Baldur's Gate 3 - Gameplay and Impressions

Originally Posted by redman5427
Hi Purple, so is it the only four characters and the the simplified initiate that bothers you? What else?
And how many characters added would change your mind? One? Or does it have to be six minimum?

Basically, the fact game appears to be D:OS3 in D&D cloth and I'm not a big fan of D:OS games. Plus 4 characters and modified initiative rule as well.

Originally Posted by henriquejr
Hi PurpleBlob!

This post of yours means you're back? I mean, actively back?

Sort of.

Originally Posted by purpleblob
Basically, the fact game appears to be D:OS3 in D&D cloth and I'm not a big fan of D:OS games. Plus 4 characters and modified initiative rule as well.

Yes, I hope people lobby hard for individual initiative and delay turn option during EA.

I get the disappointment of the similarities to D:OS but I really can't blame Larian there. I can see why they wouldn't want to build a completely new engine when they have a perfectly viable one in their minds.

Originally Posted by StintDArt
It was utter chaos and combat took up 99% of the time

I don't remember how many sessions we had, as it was 30 years ago.

But it was an interesting experience.



No, it's very hard - but it can be done.

It was hard to get 3 people together for DOS2 - and it took us nearly 100 hours over many sessions. But I had two friends wanting to join - but since 4 was max, that just wasn't possible.

But if you plan for it ahead of time - you can make that sort of thing happen.

I can't tell you how much more fun a game becomes when you have 5-6 people participating in meaningful cooperative gameplay.

It's something you will never forget.

It sounds fun. I don't think I could get my P&P gaming friends to play a computer game…not for that long, anyway.

Do your friends skip ahead past the story bits? That would be the main reason I'd hesitate to actually play the game cooperatively. I'm a read-every-dialogue sort of guy.

Originally Posted by StintDArt
I can't speak to "the most iconic setup" - as I've never heard of it.

Probably what she's thinking of is that in AD&D 2nd edition there were 4 metaclasses, Warrior, Wizard, Priest, and Rogue. Each had 2-3 classes that fell under it. 3rd edition did away with that grouping, but the concept persisted for a while I'd say.

Original D&D (before AD&D) actually had only 3 classes: cleric, magic-user, and fighting-man.

Anyway, 5th edition classes are pretty small in number compared to 3.5 or Pathfinder, but I still think having only 4 party members really causes you to lose out on a ton of potential variety and fun.

Originally Posted by sakichop
I get the disappointment of the similarities to D:OS but I really can't blame Larian there. I can see why they wouldn't want to build a completely new engine when they have a perfectly viable one in their minds.

Indeed, building a new engine from scratch with RTwP would be quite risky. I also would slightly have preferred RTwP or something more fluent (no pun intended :-) ), but they have a relatively mature TB engine which worked well for many people.

I must say I'm getting more enthousiastic after rewatching some gameplay footage. I would prefer another art style though. How deep are they in their development cycle? I hear that many assets are still from DOS2 and that they will be reworked, but I can't imagine it will look too much different of what we saw.

I'm sure the pen and paper style will attract many people, as will the (co-op) multiplayer options (gamemaster mode?), but I prefer to play alone with a big focus on the story and characters. They have a great premise there, I hope they will take advantage of it.

Only a 4 character party is disappointing. My guess is the camera perspective of the game engine itself is to blame. If you look at this game compared to say, Pathfinder: Kingmaker, BG 3 seems more "zoomed in" while Pathfinder is zoomed farther out as a default, which allows for more of the world space to be seen, with the characters, objects, and terrain and so on being smaller.

Whereas the game camera for BG 3 seems closer in and you can't see as much of the world, which means they probably can only accommodate 4 party characters at once on the screen without it getting "too crowded", if you understand my meaning. (they have to have enough space for combat with whatever number of monsters are placed down in the various monster encounters too)

I also think that having 6 characters in the party is the ideal and makes for a more enjoyable rpg. Unfortunately sticking with the (now getting creaky?) Divinity Original Sin engine may be the obstacle not only in how the game looks (sorta generic?) but in this limitation too.

