Baldurs Gate 3

[Makabreska]

You can forgive some artwork and color scheme cross over sure.

Crashing a ship on a coast starting point. Having collars, sorry I mean tadpoles as a limiting factor that also has a narrative function. And the interface/UI and general all around gameplay being near identical then eyes brows are more than raised.

I mean, Elder Scrolls always start with you imprisoned. And tadpoles aren't a "limiting factor". They actually give you superpowers, like big jumps or walking in daylight for that vampire spawn char.

So not bothering to read the rest of more defense force nonsense. Im not even saying its a bad thing, just that they should have called it divinity 3 to save all the confusion.

Not bothering to read that part, where direct dev's quote proves you wrong? Oh, okay. I see what you are doing now.

[Endus]

I mean, Elder Scrolls always start with you imprisoned. And tadpoles aren't a "limiting factor". They actually give you superpowers, like big jumps or walking in daylight for that vampire spawn char.

They'll probably narratively function that way, in a "we need to figure out how to deal with X" narrative sense, but that's true of basically any RPG. The big difference is between linear RPGs (which BG has always been) where you have to follow the written story (plus side quests), or sandbox RPGs where you can get so distracted you never get around to the main quest (Skyrim, Fallout 3/NV/4, AC Origins/Odyssey, etc). And even in the latter, at some point, you'll be reduced to following that linear story; it's just a distinction of proportions.

[Makabreska]

If someone wants to check prequels, there is 50% discount on GoG right now.

And for every other game from Black Isle as well.

[Oakshana]

I cant remember the last one outside of Path of Exile.

That's how Age of Conan started, The Neverwinter MMO originally opened... there are a plethora of games that used the shipwrecked on the shore opening to start.

[Thraim]

My 2 cents

At this point, apart from the artstyle, my main concern is what the mod policy will be. The BG community was a PC gaming community and loves mods. The new community that will be playing this game of course is different but I'd still like them to make the game reasonably accessible to modding as well.

The DOS:2 modding community seems pretty active. Lot's of additional classes/art/spells/ etc in the steam workshop. I'd imagine BG3 will have at least that level of mod support.

[Wilian]

I mean Fallout 3 was immensely popular so I'm failing to see your point? Was there an outcry of "og fans" complaining that it sucked and "s'not FO1/2"??

Cuz if there was an outcry over it then it must've been so small it flew under everyone's radar.

There certainly was a lot of frustration and anger over the direction that Bethesda took with Fallout 3, which felt like a game of random adventures in random wasteland versus true follow-up to the original serie and it wasn't helped by how clueless the devs themselves appeared to be on what really appealed in Fallout as a serie. This is the same reason why FO NV which sticks far nearer towards the original games was better received by nearly anyone who didn't jump in on the Fallout train on FO3 but also sold vastly more.

[Biomega]

The DOS:2 modding community seems pretty active. Lot's of additional classes/art/spells/ etc in the steam workshop. I'd imagine BG3 will have at least that level of mod support.

One would hope so.

Mods are the only thing that keeps me playing BG2 to this day. Couldn't even imagine the game without mods.

[Endus]

There certainly was a lot of frustration and anger over the direction that Bethesda took with Fallout 3, which felt like a game of random adventures in random wasteland versus true follow-up to the original serie and it wasn't helped by how clueless the devs themselves appeared to be on what really appealed in Fallout as a serie. This is the same reason why FO NV which sticks far nearer towards the original games was better received by nearly anyone who didn't jump in on the Fallout train on FO3 but also sold vastly more.

NV was pushed out the door half-finished; there's tons of empty space that was clearly intended to be filled. It's also buggy as balls, moreso than Fallout 3. It was barely playable at launch, and flatly unplayable for a lot of people. Fallout 3 is rated significantly higher on Metacritic, largely because of how buggy it was.

Pulling off Wikipedia, FO3 has sold about 12.4 million copies worldwide (as of 2015, the latest figures Wikipedia has). FO:NV has sold about as many. No indication of selling "vastly more", at all. You're also ignoring that Fallout 3's launch alone outsold Fallout 1 and 2 combined, over their sales lifetime; well under a million sales, each; if sales figures alone matter, then Fallout 3 is a far greater success than its predecessors.

You're engaging in revisionist history. What you're claiming is simply not true.

[BeepBoo]

FO:NV was "complete the quests in a horseshoe" the game. You started on your rail and moved around the outside of the mountain range in the middle, and finished the game at the dam.

FO3 was better to me. Fallout 4 succeeded them both in spectacular fashion.

[Arrashi]

FO:NV was "complete the quests in a horseshoe" the game. You started on your rail and moved around the outside of the mountain range in the middle, and finished the game at the dam.

FO3 was better to me. Fallout 4 succeeded them both in spectacular fashion.

I disagree.
I don't think so.
I doubt it.
I will disagree with you later.

[The Butt Witch]

FO:NV was "complete the quests in a horseshoe" the game. You started on your rail and moved around the outside of the mountain range in the middle, and finished the game at the dam.

FO3 was better to me. Fallout 4 succeeded them both in spectacular fashion.

FO4 was trash. What the actual F are you talking about?

[prwraith]

FO4 was trash. What the actual F are you talking about?

to me FO4 was the first playable one in the series. FO3 was just fields of brown boring-ness everywhere. May as well have been clive barkers jericho

[Fawkess]

FO:NV was "complete the quests in a horseshoe" the game. You started on your rail and moved around the outside of the mountain range in the middle, and finished the game at the dam.

