RPG General News - Games like Baldur's Gate 3

[Morrandir]

That being said, I've, for strictly personal reasons which I may or may not elaborate on, I haven't played BG3.

Don't we play (or not play) games always for personal reasons?

 

[Redglyph]

Don't we play (or not play) games always for personal reasons?

Sometimes, it's just down to social pressure, you know. I've heard so much good about BG3 that I couldn't just ignore it. Not even mentioning you can't afford to look like an idiot in front of your own kids.

 

[pibbuR]

Don't we play (or not play) games always for personal reasons?

Heh, I'll explain (hope you can excuse the off topic). Thing is, I've been in and out of depressions for years (No secret, I've written about it before and no need to feel sorry for me). One aspect of that is significant, and I mean significant, ambivalence. So lots of choice-and-consequences - ouch!!! Even for trivial things like games. Which maybe is why I like the ones from Bethesda.

So, another feature for comparing games might be choice and consequence. PS:T certainly fits the bill. Not so sure about Diablo 4 (I haven't played it, but I've played the older ones - a long time ago).

pibbuR who of course can't make up his mind whether he should have written this or not. Or posted it. lso whether he should delete the post. Or not.

PS. My youngest one (42 years old) is playing BG3. DS.

 

[Morrandir]

Sometimes, it's just down to social pressure, you know. I've heard so much good about BG3 that I couldn't just ignore it. Not even mentioning you can't afford to look like an idiot in front of your own kids.

So where do recommendations end and where does external pressure start?
But I see what you mean, and of course it's not a binary thing. So there are reasons that are less personal than others.

Heh, I'll explain (hope you can excuse the off topic). Thing is, I've been in and out of depressions for years (No secret, I've written about it before and no need to feel sorry for me). One aspect of that is significant, and I mean significant, ambivalence. So lots of choice-and-consequences - ouch!!! Even for trivial things like games. Which maybe is why I like the ones from Bethesda.

I see, nice of you to talk openly about this!
It really helps people not suffering from it (yet?) to better understand and perhaps then to act better.

PS. My youngest one (42 years old) is playing BG3. DS.

Cool, I'm very much looking forward to play these games co-op with my kids (perhaps not so much the bear stuff ).

 

[Redglyph]

So where do recommendations end and where does external pressure start?
But I see what you mean, and of course it's not a binary thing. So there are reasons that are less personal than others.

I was being a little ironic, since I played EA from day 1, and my kids play more adrenalin-inducing games. Though musing over the motivations, yes, I suppose recommendations and what friends play is a thing, like movies and books, but I think it's occasional and depends on ... the personality .

 

[Vaelith]

Someone made another thread recently saying how they don't want to play with evil or morally ambiguous companions because they want games to be a escape from reality and not deal with moral conflicts or negative feelings that make them feel uncomfortable.

I can empathize with that general feeling; games, like most forms of entertainment, are about drawing what you enjoy from them. I know people with different personal topics they don't want to deal with, even in entertainment, and they avoid it like it[s the plague. Sexual abuse, suicide or terminal diseases come to mind as pretty common examples, and there is not a great leap from that to prefering to avoid evil characters or morale choices that may have negative feelings attached to them. There is even a site that lists games and movies that contain any type of graphic or implied animal violence so people who are sensitive towards that kind of thing can avoid them.

Each person is a different world and it's understandable. You shouldn't have to have a bad time while doing a thing that you're supposed to enjoy.

 

[JFarrell71]

Heh, I'll explain (hope you can excuse the off topic). Thing is, I've been in and out of depressions for years (No secret, I've written about it before and no need to feel sorry for me). One aspect of that is significant, and I mean significant, ambivalence. So lots of choice-and-consequences - ouch!!! Even for trivial things like games. Which maybe is why I like the ones from Bethesda.

This probably won't help and you've probably thought about this sort of thing already, but just in case...

BG3 does a well above average job of making every choice relevant and viable. "Failure" is just another route through the game. Maybe this gives you a degree of freedom from paralysis? I dunno, but I thought it worth mentioning.

 

[pibbuR]

This probably won't help and you've probably thought about this sort of thing already, but just in case...

BG3 does a well above average job of making every choice relevant and viable. "Failure" is just another route through the game. Maybe this gives you a degree of freedom from paralysis? I dunno, but I thought it worth mentioning.

Worth thinking about. Thanks.

Another way of handling it could be to just choose whatever I think my character would choose, and not think so much about finding the best choices. Sometimes I create a personality for my characters. In Skyrim I have one very nice nord warrior (paladinish), and a sneaky khajit. Only the latter joins the Dark Brotherhood, and also does all the daedric prince quests.

 

[JFarrell71]

Worth thinking about. Thanks.

Another way of handling it could be to just choose whatever I think my character would choose, and not think so much about finding the best choices. Sometimes I create a personality for my characters. In Skyrim I have one very nice nord warrior (paladinish), and a sneaky khajit. Only the latter joins the Dark Brotherhood, and also does all the daedric prince quests.

Absolutely! Another thing BG3 supports well. I definitely played it that way.

 

[Zloth]

Another way of handling it could be to just choose whatever I think my character would choose, and not think so much about finding the best choices.

So, establishing a role for your character and then playing it instead of doing what you would do or whatever looks like it will give you the best result?

 

[pibbuR]

Yes, but more like a personality. For instance in stead of minimaxing, my Skyrim warrior type likes two-handed axes, preferably bigger than herself, and will continue using that, even if better swords are available. And she won't join the dark brotherhood on principle. I could of course create a warrior that would, but I leave that to my very sneaky khajit, who has few scruples.

The warrior, a nord, supports the empire in the civil war. The khajit doesn't care and won't in any way take part in it.

The khajit is BTW an experiment in the sense that he's very different, I would never act like him.

pibbuR who in RL is the father of pibbuR.

 

[Redglyph]

That's something very difficult for me to do when I play. I'm easily tempted to explore everything, so the only games where I can restrict a character's actions are party-based RPGs (and there will definitely be a rogue to compensate).

pibbuR who in RL is the father of pibbuR.

I sense the force is strong with you. At first, I did suffer from a minor stack overflow attack, though (must be the recursive reference).