Originally Posted by Arkadia7
Only a 4 character party is disappointing. My guess is the camera perspective of the game engine itself is to blame. If you look at this game compared to say, Pathfinder: Kingmaker, BG 3 seems more "zoomed in" while Pathfinder is zoomed farther out as a default, which allows for more of the world space to be seen, with the characters, objects, and terrain and so on being smaller.

Whereas the game camera for BG 3 seems closer in and you can't see as much of the world, which means they probably can only accommodate 4 party characters at once on the screen without it getting "too crowded", if you understand my meaning. (they have to have enough space for combat with whatever number of monsters are placed down in the various monster encounters too)

I also think that having 6 characters in the party is the ideal and makes for a more enjoyable rpg. Unfortunately sticking with the (now getting creaky?) Divinity Original Sin engine may be the obstacle not only in how the game looks (sorta generic?) but in this limitation too.

The camera pans so zoom wouldn’t limit anything as stuff can happen off screen and you can either pan or zoom out to see it. Many party based games will have combat off screen if you zoom all the way in.

The engine accommodates more than 4 as there are mods for D:OS2 that enable more.

As for look i cant see why the engine would limit what color textures they could use. I’m guessing the game will look how they want it to look and wont be limited be the engine. They may not have new textures for the demo but i see nothing stopping them from making new ones of they want. Unless there is something I don’t understand?

Originally Posted by Winterfart
Like putting ice cube in red wine!!

Back when I tended bar, I had one old-lady regular who would always have me pour her red into a tall glass full of ice, and then she'd add some salt on top. No lie.

God knows why, but I'm incompatible with the Larian RPGs. Couldn't ever finish one, always got bored after a few hours.

Sorry, but it's not impressed me at all.

Visually it looks like it's set in Rivellon, not anywhere near Baldur's Gate, and the gameplay just dragged.

I love TB combat, but the battle you fought in took an age, as did the fireball trap.

From the presentation I think concerns regards aesthetics/vibe + pacing are valid.

Originally Posted by Capt. Huggy Face
Back when I tended bar, I had one old-lady regular who would always have me pour her red into a tall glass full of ice, and then she'd add some salt on top. No lie.

PS: red wine is thick, putting ice cubes in it alter the quality. Better doing that with rosé. As for salt? That lady has character!
And in the end "le client a toujours raison" ("customer is always right").

Originally Posted by Wisdom
@ChienAboyeur

"And though it was tight-lipped about the details, Larian plans to integrate a system for live stream audiences to actually participate – and sometimes even control – the player’s dice rolls, which introduces a whole other level of communal play. "

Its like your holy grail of streamplay!

Quite hard to understand. The addition of tools to involve viewers in products made for streamers is nothing new. Hard to see in it a sort of holy grail of streamplay as it is a common feature. The holy grail was or is one and only. Less important than the quests it brought people to undertake. The quest for material comfort is conveyed by ruffian driven litterature, which was substituted to chilvarous romance.

This announcement only confirms even though unneeded that this vid product is thought for streamers. It might appear as a surprise for people who deny streaming.

Originally Posted by booboo
They want to capitalize on the success/nostalgia of BG, so they may end up having to rethink certain elements.

It remains to determine how nostalgia is involved. Elements were re thought. The backbone is already in place.

A five km walk. Not speaking about a 30 km trek accross the mountains. Outside the physical activity, the walk might bring other elements, a scenery to sight, the warmth of the sun, the smell of the rain whatever.

A pre requisite is the five kms. People who have sore foot after 1km, an aching back, vertigo, breathing difficulties etc will perceive the experience differently.

It will push them outside their comfort zone. They can not walk 5 km with ease, which is going to influence their perception.

Gaming is under assault, players demand products for an ever shrinking comfort zone.
RTwP games are already out of their comfort zone, they can not participate without it being painful for them.

BG3 elements are thought for players with a less large comfort zone than usually expected from UgoIgo gaming.
Overtime, their comfort zone has kept shrinking and has turned narrow up to the point BG3 elements were shaped that way.

Those devs are good servants, they know their master and they wont press their master outside their comfort zone. They listen to customers.

Elements were already rethought to match that comfort zone. If nostalgia is involved, that would be about times when players had larger comfort zone that allowed BG and BG2. BG3 is sufficiently distinct from the others it can thrive on nostalgia. Nostalgia striken people might avoid BG3.

