Baldurs Gate 3

[Kyanion]

I've actually been hearing this over and over. It's amazing.

Speaking of music I enjoyed (and the first interaction with an NPC that I actually really liked) was the Tiefling Bard Alfira

I've heard Larian really wants people to play the bad/evil side and really test it out in EA because they said most people tend to go good in their games. Sadly it seems to put out tons of interactions/characters I just don't like. It was really a nice breath of fresh air to have that NPC interaction.

[Makabreska]

She's even unpleasant to you after you get to make out with her. I guess they're just going for the tsundere goth half-elf gf vibes.

Well, that's basically how Viconia was in BG2.

[Nerovar]

Well, that's basically how Viconia was in BG2.

Sadly, I didn't play the original BG titles. But I must say the interactions with Shadowheart are kinda funny if you play a Selûnite Cleric.

[Arrashi]

I don't see why people complain about companions. They are all very baldurs gate like. In fact they all seem to be some fusion of annoymen and tiax, the most beloved and iconic BG companions.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, that's basically how Viconia was in BG2.

Edwin is much better tsundere GF.

[Lazerbrain]

I absolutely love D&D, but I do not agree at all that the overall feeling and the story is top notch. It might be that I'm seasoned and have DMed for years myself but when playing I can literally see the cogs and wheels of the story spinning. I can see the developers' whiteboard of

Ship -> Companions -> Tieflings -> Druids -> Gobs -> Halsin

and I am not impressed at all. Add to that the complete absence of personal story. If you're a Warlock you don't get to even have an actual patron. It's just in your char sheet, not to mention that TGOO WL subclass does not even have a feature like The Fiend's temporary hit points one. I'm not pointing to the general sense of Warlock being very limited as a class in the game of D&D here and I do not find the class limited personally. What I'm saying is that no matter what class you're picking, you're the same dude as far as the story is concerned.

Playing a Tiefling WL as my first char, I was honestly very surprised to not get distrusted by pretty much everyone just because I was devilkin and also even more surprised to not have positive reactions from the surprisingly numerous tieflings in the first part of the game besides the occasional "ye, wi tieflings, boi".

Well, okay I agree that the cogs are showing and the story might seem straight forward, but you do have room to wiggle the story more than i'm used to from the videogames I have been playing recently, im happy I could talk my way through most encounters and or that I could pick a side in the conflict, thats news to me.. I also DM IRL but to compare a videogame to pen and paper is just ludicrous in my mind, you could never write code that's as flexible as a DM's mind.. My play session ended with a save corrupting bug so I have to start all over and that sucked.

[Well]

Well, okay I agree that the cogs are showing and the story might seem straight forward, but you do have room to wiggle the story more than i'm used to from the videogames I have been playing recently, im happy I could talk my way through most encounters and or that I could pick a side in the conflict, thats news to me.. I also DM IRL but to compare a videogame to pen and paper is just ludicrous in my mind, you could never write code that's as flexible as a DM's mind.. My play session ended with a save corrupting bug so I have to start all over and that sucked.

Well, I do agree that you obviously can't have a pen & paper direct comparison. However, I suggest you play Dragon Age (from Origins to Dragon Age 2 and Inquisition) if you want a generally coherent, sound story that will be impacted by your choices. What is different between franchises like BG and DA is that in the latter, the world actually changes depending on what you choose to do and these choices are reflected in the later installments of the series, beginning with Origins, carrying over to DA2 and then to Inquisition.

I found nothing of RPG value in BG3. Just random conjured up fantasy scribles of a very desicively humanoid structure, be it plant, beast, fleshling or celestial, that have had absolutely nothing to do with each other, influenced each others' existence in no way and just somehow existed at the same time, which just makes no sense whatsoever. Admittedly, this is a problem of mine with D&D in general, but it definitely broke any sense of immersion while playing.

[Makabreska]

Edwin is much better tsundere GF.

He better makes an appearance in BG3.

[Jastall]

On the topic of companions, I have some issues:

First, why did they choose to have 2 Half-Elves? If the PC is also a Half-Elf, you got 3/4s of your party being Half-Elves and on that note, where's the dwarf? Why don't we have a Tiefling companion? A full elf?

Second, only Wyll & Gale are okay, and that edged me, honestly. I did in Shadowheart find the inside-I-am-brooding vibe though and honestly it's just funny. The descriptions for the companions given earlier were pretty accurate. Just add that Wyll is great.

- - - Updated - - -



I haven't played any other Larian games, but with the short experience I got from playing the EA now, I can agree. I have the impression that all the companions are written by one dude/gal and that he or she was then forced to write Gale and Wyll in a certain way, and their dialogue shows.

In Dragon Age, games I'm a huge fan of, every companion definitely feels like their own person, while currently, the companions in BG3 just probed me to think these:

Shadowheart: lol, the DM's gf with the wannabe edgy char that supposedly believes in Shar, has no idea what that means and will just be Good if she's given a pet to play with.

