Baldur's Gate 3 - Gameplay and Impressions - Page 9 - RPGWatch Forums
|
Your donations keep RPGWatch running!
RPGWatch Forums » Comments » News Comments » Baldur's Gate 3 - Gameplay and Impressions

Default Baldur's Gate 3 - Gameplay and Impressions

March 1st, 2020, 17:05
@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!
--
How about all games have a single huge lootbox you pay for up front that contains all the options, items, skins, unlocks etc? I'd pay for that!!
Wisdom is offline

Wisdom

Wisdom's Avatar
Torch & Pitchfork Vendor
Original Sin 2 Donor

#161

Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,557
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)

Default 

March 1st, 2020, 18:25
Originally Posted by Wisdom View Post
@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!
*livestream audience summons 5 space bears*

Player 1, Level 2 Dwarf-unicorn attacks: Critical miss

Bear 1 attacks: Critical hit

Player 1, Level 2 Dwarf-unicorn: Dead

*music*
ChaosTheory is offline

ChaosTheory

ChaosTheory's Avatar
Virtual Reality Hero
RPGWatch Donor

#162

Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: San Juan Islands, WA
Posts: 1,386
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)

Default 

March 1st, 2020, 18:50
It looks great and it's sure to be a fantastic cooperative experience.

I think it's a little unfortunate that they didn't find a way to implement RTwP for the diehard fans of that approach. Especially considering the legacy of BG.

That said, I would never play this in RT - and I love the addition of a turn-based setup phase.

I was a big fan of DOS2 - though it was far from perfect. But it's among the very best games I've ever played - primarily because of the cooperative implementation.

However, quite a few of my biggest issues with that game seem to be rectified with BG3.

Including:

D&D should mean little or limited scaling.
D&D should mean much improved hybrid builds - given the superior mechanics.
D&D should mean much more interesting and distinct magical items.
Tone seems more sober and mature.
Cinematic dialogues should help with pacing and immersion.
Based on the demo - they've toned down the endless status effects on the ground.

As for how it looks more like DOS than BG, that's to be expected, given it was always going to be made in the same engine.

To me, DOS2 looked and played very much like a D&D PnP adaption, so it's absolutely not a problem that BG3 will look the same.

About the only thing I'm not seeing, that I was so hoping for, is a NWN-level editor for the game.

That's most likely not on their agenda, which is sad - as it was the perfect opportunity to finally get a modern NWN.

Probably a little much to include that as well, but I'm still hoping they will do something like that for a future game.

StintDArt

Guest

#163

Posts: n/a
Mentioned: Post(s)

Default 

March 1st, 2020, 19:19
Originally Posted by StintDArt View Post
D&D should mean much more interesting and distinct magical items.
Yep, Larian really loves ARPG-like random itemization (like "legendary dagger of flame of dexterity of my ass") and I also hope that the DnD ruleset will force them to restrain themselves.
Magical items in BG were uniques, handcrafted and had cool descriptions. That's the way to go.
--
The delightful and ever novel pleasure of a useless occupation.
Winterfart is offline

Winterfart

Winterfart's Avatar
Passenger

#164

Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: France
Posts: 956
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)

Default 

March 1st, 2020, 19:21
Originally Posted by Winterfart View Post
Yep, Larian really loves ARPG-like random itemization (like "legendary dagger of flame of dexterity of my ass") and I also hope that the DnD ruleset will force them to restrain themselves.
Magical items in BG were uniques, handcrafted and had cool descriptions. That's the way to go.
Yeah, that's what I'm expecting and hoping for.

Itemization in DOS/DOS2 was utterly terrible. It didn't even meet decent ARPG standards in terms of variation of special powers.

I also really, really hope they go for handplaced loot - at least for the most part.

I HATE randomly generated loot in otherwise lovingly crafted CRPGs that emphasize exploration.

It's like pouring salt in coffee!

StintDArt

Guest

#165

Posts: n/a
Mentioned: Post(s)

Default 

March 1st, 2020, 19:38
The slight twist to TB combat is interesting - the idea of each party doing all moves at once. That would speed things up … whether or not it would speed things up to make it bearable I don't know.

Having played a ton of RTwP games, for hundreds of hours, I know I find them challenging enough to be plenty of fun. Having grown up with TB and RTS games I also have a good feeling for how they play (and did play DDOS2).

Still I won't deny I am disappointed in the TB news. The only silver lining is that it is one less game I have to wait for release now like a bunch of others I am eager to have come out.