Players'comfort zone keeps shrinking, the causes are hard to determine. It can not be a high maintenace issue because players allocate hours over hours to playing vid products. BG3 is likely to be 30 hours long (at least, probably more like 80 hours) To be spent over two or three months.

As player's comfort zone keeps shrinking, the capacity to deliver games is diminished. Gaming is empoverished.

Beyond intrinsic UgoIgo limitations, situations like ambushing, ambushed that belonged to UgoIgo and could be dealt with. The BG3 system will bring a new light on these situations, with players normally put in a kind of permanent ambushing state whereas in all likelihood able to fend off attempts of enemy ambushes.

Originally Posted by srabuseen
God knows why, but I'm incompatible with the Larian RPGs. Couldn't ever finish one, always got bored after a few hours.

My secret is to fight through the boredom, promising yourself that it will surely be worth it, and regretting the wasted time when it was not.

Originally Posted by Nereida
In the current iteration, every party member rolls initiative, then every enemy. The side with the highest roll acts first.

IE:
Character 1 rolls 25
Character 2 rolls 9
Character 3 rolls 16
Character 4 rolls 3

Enemy 1 rolls 15
Enemy 2 rolls 17
Enemy 3 rolls 22
Enemy 4 rolls 9

Result: Character party initiative roll counts as 25, Enemy party roll counts as 22, so the Character party as a whole acts first, then the whole enemy party acts, taking turns each.

I suppose that can still change, but it makes combat a bit more similar to X-Com and less as it was in DOS:2, where party members and enemies acted alternatively in initiative (aka Wits) order.

I'm not decided whether this is good or bad, I personally kind of liked better that every character and enemy acted according to their own initiative roll. In the other hand, I enjoy very much the idea of being able to set-up fun combos, and the playmaking potential that results from having a few characters to act before enemies can react is very high - and also the consequences of having someone in your party end their turn in a compromised position are greater as the enemy also gets many actions before you can do anything about it, and can easily pile up on your weak link and take them out. All of this potentially elevates the tactical weight of every decision you make.

Are you saying this is how BG3 will work or how 5e D&D works? I play 5e and the player characters all roll separately. NPCs use a shared initiative by "monster" type though. So it is possible some players will go before, and some after, the NPCs. If Larian actually said this, then it is what it is.

Originally Posted by clemford
Are you saying this is how BG3 will work or how 5e D&D works? I play 5e and the player characters all roll separately. NPCs use a shared initiative by "monster" type though. So it is possible some players will go before, and some after, the NPCs. If Larian actually said this, then it is what it is.

BG3 currently use the Dungeon Master's Guide side initiative variant. Although, it appears to take the highest roll instead of just rolling for the party, but that might just be because the party can be unlinked instead of all being fixed.

They will probably test various initiative schemes in early access, they did with both Original Sin early access. I also expect all the DOS2 assets to be changed before the game release, DOS2 started with DOS1 UI but didn't release with it.

They also aren't locked into having a party of 4 + followers (the jury is out on what followers means as there is a screenshot with all 5 origins characters in the party).

I can understand everyone who is sad that it hasn't RTwP as the original games.

For me it's good news though. This actually looks like a game I want to play now.

I watched the presentation too and i have no opinion. I was expecting to be a TB game and i have no problem with it.

The main issue for me will be the story, the interactions with the npcs and a really memorable villain. That makes BG2 the best game for me. Of course, battles are an important case but i kinda enjoyed Dininity 2 TB mechanics, although i never finished it because the story didin't hold me.

The only problem i have with what i saw is the conversation. I really didn't like it and i hope they will change it.

Also, if there is no connection to the BG story i would prefer a different name but ok, i get the fact they want to make money and market well the game.

I honestly think they should have chosen a slightly different title. Rather than pretending that it is an Baldurs Gate sequel (Which, storywise, noone should have expected. The bhaalspawn thing is finished.) they could have named it something like "Baldurs Gate: Mind Flayer". Or use some other relevant sub-title.

I don't mind it, because I never expected a sequel. In the end, it's just a name. But it might have been better received that way.

Baldur's Gate 3: Deadly Boots.