Wyll: Power's bad, but only if you're an NPC. Is that some left-wing supposed-privilege shaming I'm seeing in some dialogue choices? Woah, this is going places.

Gale: wizard stereotype out the oldest book I got.

Astarion: wtf, get out of my game, kid, along with your "Evil" roleplay.

Lae'zel: bitch, imma killing you every single time over those tieflings, except when and if I ever make a Gith PC.

All in all, I do find the companions very shallow to be honest.

Character writing has never been Larian's strong suit to be honest, even among their overall mediocre writing. I think it was ok-ish for Divinity where there's more of a gameplay focus, but Baldur's Gate carries with it some expectations. This is a franchise with beloved characters like Minsc, Edwin, Keldorn, Imoen or Viconia. They gotta step up their game or the difference will be noticeable. People like shitting on Bioware nowadays, and they definitely earned some of it, but when it comes to writing cool characters and interesting worlds they've consistently been much better than the vast majority of devs, and to me these things matter a lot in an RPG where I'm supposed to be immersed in the world or dozens of hours and talk to many, many characters.

As you said, below, Larian games don't generally have a believable world or a story that follows itself. Things just happen and exist together without much thought put into it beyond what serves the gameplay. This works fine in games like, say, WoW where the focus is on multiplayer, repeatable tasks and content for content's sake but a single-player RPG must have different priorities and be better at maintaining the illusion.

All that said I still overall like what I'm seeing and unless the game takes a nosedive towards the end I'll likely buy it at some point to scratch the RPG itch. Admittedly, various gameplay videos and opinions I saw confirm my impression that Larian wouldn't have been my first choice for this game, but they got time to improve things still. Also the music is already pretty lit, can't argue with that.

[Well]

Character writing has never been Larian's strong suit to be honest, even among their overall mediocre writing. I think it was ok-ish for Divinity where there's more of a gameplay focus, but Baldur's Gate carries with it some expectations. This is a franchise with beloved characters like Minsc, Edwin, Keldorn, Imoen or Viconia. They gotta step up their game or the difference will be noticeable. People like shitting on Bioware nowadays, and they definitely earned some of it, but when it comes to writing cool characters and interesting worlds they've consistently been much better than the vast majority of devs, and to me these things matter a lot in an RPG where I'm supposed to be immersed in the world or dozens of hours and talk to many, many characters.

As you said, below, Larian games don't generally have a believable world or a story that follows itself. Things just happen and exist together without much thought put into it beyond what serves the gameplay. This works fine in games like, say, WoW where the focus is on multiplayer, repeatable tasks and content for content's sake but a single-player RPG must have different priorities and be better at maintaining the illusion.

All that said I still overall like what I'm seeing and unless the game takes a nosedive towards the end I'll likely buy it at some point to scratch the RPG itch. Admittedly, various gameplay videos and opinions I saw confirm my impression that Larian wouldn't have been my first choice for this game, but they got time to improve things still. Also the music is already pretty lit, can't argue with that.

Yes, despite all these, the game's good. Just don't want folks to think that BG3 offers some superb RPG experience. It's just a 5e simulator in my view with resources that far exceed what any pen & paper DM will be able to provide. That alone will give you a good enough time, sure, but if one's after emotional investment for characters, BG3 is definitely not looking the game to have that.

[Aliven]

Well, that's basically how Viconia was in BG2.

But Viconia was a drow. Not some drow wannabe.

[Makabreska]

We're not making particularly exciting Baldur's Gate 3 characters.

[The Butt Witch]

He better makes an appearance in BG3.

BG3 takes place 100 years after BG2. So...no.

[Lazerbrain]

Well, I do agree that you obviously can't have a pen & paper direct comparison. However, I suggest you play Dragon Age (from Origins to Dragon Age 2 and Inquisition) if you want a generally coherent, sound story that will be impacted by your choices. What is different between franchises like BG and DA is that in the latter, the world actually changes depending on what you choose to do and these choices are reflected in the later installments of the series, beginning with Origins, carrying over to DA2 and then to Inquisition.

I found nothing of RPG value in BG3. Just random conjured up fantasy scribles of a very desicively humanoid structure, be it plant, beast, fleshling or celestial, that have had absolutely nothing to do with each other, influenced each others' existence in no way and just somehow existed at the same time, which just makes no sense whatsoever. Admittedly, this is a problem of mine with D&D in general, but it definitely broke any sense of immersion while playing.

Never played the dragon age series, might need to give them a try now that you hyped em for me.

[Makabreska]

BG3 takes place 100 years after BG2. So...no.

And he is a wizard. Tell Elminster, that he shouldn't live his 1000 years. Normal human Minsc is still alive and kicking. Larian can easily and logically bring back most of BG1/2 cast, either due to magic or their respective race life span.

