P
purpleblob
Guest
The lack of D&D games nor the fact it's TB D&D isn't the right reason to call it BG1/BG2/Pathfinder like but that's your opinion I guess.
I've heard plenty of people calling it D:OS3/D:OS2.5 after playing EA.
Baldur's Gate 3 - Early Access Reviews
- Thread starter HiddenX
- Start date
The lack of D&D games nor the fact it's TB D&D isn't the right reason to call it BG1/BG2/Pathfinder like but that's your opinion I guess.
I've heard plenty of people calling it D:OS3/D:OS2.5 after playing EA.
gabrielarantest
Stubborn Dwarf
- Joined
- February 25, 2017
- Messages
- 441
I am sorry purpleblob, but I completely disagree. The game BG was named after a city of the Forgotten Realms setting of the same name. So, the campaign setting comes before the BioWare game and as long as the game takes place in the FR (a D&D setting), I guess it makes sense to use that title. Moreover, I think that is up to WotC to use that title however they please. Personally, for me, as more in line with the tabletop game the better (and the more it makes sense to use such titles).
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2017
- Messages
- 441
P
purpleblob
Guest
I'm not discussing about whether the title is appropriate or not but ok?
Furtive said BG3 reminds him of BG1/2/Pathfinder and I was noting a lot of people find it feel much more like D:OS2 rather than former mentioned games.
gabrielarantest
Stubborn Dwarf
- Joined
- February 25, 2017
- Messages
- 441
Ok, but I fail to see the point here. By that, you are implying that it would be more appropriate to call the game D:OS 3? Even if the game takes place in BG surroundings? Or are you suggesting that the game is more of a D:OS continuation than BG2?
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2017
- Messages
- 441
There's to many I don't know where to post the patch link.:lol:
At least I have a thread with all my posts.
Though I usually double post on news-bit as well.
- Joined
- October 18, 2006
- Messages
- 501
So, kind of a mixed bag, is it? While I loathe what 4E has done to the Realms ("Spellplague"...), I am curious about 5E and Sven has yet to really fail on any of his promises (well, except that one with the NPC schedules in the D:OS kickstarter).
But I still don't see how this fits into the storyline they pretend to continue. And their non-human characters look like something straight out of The Dark Cystal. That's bad, but maybe I can forgive that.
What I cannot, is railroading in a narrative game. I quit both DA:O and P:K long before the end because of that, and now from the Ars Technica "review" (that isn't linked properly in the news, btw.) it seems there will be more of that in BG3. To those that took the plunge: how is it actually? Can you refuse actions if you feel they are really against the fundamentals of your character? Do your choices have consequences both meaningful and plausible? Is there enough agency for the player?
But I still don't see how this fits into the storyline they pretend to continue. And their non-human characters look like something straight out of The Dark Cystal. That's bad, but maybe I can forgive that.
What I cannot, is railroading in a narrative game. I quit both DA:O and P:K long before the end because of that, and now from the Ars Technica "review" (that isn't linked properly in the news, btw.) it seems there will be more of that in BG3. To those that took the plunge: how is it actually? Can you refuse actions if you feel they are really against the fundamentals of your character? Do your choices have consequences both meaningful and plausible? Is there enough agency for the player?
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2006
- Messages
- 501
I've played for about 6 hours and it's probably one of the games with the most meaningful choices I have seen. Whether that's 'enough' is hard to judge as I don't know your bar.
It's still a game and it's not possible to make up an infinite amount of choices available like you would in a real dnd pen and paper game, but there are many many choices.
Many of these lead to different outcomes from what I can see.
Hard to explain without providing spoilers.
- Joined
- October 18, 2006
- Messages
- 501
Go ahead and spoil -
you can always keep it discreet.
What I meant: In P:K I stayed spoiler-free and found my greedy opportunist character railroaded into a fantasy kingdom management sim after the first chapter where I was forced into absurd choices to avoid game over. In DA:O, my laidback bard(?) was coerced into joining a fascist cult after the introduction. I just hate it when a game lures me with the freedom of defining my own character but then forces me to play a very specific role to follow what they have in mind for me. Of course, I see why this makes sense from a game design perspective, but you don't have to make it that obvious/jarring.
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2006
- Messages
- 501
Well, I have no way of telling if this game is going to be for you. PKM actually makes kingdom management optional and many quest have multiple options too. So it's hard for me to tell you especially having only played for 6 hours.
