Baldur's Gate 3 - Early Access Preview @ Gameffine

Originally Posted by wolfgrimdark
This plus I prefer to not spend all the time I play a game in combat. I enjoy a lot of other things besides combat.

TB combat takes a very long time, especially big battles. I prefer long games and I have hundreds, actually thousands, of hours in many games. I just don't want 99% of it to feel like combat because TB takes so long.

I can pause with RT and do very well. Sometimes for some boss fights I agree TB can be better as you get more control. There are times now and then I like TB for strategy and control.

I already indicated I have actually enjoyed (*gasp*) some of the TB combat in BG3. After DDOS2 I expected to grow to loath it again but the opposite happened - I started to enjoy it. Because I think BG3 is far better balanced for TB then DDOS2 was. I also think they struck the right balance of combat to "other things" ration so the game didn't feel like it was just one big long fight.

In general my issue with TB is pretty simple - I don't like it because of the time it can take. Some nights I may be in the mood for a good strategic battle and then TB is often better. But that also means the only play time I get is maybe that one battle and perhaps a quest. I like to move forward in games.

I am the opposite of those who say they prefer TB because of age. I am 56 years old with slow reflexes. But I find pausing to view things and then queue orders works just fine.

From all the TB discussions I see here I think it really comes down to some people love combat more than others. Those who love combat don't mind focusing on it in the game and hence prefer TB mode for the strategy and because they WANT to spend time in combat.

I want to spend my time exploring, doing quests, reading lore, uncovering secrets, making characters, leveling up, getting to know companions, and have some fun really big battles with a bunch of smaller ones that don't drag out too long. My TB fights in BG3 averaged from 15 mins to 2 and half hours (for the longest with reloads included due to deaths or obvious fact I wasn't going to make it). Long battles mean you are locked in. You can't save and leave the game.

It isn't that I think TB is bad or wrong or horrible. I simply don't like it that much anymore because I don't want to be locked into combat constantly. I'm not sitting around with all my friends rolling dice and laughing and telling jokes or sharing lore while we fight and it doesn't matter really how much progress is made as its more about being with people.

When playing a computer game I am not doing that (if SRPG). I also think one can enjoy a ruleset for a game without expecting it to be an exact match to the ruleset on a different medium. Simple as that. I expect a game that promises to use a ruleset to stick fairly close but also to adapt to the computer. I think TB or RTwP are both viable combat options for a rule set being played on a computer, even though I see TB as more of a relic. I find RTwP more immersive and realistic. But it mainly comes down to time commitment.

In my younger days I could spend hours on end planning out combat moves and hence enjoyed TB more. Now I have more limited time and I guess patience for spending long hours in a game doing just combat. I like combat but not like many around here seem to - it feels like the big TB supporters love combat the most in games versus other parts.

All that said I have to admit the combat in BG3 has grown on me and I can't oppose TB as vehemently as I used to.

I suspect DDOS2 really soured me on TB combat as it was the last big combat game that was TB, after not playing TB for so long, and it brought back all the things I disliked about TB - the long battles, the reloads once you realize you most likely won't win, the constant fights, how long it takes for large battles as each enemy AI plans out its move.

I doubt I will ever become a TB promoter or big fan but BG3 has at least gotten me to enjoy that style of combat again even if I still prefer RTwP given a choice.

Geez wolf, some of you posts are like TB combat. I feel exhausted by the time I'm done reading them.

Originally Posted by JDR13
Geez wolf, some of you posts are like TB combat. I feel exausted by the time I'm done reading them.

Lol I know, sorry. I get rambling … I tend to be verbose by nature.

In that post it was more because I realized as I was writing out the reply that much to my surprise I was starting to enjoy TB combat in BG3 more than expected … and I felt compelled to at least indicate I no longer dislike it as much as I once had. So I was somewhat thinking and writing as my thoughts evolved … I should have edited it to make it more to the point.

I get the same comments at work, i.e. my emails are too long

I really liked the preview, even if I don't fully agree on all points.