[Well]

Never played the dragon age series, might need to give them a try now that you hyped em for me.

Trust me when I'm saying that if you go in blind, your jaw will drop, 100%. DA:Origins retains a dark fantasy theme intact with multiple selections of races and allows you to build a large base of choices for both DA2 and DA:I. Next, DA2 has you play as Hawke (not a spoiler), a human with his/her own story, which can go very differently depending on what you choose to do. In DA2, despite numerous people disliking it for the differently arranged travel system, there's a very nicely done (in my opinion) political and emotional divide explored that is actually a dillema for the player as well and constantly knocks on your door via the storytelling Bioware does in the game. If you want to be invested, you will find yourself torn.

Lastly, DA:I is the explosion of everything that happened in the previous two games, with a major plot (not that the other two don't have it, but you will know what I mean when you get there). Note that the "real" finale of DA:I is sadly locked behind a DLC, named Trespasser. You've been warned.

[Makabreska]

Trust me when I'm saying that if you go in blind, your jaw will drop, 100%. DA:Origins retains a dark fantasy theme intact with multiple selections of races and allows you to build a large base of choices for both DA2 and DA:I. Next, DA2 has you play as Hawke (not a spoiler), a human with his/her own story, which can go very differently depending on what you choose to do. In DA2, despite numerous people disliking it for the differently arranged travel system, there's a very nicely done (in my opinion) political and emotional divide explored that is actually a dillema for the player as well and constantly knocks on your door via the storytelling Bioware does in the game. If you want to be invested, you will find yourself torn.

Lastly, DA:I is the explosion of everything that happened in the previous two games, with a major plot (not that the other two don't have it, but you will know what I mean when you get there). Note that the "real" finale of DA:I is sadly locked behind a DLC, named Trespasser. You've been warned.

The main reason DA:2 was disliked were the low budget and not enough time to finish the game, resulting in only a handful locations that were repeated for the entire game. Story scope was also very weak, as was story itself.

[Well]

We're not making particularly exciting Baldur's Gate 3 characters.

Heh, nothing out of the ordinary there. Folks expecting that this will change anytime soon, in any game, are simply deluding themselves. Thankfully, people are not yet forced to make characters they don't like.

[MakeMeLaugh]

Never played the dragon age series, might need to give them a try now that you hyped em for me.

I think he's exaggerating. Dragon Age Origins is one of the best games I ever played, but just like other games, the story is still straightforward, there's no escape from that, it's a game after all.

Larian games are more about different way to solve things, while Mass Effect and Dragon Age is about having 2 or 3 outcomes for a quest(instead of having support from A you will have from B and etc...), but the main aspect of the quest is still the same.

A game like Divinity Original Sin is way harder to make because of the many ways to solve stuff, too much freedom comes at a cost, and at the moment, only Larian can pull stuff like this.

[Well]

The main reason DA:2 was disliked were the low budget and not enough time to finish the game, resulting in only a handful locations that were repeated for the entire game. Story scope was also very weak, as was story itself.

I fully disagree with the last statement. DA2 was certainly much more character than story focused, but that does not make its story weak. It made it stronger for me. This is not a DA2 thread though, and since you are not providing anything other than a blank statement, I can't have your assessment compared to BG3's story to draw comparisons and other arguments to discuss here.

- - - Updated - - -

I think he's exaggerating. Dragon Age Origins is one of the best games I ever played, but just like other games, the story is still straightforward, there's no escape from that, it's a game after all.

Larian games are more about different way to solve things, while Mass Effect and Dragon Age is about having 2 or 3 outcomes for a quest(instead of having support from A you will have from B and etc...), but the main aspect of the quest is still the same.

A game like Divinity Original Sin is way harder to make because of the many ways to solve stuff, too much freedom comes at a cost, and at the moment, only Larian can pull stuff like this.

DA:O may have a rather "simple" story in the light of it being classic fantasy wipe-out danger, but its depth is its replayability and attention to character and story detail, I'd argue. Also, again comparing BG3 to DA, I really did not find impressive at all the "options" I've had for solving situations in BG3. DA was at the very least on par with that.

[MakeMeLaugh]

DA:O may have a rather "simple" story in the light of it being classic fantasy wipe-out danger, but its depth is its replayability and attention to character and story detail, I'd argue. Also, again comparing BG3 to DA, I really did not find impressive at all the "options" I've had for solving situations in BG3. DA was at the very least on par with that.

Well I did not compare it to BG3, but to Divinity Original Sin. I played both DAO and DOS1 more than once, they are one of the best RPG's I ever played and both offer a lot of replayability, in the way I said, one for different way of solving stuff and the other of having different outcomes. Now I can't completely talk about BG3, it's EA and I did not play that much, but just playing the first few quests you can already see some of that Larian way of allowing you different forms of dealing with stuff as expected, freedom of killing npcs and etc.