However, just one quest example:
In the early game you can encounter a couple of looters shouting about some spoils. You can do one of these things (and potentially more as I don't know all options available):
1. Just attack normally.
2. Intimidate them into leaving
3. Deceive them by saying there are monsters there
4. Talk to them and see what happens (I don't know - I believe they may attack)
5. Completely ignore them by shooting the crane overhead dropping a stone on their heads, which opens up a new way into the next section of the game.
1. Just attack normally.
2. Intimidate them into leaving
3. Deceive them by saying there are monsters there
4. Talk to them and see what happens (I don't know - I believe they may attack)
5. Completely ignore them by shooting the crane overhead dropping a stone on their heads, which opens up a new way into the next section of the game.
- Joined
- October 18, 2006
- Messages
- 501
Thanks. I still needed to rule completely contre coeur in P:K when my character would have preferred to just sell the realm to the highest bidder. I guess I'm looking for the freedom to play the character I create and yet find a narrative path that comes close enough, and not needing to adapt the character to a choice of types the designer had in mind and that I cannot know beforehand. The more involved the plot, alas, the less harder that is.
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2006
- Messages
- 501
JFarrell71
SasqWatch
That's kind of like picking up an Assassin's Creed game and being disappointed you can't retire to become a farmer.
Role-playing doesn't and never has meant "do whatever the hell you want." It's really not the developer's fault if you're unwilling to operate within the bounds of what the game is.
That's not even close to what he said.
- Joined
- October 18, 2006
- Messages
- 501
It pretty much does and always has done. If you want to be specific, it means "play a chosen role". Some games promise to allow me to choose more freely than others. I then expect them to deliver on that.
(From the kickstarter: "Pathfinder allows players to create heroes (or villains) that fit both their individual gameplay styles and their personalities.")
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2006
- Messages
- 501
Yeah but up to a point obviously. They can't design for every single possible person.
Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk
JFarrell71
SasqWatch
Absolutely not. Every game has constraints. Every game supports certain activities and roles and not others, without exception. When we play an RPG, we are bound by an unwritten contract that we exercise our freedom to role-play within the constraints of what that game is. If you decide that you don't like those constraints (like someone who wants to sell the kingdom whose management forms the basis of the game that person is playing), you have zero cause to complain that the game doesn't allow you to freely role-play. If I'm playing Mass Effect, I'm Shephard and I'm saving the galaxy from Reapers. I can make decisions within that paradigm, but I can't decide to go live on a planet and be a raider. I can't decide to join the Reapers. I can't do "whatever the hell I want" because you are role-playing a specific character in a specific context, just like you are in every RPG ever made.
- Joined
- October 18, 2006
- Messages
- 501
:O Put your way, every game, from AssCreed to Pac-Man would fit the definition! In my book, what puts RPGs apart is that you get to define or at least flesh out your role in a meaningful way. Indeed, my PnP group would be very upset if I held them to some "unwritten agreement".
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2006
- Messages
- 501
JFarrell71
SasqWatch
:O Put your way, every game, from AssCreed to Pac-Man would fit the definition! In my book, what puts RPGs apart is that you get to define or at least flesh out your role in a meaningful way. Indeed, my PnP group would be very upset if I held them to some "unwritten agreement".
Let's put it this way: how would you react as a GM if one of your players decided that what they wanted to do was kill every other character in the party? How do you suppose your other players would react if their character was killed in this way?
There is an unwritten agreement. You apparently just don't realize it, even though you operate under it. Your players have to respect the game you've put together or it all falls apart. And they have to respect each other. Players don't decide to say fuck everything we've been doing, we're going to join a circus now and you, GM, need to make our sessions about the ins and outs of cleaning up elephant shit and putting on makeup now.
One more time, as clear as I can make it:
Kingmaker is about running a kingdom. The plot and many of the activities in the game literally revolve around it. Complaining that you can't just sell off the kingdom because "role-playing" is like complaining that a racing game doesn't allow you to sell your car and become a car salesman instead.
I feel like something basic isn't getting through to you, so this is my last post on the subject.
- Joined
- October 18, 2006
- Messages
- 501
This happened before. Several new characters had to be rolled. I had a player insisting their character throw their own poop at an allied leader. There were consequences, and the attempt was not repeated. But I had to give my players their agency, no matter what. As long as they played out their role, that is.
edit: you stealth-edited your post, you sneaky person! This completely derails the flow of our discussion!
edit: you stealth-edited your post, you sneaky person! This completely derails the flow of our discussion!
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2006
- Messages
- 501