Baldurs Gate 3

However some people also mention that Larian is kinda not doing such a stellar job in actually making the DnD PnP rules work on the PC so far.
Well to be fair shortcuts has been taken in most DnD PC games. I am not sure if this will be better or worse.
Nobody should get BG 3 until it is actually complete. Why would you buy a half complete RPG in the first place? Oh boy this RPg is missing half the classes but you can run around the opening area! Not talking about this game with that comment but it is the feel I get anytime now after being burned by playing unfinished rpg's.
It doesn't make any fucking difference, even if I buy a finished RPG I still replay the introduction and first part of the game 15 times before I decide what class I want to play. Stop being such a whiny old man.
 
I actually liked what I saw of the combat, and the interactivity; especially the cutscenes. It should not have been a Baldur's Gate sequel; could have been a nice ToEE sequel or a BG spin off.

The gameplay is nothing like the established series, it works over BG the same way that Bethesda worked over Fallout. :(

Combat aside... it seems like a Dragon Age clone to me, and I find that rather sad.
 
The gameplay is nothing like the established series, it works over BG the same way that Bethesda worked over Fallout. :(
To be fair, D&D 5e uses very different rules than AD&D did. So the gameplay would have to be changed or no game would exist.

But yeah, it's called Baldur's Gate 3 for brand recognition only. They could have picked any other city or region from the Forgotten Realms campaign set and I bet it would work even better. But then they wouldn't be able to get those extra few classic BG players that just want to play another BG.

To be honest, I always hated how BG I and II was real-time with pause since I always liked D&D and wanted it to be more faithful as the source material, as a turn-based system. For me having it be a real-time with pause was already making BG I and II the same way that Bethesda worked over Fallout. Even though BG has real-time "turns", it's still a lesser system RPG for me.
 
Combat aside... it seems like a Dragon Age clone to me, and I find that rather sad.
Why is that sad? Dragon Age Origins is probably the last good Bioware game and I thoroughly enjoyed it.
The gameplay is nothing like the established series, it works over BG the same way that Bethesda worked over Fallout. :(
Who the fuck cares, RTwP is not a great system.
 
Why is that sad? Dragon Age Origins is probably the last good Bioware game and I thoroughly enjoyed it.
Because Baldur's Gate is not Dragon Age; in the same way that Fallout 3 is not Fallout 2, and how Space Marine is not Dawn of War.

Who the fuck cares.
I do, because series' gameplay matters most in a series—absolute most; paramount. BG3 does not even try to fit with the series; nor does FO3 try to fit with F1&2, and FO4 barely fits with FO3. FO3 is a Fallout IP spin off game. Gameplay-wise it is a re-skinned TES with guns.

There is such a thing as the wrong kind of fun. BG3 looks fun, but it is positively the wrong kind for a Baldur's Gate sequel.

While I'm at it, I will say that the same goes for the recent Wasteland games, and the InXile Bard's Tale 4. Same reasons.

________

Krome studios did such an exemplary job remastering Bard's Tale 1,2 & 3, that I was sad that InXile (or Krome) didn't make Bard's Tale 4 using their Unity Bard's Tale engine.
 
Last edited:
Because Baldur's Gate is not Dragon Age; in the same way that Fallout 3 is not Fallout 2, and how Space Marine is not Dawn of War.
And yet Dragon Age was a spiritual successor to Baldurs Gate, RTwP and everything. Also on one side you are saying it is like Dragon Age, and on one side you are complaining about it not being like Dragon Age because they changed the gameplay formula, which one is it?

I do, because series' gameplay matters most in a series—absolute most; paramount. BG3 does not even try to fit with the series; nor does FO3, and FO4 barely fits with FO3. FO3 is a Fallout IP spin off game. Gameplay-wise it is a re-skinned TES with guns.

There is such a thing as the wrong kind of fun. BG3 looks fun, but it is positively the wrong kind for a Baldur's Gate sequel.

While I'm at it, I will say that the same goes for the recent Wasteland games, and the InXile Bard's Tale 4. Same reasons.
If you think the essence of Baldurs Gate is whether or not the combat is real time with paus or turn based, I really have nothing to add here. I disagree. The issue with the new Fallout games was not the change of gameplay mechanics, New Vegas showed that it can still feel like Fallout.
 
And yet Dragon Age was a spiritual successor to Baldurs Gate...
So? Arx Fatalis was the spiritual successor to Ultima Underworld—but it wasn't an Ultima Underworld numbered sequel.

Also on one side you are saying it is like Dragon Age, and on one side you are complaining about it not being like Dragon Age because they changed the gameplay formula, which one is it?
My post says, "combat aside...".

I like both games; I would not like either one as a sequel to the other.

If you think the essence of Baldurs Gate is whether or not the combat is real time with paus or turn based
I hold the same opinion for games I don't like; a sequel should build from the series foundation—not replace it with something unrelated. If it has to be made THAT different to please a modern audience, then it should not be made as a sequel to something the new audience doesn't appreciate to begin with.

If you liked Bond films, would you like it if the next official bond film was written, directed, and starring Sacha Baron Cohen? Would it be fun? Be funny as hell?, probably yes, but it would be the wrong kind of fun.

Do you distinguish between Brussels Sprouts, and Marzipan Brussel's Sprouts? This is the gist of my point and preference.

* (You can like them both, and yet not like one when you expect the other.)
 
Last edited:
As someone who actually played it, wait for a full release. Many features and feats are missing, the reaction system needs an overhaul and hard cap of level 4 makes replayability rather small.
 
As someone who actually played it, wait for a full release. Many features and feats are missing, the reaction system needs an overhaul and hard cap of level 4 makes replayability rather small.
Yeah kind of what I expected, level 4 is not nearly enough to explore all the content even in the EA.
 
Well. It worked for Baldurs Gate 1!

I actually liked what I saw of the combat, and the interactivity; especially the cutscenes. It should not have been a Baldur's Gate sequel; could have been a nice ToEE sequel or a BG spin off.

The gameplay is nothing like the established series, it works over BG the same way that Bethesda worked over Fallout. :(

Combat aside... it seems like a Dragon Age clone to me, and I find that rather sad.
I like how someone said, Baldurs Gate 3 is to Baldurs Gate 2 like playing a session of DnD but with a different Dungeon Master who makes a different campaign and has a different style.
 
Low levels. Like what was the max level in BG1? 8? 10? In BG2 with the expansion you could reach like lvl 40? And basically become a demigod.
 
Low levels. Like what was the max level in BG1? 8? 10? In BG2 with the expansion you could reach like lvl 40? And basically become a demigod.
10. And you are missing the point, it is not so much about the level cap as the pacing. In BG3 you get to level 4 REALLY quick and then there is a lot more content to explore. There was no such issues in BG1.
 
I missed the point on purpose.
xqof4cMR.jpg
 
Well to be fair shortcuts has been taken in most DnD PC games. I am not sure if this will be better or worse.

It doesn't make any fucking difference, even if I buy a finished RPG I still replay the introduction and first part of the game 15 times before I decide what class I want to play. Stop being such a whiny old man.
I'm not whining mate I am explaining why I am waiting to buy this game. If I was whining I would be acting like YOU ARE LOL.
 
Back
Top