Yoshimo was just the standard early game friendly npc.
@Arvia What context is lost when watching a full playthrough?
Well, if you're watching a complete playthrough and pay full attention all the time to everything the player does (something I wouldn't be capable of), then I guess it doesn't make much of a difference, except that you don't know how in some situations your own possibly different decisions would have affected the outcome.
Edited: For clarification, did you watch a full playthrough or are you discussing a matter of principle? (And that's a neutral question, I'm just curious, not trying to provoke)
(And yes, I do pay attention to full playthroughs. Even going so far as to pause the video to read notes)
I agree with everything you said; DnD has a issue where everybody is putting their two-cents in for decades, and has pretty much corrupted the setting, creatures, and among other things.
DnD is not what it used to be.
Oh and they treat many people who work for them like garbage. R.A Salvatore also complained about this in a facebook group of his.
So, if you DIDN'T like the D:OS series, I can't stress enough that you are NOT going to like Baldur's Gate III. But we've known this before anyone played a minute of the Early Access. Wizards of the Coast choose Larian for this very specific reason. This is what they WANT the game to be.
I had hoped that the D&D ruleset would fix at least some of this, but I wasn't familiar with 5e and had no idea how much D&D had been dumbed down. Last time I had anything to do with it was 3.5, and 5e feels like some kind of beginner's module in comparison. I can see how it might lend itself better to tabletop than the admittedly very convoluted 3.5 (and, I'm told, 4e, which I know nothing about) but it's too primitive for a video game. I miss putting points into skills, building around race-based class restrictions and class-based item restrictions, seeing my character's combat prowess grow through BAB and APR as I leveled up, etc.
5e seems to reduce all kinds of systems into very simple mechanics like advantage and extremely standardized combat rolls. My unarmored mage has 15 AC while my platemail-wearing fighter has 18. My cleric, rogue and fighter all have the exact same attack bonus. My buff spells are permanent until rest so they're just always active, I don't have to think about when to use them or worry about running out. It's all so painfully streamlined that it takes away a lot of what I used to enjoy about D&D. My characters at level 4 feel exactly the same as they did at level 1. And since the full game caps out at level 10, I don't expect much to change.
A bigger problem is
A friend that has the game streamed it for me, so unless i missed something by falling asleep, playing the game is not mandatory.
This is an RPG and unlike multiplayer online shooters, soccer, racing games... story is the most important thing (should be, but for now, the game is just the usual overblown combatfest in Larian style with a pair of references). A pair of lore ties, and D&D gameplay won't be what will make me scream "Aw this game is soooo good".
Like i didn't play Torment for the combat (imo a bit wonky), i won't care about the gameplay here... but sure as hell i will care about the claim of it being "A sequel faithful to the originals" and about Larian's terrible writing.
The opposite problem is true as well. Wizards that are not that powerful, wouldn't be able to get beholder eyestalks very easily and would not really benefit from having a Spectator's services.
Powerful wizards would probably just summon Spectators to guard the entrances to their lairs and wear down eventual intruders (and by intruders, i mean either very low level PCs or just wandering thieves/curious/ insistent people.)
I haven't figured out how to highlight every object on the screen. I can highlight some corpses and a few types of containers, but that's about it. So many other possible objects available and it's very hard to spot many of them.