In particular, Larian has its own style, and while it's entertaining, I don't believe it's an evolution of the genre, even less an 'elevation'. They put more priority on the playfulness, sometimes on the verge of buffonery, and the style is much lighter and more down-to-earth. Or something like that. It's hard to take the story too seriously, and while there's a main story, it's usually drowned in the vast world and all the secondary or unrelated quests.

The combat mechanics of D:OS games is also fun and doesn't like to close doors. Like the world, it's very open to experimentation. Obviously Larian is also experimenting, with huge AoE effects, different types of armour… I feel it's still not entirely mature but that's just my opinion, and that's how innovation works anyway.

So there's still place for more mature, more story-centric (or better-written story as the author rightly puts it), more classical or "serious" CRPG games. But Larian may have helped boost the popularity, and that's all good.

What is not good however, is that they chose to implement the D&D rules, and a D&D setting. And of all possibilities, a Baldur's Gate sequel. They could only fail at each of those, it's just not compatible with their DNA. It won't matter to many people who are not fan of either of those, but it certainly feels very wrong to some others. I'm not even talking of people who will handle DM sessions, believing it's supporting the 5th Edition.

I think the sane approach is to try and ignore the name "Baldur's Gate", to forget any mention of D&D 5th Edition, and to just enjoy the game for what it is: a fun and rich game in Larian's tradition.

They did modulate their style a bit though, it's slightly more serious, but not entirely, ridicule is still sprouting here and there. And it's definitely nothing like NWN, PoE and Pathfinder, so both genres are safe on their own, separate path.

In my opinion, RTwP is a relic of the past and tabletop-inspired RPGs are best played on a turn-based system as proven by the TB updates for Pillars of Eternity 2 and Pathfinder: Kingmaker

I think there's a place for both, it's just a matter of personal preference, some people are even switching between the two in Kingmaker. But I'd like to point out that Pillars of Eternity 2 is probably the worst example one can find for TB, their ruleset is simply not compatible with that mode. Why? Because it's based on delays, and on floating-point numbers that will be badly truncated when time is sliced in turns and rounds.


PS: I suppose those who haven't been around long enough should deduce that Yemeth in these forums is the author of the review linked by the OP?

TB vs RTwP arguments are, imo, mostly pointless. It's a personal opinion. I love TB and don't enjoy RTwP and can list all kinds of reasons why, but ultimately most (or more likely - all) of them are subjective. There's no real objective measure that makes one better than another.

It's like the old Mac vs PC arguments or newer iOS vs Android arguments… or hell, even Coke vs Pepsi. They all get the job done… the only real question is which you prefer for your own biased, insane reasons.

Originally Posted by Redglyph
They did modulate their style a bit though, it's slightly more serious, but not entirely, ridicule is still sprouting here and there. And it's definitely nothing like NWN, PoE and Pathfinder, so both genres are safe on their own, separate path.

I'm still in the early stages of the EA, but from what I've seen so far, it's *much* more serious than their previous games, and what little humor I've seen was pretty good imo.

Originally Posted by JDR13
I'm still in the early stages of the EA, but from what I've seen so far, it's *much* more serious than their previous games, and what little humor I've seen was pretty good imo.

Yes, maybe my comment didn't do justice to their effort, it has changed significantly. And it's not necessary a bad thing either way, it's just a style.

I really enjoyed the conversations with and between the companions, and the narrator's descriptions. Not to mention the voice acting!

Originally Posted by wolfgrimdark
I get the same comments at work, i.e. my emails are too long

Hahaha, too funny, in this day and time most people don't have time for long emails or texts. I tend to write short emails, and still people reply in like 4 words but what about that?

My answer: It is in the email.

Maybe you'd get that kind of thing a lot also ?

Originally Posted by SSIGuy
TB vs RTwP arguments are, imo, mostly pointless. It's a personal opinion. I love TB and don't enjoy RTwP and can list all kinds of reasons why, but ultimately most (or more likely - all) of them are subjective. There's no real objective measure that makes one better than another.

It's like the old Mac vs PC arguments or newer iOS vs Android arguments… or hell, even Coke vs Pepsi. They all get the job done… the only real question is which you prefer for your own biased, insane reasons.

Bad analogy as I enjoy both Coke and Pepsi.

I get what your saying but I have to defend RTwP when I see detractors calling it a relic, or even suggesting it's not needed in modern RPGs. It's all lighthearted fun in the end.

Anyway I can stomach the TB combat but not the implementation of the rule-set and the damn dice. Like I said before I'm going to mod them out or cheat like hell on it's release.

Originally Posted by GothicGothicness
Hahaha, too funny, in this day and time most people don't have time for long emails or texts. I tend to write short emails, and still people reply in like 4 words but what about that?

My answer: It is in the email.

Maybe you'd get that kind of thing a lot also ?

Aye I get it a lot. The thing is that when I start doing shorter emails then people take things the wrong way, don't understand the data, or don't follow the policy.

I manage policy for admissions at a University, as well as do all the data management, reporting, and tracking. Often my emails are long as I have to explain a lot of nuances about the policy or data.

Too short they don't understand the nuances. Too long they don't read. Now and then I get the balance right.

I often say, however, it's in the email below

Originally Posted by Redglyph
I really liked the preview, even if I don't fully agree on all points.

PS: I suppose those who haven't been around long enough should deduce that Yemeth in these forums is the author of the review linked by the OP?

I should change my writer's profile on the site to Yemeth :3
I like getting feedback on my every single RPG article here. And yes, I also agree about the fact that BG3 should not be treated as a sequel. But considering this is a very early version of the game and many things are about to change, I'm pretty open to the idea

Also, the original BG has a lot of humor sprinkled throughout as well. While the main story tries to put on a serious face, if you explore you'll note that many NPCs have something stupid or quirky to say. There are even moments of self-awareness here and there. Obviously it's not in your face all the time and more subtle. In that sense, Larian is a good (even though they like to break the 4th wall in their games often) and so far I'm liking the darker story (even though most of the companions are meh). Let's see what Act 2 brings.

Originally Posted by yemeth
Also, the original BG has a lot of humor sprinkled throughout as well.

It's frequently goofy as hell. I mean… have people forgotten Minsc and Boo? The idea that BG1 & 2 were these super serious games and Larian is going to come in and, ugh, ruin it with humor, well, either those people saying that have never actually played 1&2 or they are being very selective with what they remember.

Originally Posted by JFarrell71
It's frequently goofy as hell. I mean… have people forgotten Minsc and Boo? The idea that BG1 & 2 were these super serious games and Larian is going to come in and, ugh, ruin it with humor, well, either those people saying that have never actually played 1&2 or they are being very selective with what they remember.

True. Even Beamdog doesn't remember it that way. Take Siege of Dragonspear for example. The story tries to be too serious from start to finish without any moments of relief or silly fun once you leave the city. The only memorable piece of dialogue from that expansion comes from Minsc.

Originally Posted by yemeth
I should change my writer's profile on the site to Yemeth :3
I like getting feedback on my every single RPG article here. And yes, I also agree about the fact that BG3 should not be treated as a sequel. But considering this is a very early version of the game and many things are about to change, I'm pretty open to the idea

That's been the problem since it was announced.

1. They chose Larian Studios.
2. Larian should not have named it BG III.
3. Old time fans have different expectations.
4. Sales already show it was well accepted.

Bottom-line if you look at it as a different game and not a true sequel, you'll probably enjoy it more. Anyway I wish it was Obsidian or BioWare making the true sequel.

I know for a fact Obsidian tried a few years back to make another NeverWinter, but WoTc/Atari back then decided not to fund the project for MMO games instead.

Wolfgrimdark, I liked your long winded comment, and read it all happily!

Weighing in on the TB versus RtwP argument… I liked TB with Xcom! I will probably like it with BG3, and I liked it in Solasta (played through twice so far lol). Theoretically I prefer RtwP simply because it is more realistic (within the boundaries dictated by the universe in which is it created / internal consistency), and like Grim said: often quicker lol!

"Your turn sir! oh no stop! I wanted to move first and hit you before you hit me!!"
TB is very gentlemanly, unless of course your initiative is low!

But ultimately TB or RtwP choices don't have to impact on the quality of a game to any significant effect if they are implemented properly. For example if combat mechanics mean you miss a lot, TB can be not as much fun, compared with RtwP! And it is easy to overlook a lot of combat mechanics and options in RtwP for a maverick fire and forget approach with characters running AI scripts.

I really want to develop my own game mechanics as so often games really suck with internal consistency and believability!
(The old style HP system in D&D was based upon characters becoming better at avoiding and mitigating damage as they level up, not that their physiology of their bodies actually changed to be tougher like so many games seem to portray!!)

Originally Posted by Couchpotato
That's been the problem since it was announced.

1. They chose Larian Studios.
2. Larian should not have named it BG III.
3. Old time fans have different expectations.
4. Sales already show it was well accepted.

Bottom-line if you look at it as a different game and not a true sequel, you'll probably enjoy it more. Anyway I wish it was Obsidian or BioWare making the true sequel.

I know for a fact Obsidian tried a few years back to make another NeverWinter, but WoTc/Atari back then decided not to fund the project for MMO games instead.

I don't know why they didn't let Beamdog do BG3. It was in their long-term plan to eventually make a sequel, right? I doubt it was from the Siege of Dragonspear backlash. WotC is aggressively trying to put DnD back on the video game map (with the new Dark Alliance and all). I suppose they saw the mainstream success of D: OS2 and wanted the same level of success for BG3

Originally Posted by yemeth
WotC is aggressively trying to put DnD back on the video game map (with the new Dark Alliance and all). I suppose they saw the mainstream success of D: OS2 and wanted the same level of success for BG3

Can't blame them for that!
Someone said that there is nothing evolutionary about BG3 so far, but I would argue that is fine! If you just make a good game with updated UI and graphics and solid mechanics, multiple choices, who cares if it is revolutionary if it is just a bloody good game to play!

Its often about getting the all the game mechanics balanced nicely! And I suspect someone like Larian with a good track record and plenty of experience is a solid choice for doing that!

Solasta has done a great job for a new company starting out too (tactical adventures)! But who would bet on a nobody just starting out?

Originally Posted by yemeth
I don't know why they didn't let Beamdog do BG3. It was in their long-term plan to eventually make a sequel, right? I doubt it was from the Siege of Dragonspear backlash. WotC is aggressively trying to put DnD back on the video game map (with the new Dark Alliance and all). I suppose they saw the mainstream success of D: OS2 and wanted the same level of success for BG3

It definitely has to do with the success of both Original Sin games. Both proved there is a large market for Co-Op TB RPGs and cemented the developers new found fame.

Without the success of those two games I doubt Larian would have been chosen.

Originally Posted by Stahl33
Solasta has done a great job for a new company starting out too (tactical adventures)! But who would bet on a nobody just starting out?

I doubted Solasta as well but I'm warming up to that game.

Originally Posted by JFarrell71
It's frequently goofy as hell. I mean… have people forgotten Minsc and Boo? The idea that BG1 & 2 were these super serious games and Larian is going to come in and, ugh, ruin it with humor, well, either those people saying that have never actually played 1&2 or they are being very selective with what they remember.

Or maybe they've played both and know there's a big difference in the style of humor.

I don't think we have anything to worry about with Larian's humor when it comes to BG III. They're obviously not applying their usual style here. That said, BG and especially BG II were a lot darker than the typical Larian game, so I can understand why people were concerned.

Originally Posted by yemeth
I don't know why they didn't let Beamdog do BG3.

Boy, I do. Beamdog has never done anything of any significance. A project like that is several steps above their pay grade.