FO3 was better to me. Fallout 4 succeeded them both in spectacular fashion.

Personally I enjoyed the main story of Fallout 3 more than NV but everything else in NV is better for me (including DLC)

[The Butt Witch]

to me FO4 was the first playable one in the series. FO3 was just fields of brown boring-ness everywhere. May as well have been clive barkers jericho

FO3 was a burning trashfire. FO4 was just trash.

FO4 would have had potential to be at least good if it hadn't shoved the settlements crap down your throat. I mean it would have been great if you had like 1 or 2 settlements, or they were entirely optional, but they weren't. You had to take care of like 20 of them, otherwise it kept bugging you and at you with all sorts of needs, and building a settlement was such a LEGENDARY WASTE OF FUCKING TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I only picked up the game again when a genius came up with that automatic settlements mod where you just laid down the lots, and npcs would build their own damn shit, but it was sooo buggy too. Npcs wouldn't build beds sometimes, and just stood there whining about having nowhere to sleep, or they would get stuck in their own structures, etc...

[Endus]

FO3 was a burning trashfire. FO4 was just trash.

FO3 and 4 were both favorably reviewed and appeared in a lot of "best of the year" lists.

You're ridiculous.

FO4 has a lot of improvements on the exploration and world impact pillars, over FO3/NV, but suffers a bit in the writing department, largely in the main quest and the lack of ability checks.

It's still a really good game, and wouldn't have caught nearly as much flak as it did if it weren't for gatekeeping "fans" like yourself.

FO4 would have had potential to be at least good if it hadn't shoved the settlements crap down your throat. I mean it would have been great if you had like 1 or 2 settlements, or they were entirely optional, but they weren't. You had to take care of like 20 of them, otherwise it kept bugging you and at you with all sorts of needs, and building a settlement was such a LEGENDARY WASTE OF FUCKING TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Literally optional. Just ignore the requests. Simple. And if you didn't build up a settlement, there wasn't anyone there to call for help from you. It's an entirely optional side-venture in the game that could be 100% ignored by a player without in any respect impacting their ability to finish the game. The only ending path that requires any involvement in settlements is the Minutemen path; if you pick any of the three primary factions instead, settlements don't matter at all.

The only reason you get triggered with quests is if you walk near Preston Garvey, or if you pursue the Minutemen quests enough to get their radio up and running and tune in to it while walking the Wasteland. So just don't do either. Send Garvey to some random settlement you capture but never build up, and never go there again. Easy.

Some of us liked building settlements, and installed a crapton of mods to expand the building options as a result. So again; stop pretending you're speaking for anyone but yourself.

[Aliven]

FO3 and 4 were both favorably reviewed and appeared in a lot of "best of the year" lists.

You're ridiculous.

FO4 has a lot of improvements on the exploration and world impact pillars, over FO3/NV, but suffers a bit in the writing department, largely in the main quest and the lack of ability checks.

It's still a really good game, and wouldn't have caught nearly as much flak as it did if it weren't for gatekeeping "fans" like yourself.

Literally optional. Just ignore the requests. Simple. And if you didn't build up a settlement, there wasn't anyone there to call for help from you. It's an entirely optional side-venture in the game that could be 100% ignored by a player without in any respect impacting their ability to finish the game. The only ending path that requires any involvement in settlements is the Minutemen path; if you pick any of the three primary factions instead, settlements don't matter at all.

The only reason you get triggered with quests is if you walk near Preston Garvey, or if you pursue the Minutemen quests enough to get their radio up and running and tune in to it while walking the Wasteland. So just don't do either. Send Garvey to some random settlement you capture but never build up, and never go there again. Easy.

Some of us liked building settlements, and installed a crapton of mods to expand the building options as a result. So again; stop pretending you're speaking for anyone but yourself.

Fallout 4 was and is great game.

Loved the weapon customization, the companions (muuuuuuch better than in any previous instalment, maybe not including Sulik from f2) and the exploration of that world. Best fallout for me.

But it is popular to hate this game on the internet.

[FlubberPuddy]

If someone wants to check prequels, there is 50% discount on GoG right now.

And for every other game from Black Isle as well.

Do the enhanced editions hold up today? What I mean is are the controls easy to handle and make sense (like for instance Pillars of Eternity 1 it was easy to grasp the controls)? I've been in the mood for games with good stories.

[Makabreska]

Same as the original, only changes are a few extra characters added and some bugs fixed. Controls are fairly easy

Not only that. Higher res graphics, extra content in form of new followers and missions, Black Pits, new cinematics, new audio, subclasses added, improved journal etc.

[FlubberPuddy]

Not only that. Higher res graphics, extra content in form of new followers and missions, Black Pits, new cinematics, new audio, subclasses added, improved journal etc.

Would I be good simply buying BG 1 EE and BG 2 EE? What's the recommended to buy?

[FlubberPuddy]

Buy one of the two just to see if you enjoy it tbh then buy the other. And perhaps after playing for a while consider mods, they can make things more interesting and even add content.
If you end up really enjoying the gameplay, I'd play IWDEE too. It doesn't have anything to do with the BG story but imo it has a solid story and far better gameplay than either of the BG games.

I just bought both from Amazon (BG1&2). They were having sale $4.99 for each game (Steam keys). I want to take a dip into these classics and see what they're all about.

CRPGs are like a comfy book in video game form. I like getting lost in their worlds