As a side note this is an example of how you can voice a difference of opinion without calling someone who disagrees a manbaby, simple-minded, or otherwise toss out implied insults and derogatory comments that add nothing to the content of the post or the discussion except to make the poster sound cool and edgy.
--
Character is centrality, the impossibility of being displaced or overset. - Ralph Waldo Emerson
wolfgrimdark is offline

wolfgrimdark

wolfgrimdark's Avatar
SasqWatch
RPGWatch Donor
Original Sin Donor

#166

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: NH
Posts: 2,488
Mentioned: 38 Post(s)
+1:

Default 

March 1st, 2020, 19:43
As a side note this is an example of how you can voice a difference of opinion without calling someone who disagrees a manbaby, simple-minded, or otherwise toss out implied insults and derogatory comments that add nothing to the content of the post or the discussion except to make the poster sound cool and edgy.
There's rarely a reason to use those words.

However, the core issue isn't about the words.

It's the actual disagreement that tends to get to us on an emotional level.

If you pay attention for long enough, you'll see that 9 out of 10 people will react negatively when someone disagrees with them (at one time or another) - and that's utterly regardless of the words being used.

Oh, they might dance around that being the issue - and try to make the issue about something else. But it's certainly my experience that it's not about something else.

We, as human beings, just aren't comfortable with other people not agreeing with us about the things we care about.

StintDArt

Guest

#167

Posts: n/a
Mentioned: Post(s)

Default 

March 1st, 2020, 20:04
Originally Posted by StintDArt View Post
It's like pouring salt in coffee!
Like putting ice cube in red wine!!
--
The delightful and ever novel pleasure of a useless occupation.
Winterfart is offline

Winterfart

Winterfart's Avatar
Passenger

#168

Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: France
Posts: 956
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)

Default 

March 1st, 2020, 20:06
There's nothing inherently bad about a four character party. Four is plenty to allow you a good mix of classes/abilities in combat, which is the main argument for X number. In my REAL LIFE Pathfinder game of 5+ years, we have four players. In my REAL LIFE game of D&D we have…wait for it….four players. It's a perfectly normal amount.
JFarrell71 is offline

JFarrell71

Keeper of the Watch

#169

Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 677
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)

Default 

March 1st, 2020, 20:09
Well, I think 6 party members is ideal - as long as it's optional.

However, what some people might not realise is just how limiting having 6 party members is in terms of what they can do with the engine - and they need to consider performance for consoles as well.

BG3 is a VERY different kind of game to, say, Kingmaker or Pillars of Eternity - and it's infinitely more sophisticated in terms of interaction and visual fidelity. Their engine is more like a modern Ultima 7 - where Kingmaker and PoE are more like the original Baldur's Gate - with minimal environment interactions and physics.

I personally wouldn't want to sacrifice any of that to get more party members - but I would certainly enjoy having them if they could manage to do it without making that sacrifice.

StintDArt

Guest

#170

Posts: n/a
Mentioned: Post(s)

Default 

March 1st, 2020, 20:10
Originally Posted by Stingray View Post
Party size limited to 4 is pretty terrible for a D&D game and probably the single worst thing I’ve heard about BG3 so far. Unless “followers” (mentioned in the linked tweet) can also act as real party members…
It also allows for encounters in which you join up with someone temporarily (someone you're rescuing, guards defending a caravan, a thousand other scenarios) without it becoming cumbersome. Personally, I like that sort of thing, so I hope they do some of that.
JFarrell71 is offline

JFarrell71

Keeper of the Watch

#171

Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 677
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)

Default 

March 1st, 2020, 20:15
Originally Posted by StintDArt View Post
Well, I think 6 party members is ideal - as long as it's optional.
I think this calculation is being based (by you and by others) entirely on the ideal number for combat, but there are other considerations as well. Limiting the active party members forces choices. If I want two fighter/tanks, maybe I can't have a thief. If I have a thief, maybe I don't have a cleric. As long as the encounters are winnable by any reasonable combination, I think that's a good thing, having to make choices. Not being good at every approach. It fosters thinking outside the box and replay.

It also allows the player to focus on really getting to know characters. In BG2, I always intentionally limited myself to using certain characters during a playthrough and not others so I could see all their banters, see all their interjections, do their quests, etc. I did this with DA:I and lots of other games too. This is assuming the BG3 characters are fully fleshed out, which I'm guessing they will be.
JFarrell71 is offline

JFarrell71

Keeper of the Watch

#172

Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 677
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)

Default 

March 1st, 2020, 20:19
Originally Posted by JFarrell71 View Post
I think this calculation is being based (by you and by others) entirely on the ideal number for combat, but there are other considerations as well. Limiting the active party members forces choices. If I want two fighter/tanks, maybe I can't have a thief. If I have a thief, maybe I don't have a cleric. As long as the encounters are winnable by any reasonable combination, I think that's a good thing, having to make choices. Not being good at every approach. It fosters thinking outside the box and replay.

It also allows the player to focus on really getting to know characters. In BG2, I always intentionally limited myself to using certain characters during a playthrough and not others so I could see all their banters, see all their interjections, do their quests, etc. I did this with DA:I and lots of other games too. This is assuming the BG3 characters are fully fleshed out, which I'm guessing they will be.
No, I grew up with PnP - and I'm thinking about the combined experience when I think of party members.

I once played a DnD campaign with 14 people

In my experience - the best sessions happen with between 4 and 6 players (in addition to the DM) - and that's why I think 6 players should be optional.

It's really no more complicated than that.

4 isn't bad - but 6 can be a lot more interesting in terms of both combat roles and party interactions.

6 is especially important for me, because I have around 5 friends that I could potentially get to play this - so it pisses me off that I can never have them all in the same game.

StintDArt

Guest

#173

Posts: n/a
Mentioned: Post(s)
+1:

Default 

March 1st, 2020, 21:57
Originally Posted by StintDArt View Post
No, I grew up with PnP - and I'm thinking about the combined experience when I think of party members.

I once played a DnD campaign with 14 people
I can only imagine how long combats must have taken. And giving everyone something to do…. either you had the most organized, discplined players and GM in the history of gaming, or it was chaos (or some players were barely involved)

It just doesn't matter. Making 6 an option isn't a trivial thing. They'd have to rebalance every encounter. If 4 characters works fine… and you're saying it does… the amount of work that would require would far outweigh the benefit.

"6 is especially important for me, because I have around 5 friends that I could potentially get to play this - so it pisses me off that I can never have them all in the same game."

That's a bummer. Is it realistic to get all five together every time you want to play? If it is, again, gotta say you're an outlier.
JFarrell71 is offline

JFarrell71

Keeper of the Watch

#174

Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 677
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)

Default 

March 1st, 2020, 22:03
I can only imagine how long combats must have taken. And giving everyone something to do…. either you had the most organized, discplined players and GM in the history of gaming, or it was chaos (or some players were barely involved)
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.

Originally Posted by JFarrell71 View Post
That's a bummer. Is it realistic to get all five together every time you want to play? If it is, again, gotta say you're an outlier.
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.

StintDArt

Guest

#175

Posts: n/a
Mentioned: Post(s)

Default 

March 1st, 2020, 22:11
I forgot to mention that I'm also looking forward to not having that weird DOS2 system of abstracting physical and magical armor.

While it was sort of entertaining - I found it to be an awful and overly gamey approach.

StintDArt

Guest

#176

Posts: n/a
Mentioned: Post(s)

Default 

March 1st, 2020, 22:20
I am not -that- old, but I believe the original DnD party was composed by 4 characters: Fighter, Thief, Mage and Cleric. I feel that saying that 4 man parties is terrible for DnD may be lacking perspective in that regard.

Either way, to me the number is a trifle, what matters is how is the game balanced around it, not only in combat, also in your ability to cover out of combat abilities (lockpick, disable traps, spot, etc) and whether this design is favourable towards having all those covered, or prefers you to make a choice.
Nereida is offline

Nereida

Sentinel

#177

Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 309
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)

Default 

March 1st, 2020, 22:25
You're thinking of classes, not characters.

There's no "original party".

Basic D&D had 7 classes - but also had this weird thing of making race a part of it. IIRC, elves were fighter/mages.

StintDArt

Guest

#178

Posts: n/a
Mentioned: Post(s)

Default 

March 1st, 2020, 22:48
No, I get what you mean, but what I'm saying is that the Classic "standard" DnD party was formed by 4 characters, who were iconically represented as Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard. I am sure there were more classes but when someone thought of a DnD party, that was the most iconic setup. The cult film "The Gamers" exemplifies this, although one of the characters being a Barbarian rather than a Fighter, if I remember well.
Nereida is offline

Nereida

Sentinel

#179

Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 309
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)

Default 

March 1st, 2020, 22:55
I can't speak to "the most iconic setup" - as I've never heard of it.

I can only speak of my own 30+ years of experience with PnP and CRPGs - and I've had a lot of fun with all kinds of parties.

Even so, I remain firm in my opinion that a party size of between 4 and 6 is ideal in my experience.

StintDArt

Guest

#180

Posts: n/a
Mentioned: Post(s)
RPGWatch Forums » Comments » News Comments » Baldur's Gate 3 - Gameplay and Impressions
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 22:59.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by DragonByte Security (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright by RPGWatch