True but the hype gets to large and the games end up getting spoiled to easily. In the olden days you got an announcement, previews, interviews, and it was released.

I'm fond of how Bethesda announced games like Skyrim and Fallout 4. They used E3, showed a few videos, and it was released a few months later. Perfect combination.

Early Access works completely different.:(

I'm in no rush for this, and after their last two productions, I'll be taking a hard look at this one before plunking down cash. I hope I'm wrong and with this one I'd love to see them return to better days, but I just don't see it happening.

Early access and CD Projekt Red ;)

Yes, hyping is getting out of hand these days. Perhaps we should deploy some kind of Protection from Hype spell :P

I am not sure I agree with you here. Didn't they change how cantrips work based on feedback?

I have heard that Bethesda released some games with so many bugs that is not so different from Early Access. :P

Yep CP2077 proved hype can kill a game. Announcing it to early doesn't help as well.
Those aren't bugs they are a feature.:p

Anyway Larian's games are buggy as hell for years as well. Go read the patch logs. So the conclusion taken from facts is Early Access doesn't help in that department either.

We have different recollections of the olden days. I remember buying gaming magazines with games in it that didn’t release for a year or 2. I think the difference was back then you had to search for the info and now it’s shoved in your face at every turn. So back then it was very possible to have games seem like they just released out of nowhere and now you have announcements of announcements to tell you they are coming.

I’m not sure about fallout 4 but Skyrim was announced almost a year ahead release.

I personally don’t mind EA. I feel like all games are early access anyway. Even full release games get several patches and an enhanced or definitive edition which is very different from the released version mechanics wise.

Yeah seems people either love, hate, or be neutral about Early Access. Reminds me of the 10 man joke how nine will have the same opinion but the tenth man wont agree.;)

Just like those commercials who say 9/10 doctors agree it works.:lol:

That and allowing an extra (redundant) short rest (since you can always long rest instead) are about the only rule changes I can recall. Both very simple to do, low hanging fruit, that wouldn't really upset anyone. But the 'difficult' rules issues have been ignored (so far at any rate). I think they're too afraid of deviating from the formula that was so successful in DOS. I should say I loved DOS - it was the TB game that made me interested in playing TB RPG's (well, except for ToEE which was great, except for the actual RPG ;) I was just hoping for something more like actual D&D - much as I love BG1/2, were from a simpler era and I have higher expectations now. 5E is the simplest D&D type rule system for awhile (3.0, 3.5, PF are extremely complex imho) - a good mapping to PC. Solasta has shown this already, on a shoe-string budget (by comparison). So I think that either (1) Larian don't want to implement balanced 5E gameplay (because it's 'not fun' - which I disagree with cf. Solastata ) or (2) they don't really know how, because beyond being turn-based, 5E is quite far from what they did for DOS1/2. I think they were expecting the transition from DOS engine to 5E turn-based to be simple and correspond closely to the way they did in DOS. But is didn't, and now they're trying to decide what to do about that…and with deadlines, pressure, share-holders (maybe?!) they may take the path of least resistance.

Look at the Larian forum mega-threads to see what I'm talking about (think you may need a forum account). There's a lot of detailed discussion there about how broken many systems are, as well as suggestions on how to fix them as simply as possible. Or potential compromises etc.

When you say simpler era there, do you mean in terms of rulesets or the games themselves? If it's the latter, I have to disagree. The only thing that was simpler about that era was the visuals. Game complexity has been in a near constant decline since then.

Today's games don't seem nearly as complex; well maybe Path of Exile. I remember Eternal Dagger, Ultima IV, Shard of Spring and such all having very complex rules behind the game engine. Ooh, how about Nahlakh and Natuk with the weapon system? That was brutal but also brilliant. Graphics were really basic though and I can't make myself go back that far graphically very often. My favorite game for years and years was MM3 but I just can't do it anymore. Even mm6-8 are rough to play nowadays.

As far as D:OS3 Baldur's Gate, we'll see. Larian doesn't look like a great fit. I'm hopeful the Solasta folks are profitable enough to make more content for Solasta and more games. I'm also hopeful Pathfinder might make a game or two w/o kingdom building. I just couldn't get past that part (bored) in the first one.

Here here, mates! I quite agree with the complexity comments these days, a button mashing fest is nothing I crave. I just finished a game called Operencia and, while I do have some complaints about the game, one part I really enjoyed were the puzzles and quests. A few of them really stumped me for a time, in ways that I'd not experienced in a long while. Complexity is a nice caveat.

What kind of complexity are you referring to ?

Complexity in general.

The sort of complexity I think back on usually involved using spells, potions, abilities etc in interesting and unexpected ways to beat an encounter. If the rules are sufficiently simulationist this is entirely possible. I think Larian games are very strong with this aspect myself so I'm happy tinkering around with stuff. Fallout and Baldurs Gate were also strong with this so I think they are proving themselves worthy enough successors. UI needs lots of refinement through. For a complex game UI is usually hard to get right.

I see what you mean and I agree with you. They did change somethings based on feedback but not everything that we would like to. But the way you put it before sounded like they don't listen at all, which is not true.

I have an account and I gave them my feedback in the first month of EA.

What bothers me the most about Larian's ruleset implementation so far is the resting system. Why on earth did they decide to do it like that? You can long-rest anytime, anywhere. Why? Additionally, they limited short rests in which you regain half your HP. Why not just use the hit dice system from 5e? It is just better. Solasta did it and it works just fine in a video game. So that excuse that "somethings don't work in a video game" is just not true.

Asking for feedback does not mean they're obligated to change everything (or anything). It may surprise you to find out that players are not always right about good design choices, nor do they all agree on what changes should be implemented.

(this comment is directed at various people in the thread, not one in particular and certainly not gabrielarantest)

My guess? Because it's tedious to do otherwise, for one, and because for a lot of players of P&P campaigns, they pretty much do the same thing. I know for a fact that I don't want to have to hike back to some pre-determined safe zones every time I want to rest. Of course, you can keep it from being trivial in other ways (like a chance to be attacked at night), but I don't know how they're handling that sort of thing, now or in the future.

In that case, the best alternative would be to implement an option for players like you that don't like moving around to rest and another for players like me that like this restriction.

Or then it is some kind of strategy to foster the formula that took the company thus far (i.e. making D:OS3 in Baldur's Gate skin). Being able to sleep anywhere is just dumb and is one of those things that will make people mock the game as D:OS3. They could easily fix that if they wanted. In general, the camp thingie they have going on functions poorly and is immersion breaking as it is now. Another dumb thing is the eternal day. They are introducing all sorts of talk with death/animals/plants through voice-acting and fancy cut-scenes things. "Too much work" is not an excuse. If something was deemed too much work, the cut-scenes would have been a good place to spare resources. They increase the immersion and are really cool if they work but are not necessary.

There were a lot more dumb things in the game but I took them as "oh well, this is early access". I guess I'll get annoyed by them in v1.0. I share your concerns people. Despite that, this game will be awesome even if they decided to make it D:OS3 as it seems atm.

That doesn't clarify anything…

BG3 has a very complex structure, everything from character creation to interdependent quests, systems and character interaction.

If that's all you can say then I'd have to wager you're looking at old games with rose tinted glasses.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk