A lot of this reads like nostalgia mixed with "It's not like BG1 enough so I don't like it". While also not knowing about how much D&D has evolved in 20 years.
Quote
Usually an elf was the most exotic or strange party member who would garner attention from local villagers or farmers as they had never actually seen one in person before. If there were any Tiefling or Drow with us they would surely have worn a disguise to avoid drawing too much attention to themselves. Slaying an ogre or band of orcs was quite the accomplishment for a group of eager level 2 adventurers, enough to earn a reward from the local mayor and a reputation in the area. Finding a cache of magical items was quite rare and scrolls or potions were valuable assets to be used carefully. Eventually something would happen to thrust the party into the seat of danger and a plot would unfold which would lead to intrigue, greatness and powerful enemies. Back then, like in the original Baldur's Gate 1, our story began similarly to Gorion's Ward, a novice set off into the unknown on an adventure with their childhood companion Imoen. Can you imagine how boring characters like Imoen, Jaheira or Khalid would seem compared to those in "Baldur's Gate 3"?
Most of these changes occurred in the D&D 3.0-onwards era. Races being less exotic was a big aspect of 3.0. Baldur's Gate 1 was a notably very subversive rpg for it's era because the game wasn't a save the world story. It doesn't get into earth shattering stakes until right up to its last dungeon.
However BG2 was the opposite it was world shattering stakes from beginning to end. The player's reveal to be the child of a god in the previous game is constantly reinforced in both it and Throne of Bhaal. To say that D&D at the time was always low stakes is incorrect. BG1 was more akin to a low level adventure and BG2 is akin to a high level adventure. BG3 has a mix of the two depending on which act it is.
Quote
In contrast, BG3 feels like some Michael Bay, Guardians of the Galaxy fever dream with flying ships and planar races being the new normal, throwing away the entire vibe set by the first 2 games.
I really don't see it. BG2's first dungeon even features dryads and once you get to Athkatla you start seeing very fantastical things very often. It really feels like nostalgia talking.
Quote
BG3 has the player fighting Beholders in the Underdark as early as level 2-3! It feels like someone who only just heard of Forgotten Realms wanted to take all the most over the top content and cram it all into the first chapter.
It's not a Beholder it's a Spectator. A lesser beholder. They existed as far back as D&D 1.0.
https:/
Quote
By the time our characters set foot in a normal town or village (which currently doesn't even exist in Early Access) they will likely be in the double digit levels and have an entire troupe traveling in their camp. A camp which may consist (thus far) of a Lich, owlbear cub, The legendary Volo, a vampire, a gith, a druid, several magical humans and a dog. It makes deciding whether to spend extra gold for a nice room at the Friendly Arm Inn seem like an entirely different setting.
There's a lot of comparisons to BG1 for some reason and not BG2 where the player played as the spawn of the God of murder and could recruit characters like Aerie who was a rare winged elf. Astarion isn't a full vampire he's a vampire spawn, Lae'zel being in the story is explained by the Astral Prism being owned by the Githyanki originally. Volo isn't a permanent companion he's essentially a weirdo that reappears periodically throughout the story.
In terms of tone BG3 isn't attempting to mimic BG1 and it's disappointing this person just wants it to copy the original instead of doing something new.
Quote
All of this leads to nothing in the current game feeling special or particularly noteworthy.
In the first BG1 game, our character discovered they are a descendant of the God of Murder much to their surprise as their life thus far has been relatively quiet and normal. They then slowly begin to manifest abilities and unravel the meaning of their lineage while being joined by an interesting cast of adventurers whose backgrounds never truly outshine that of the main character. All of this occurs while exploring the relatively quiet, pastoral wilderness of the Sword Coast.
In BG3 on the other hand, after our player crawls from the bowels of a gigantic nautiloid dimensional spaceship which is fighting dragon riding astral lizard people whom all escaped from the nine hells only to be marooned amidst a lost caravan of demon-folk battling a horde of magically enthralled goblins it is hard to imagine anything really standing out as unusual or particularly noteworthy. We are immediately joined by a wizard who has shacking up with the goddess Mystra herself and has now become a direct conduit for the weave, able to siphon seemingly infinite amounts of magic into himself. Yet he is somehow just probably the most mundane of our possible companions, all of whom have some absurdly complex story for level 1 characters. It is like every party member is competing to see who is the most special, edgy character that can subvert expectations, and this is all explained by the fact their minds were altered by psychic squid people but then further manipulated by an unknown magical entity known only as "The Absolute". Does anyone remember the Baldur's Gate games where you could recruit companions like the the ranger Kivan, a simple elf whose entire backstory was as complicated as revenge against a local bandit leader?
Starting an RPG with high stakes and fantastical locations is nothing new even in the old Infinity Engine era. See: Planescape Torment.
Quote
The entire premise of BG3 in this regard is absurd. Githyanki and Tieflings are more common than Humans or Elves in the current game.
The Githyanki being part of the story is due to Vlaakith being the owner of the Astral Prism. This is why they attacked the Nauteloid. Tieflings being common in Forgotten Realms is a 3.5-ish era update. It's been a thing for at least 20 years.
Quote
I was genuinely surprised when the player meets Mayrina's brothers in the swamp, who are two of the only non-magical, normal humans in the entire game thus far. This does not parallel BG1 & 2, both of which were centric around fairly mundane cities and towns.
Athkatla was not mundane. Nor was Baldur's Gate. The entire reason you go to Baldur's Gate is to defeat a Bhaal cult that has created a temple under it. Only Beregost and Nashkel in BG1 were mundane. They were also entirely optional locations the player doesn't need to visit.
Quote
BG1 straight up went with the initial setting being a very quiet human castle/monastery of Candlekeep. BG2 got a little more exotic with the metropolitan city of Amn where magic was powerful just beneath the surface but it was still mostly grounded in traditional medieval fantasy.
The player begins in BG2 kidnapped by an evil wizard who wants to take his godhood for himself and evolve into a godlike being that wants to kill everything. And the story eventually progresses to war between other Godlike beings so they can become the last one like in Highlander. It's not "traditional medieval fantasy". Forgotten Realms has always been very high fantasy in terms of tone.
Quote
Part of the charm of Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 was interacting with townsfolk and playing the typical medieval hero (or villain). Hearing quips like "You tell 'em Marl" from drunken country bumpkins or deciding the quality of room you could afford at the local inn, created a backdrop of a living, believable and relatable world amidst the fantastic magical elements. Somehow BG3 seems more on par with the setting of Planescape or Throne of Bhaal which we didn't reach until level 18-20.
This is more tone which stems from seemingly wanting the sequel to just be a copy of the original. Which I'm glad the developers didn't do as it allows the game to stand out considerably more. BG1 is also a divisive game as people are generally split on if they actually like how minimalistic it was in terms of storytelling.
Quote
My character in BG3 has more potions, scrolls and magical items then I know what to do with. All of my party's gear slots are enchanted. Half the battles can be won by shoving the enemy off a cliff. Burning, acid or wet surfaces are such an important combat feature while game mechanics like alignment or reputation are ignored. Gone are character portraits. Gone are AI packages, formations, and 6 member parties. I played Divinity Original Sin 1 and 2 and enjoyed both but neither felt like Forgotten Realms, neither felt like D&D... This is, something else. Divinity Original Sin 3 maybe. Baldur's Gate 3, definitely not.
Character portraits were something Baldur's Gate 1 had because of limitations due to sprites. Bioware notably got rid of them later in all of their rpgs after NWN1. They weren't a necessary part of the rpg experience. Neither were AI packages, formations or 6 member parties. D&D based rpgs ranged in terms of party size, such as NWN1 limiting you to only two people in your party at once. It was up to the developer how they wanted to balance the game. This person really has a skewed perception of what the original two games were while also demanding that the sequel be just a remake of BG1.
Originally Posted by CitizenErased27
You and several others start out as captives on a ship, which is suddenly intercepted by powerful beings that cause the ship to crash after passing through multiple planes of existence. You are rescued from death by a magical being and wake up on a beach, where you meet other people who survived the wreck and who you can recruit into your party. You must also reckon with the newfound fact that you (and your fellow shipmates and survivors) have something inside you that you don’t understand and which may grant you mysterious powers…
I just described the opening sequence to both DOS2 and BG3. Both games start you out at low-level but have bombastic, explosive openings that set the tone right away. Meanwhile, the original BG series starts off quietly and shrouded in mystery.
BG1 was a subversive rpg for its era because it didn't have world shattering stakes. However this was because it was a low level adventure. While that's a valuable experience I don't see why every subsequent game should copy it's tone exactly. BG2 didn't. Additionally BG1 is endlessly criticized by people for having too little story.
Quote
This is one of many ways why BG3 feels much closer to Larian’s previous games, especially DOS2, than the original BG games. This doesn't make BG3 a bad game - but it does make it a poor sequel in my eyes.
Not really sure why one game having a similar opening to another makes it a bad sequel. It's like saying the fact the game has a party camp like Dragon Age Origins makes it a bad sequel.
Quote
Combat: I don't want to repeat the huge megathread on RTwP vs. turn-based combat and I am not saying which is "better" than the other. But it's undeniable this choice has far-reaching consequences such as the pacing and strategy of each individual combat, handling AI aggro, and the number of trash mobs, enemies, and overall fights in the game. BG1/2 was an early pioneer RTwP, which was critically acclaimed at the time and is one of the reasons why BG is credited with revitalizing the computer RPG genre, so not continuing the iconic RTwP system certainly makes this less of a BG-feeling game.
The main reason Real Time with Pause exists is because real time rpgs were blowing up at the time. The lead developer of Fallout stated that Interplay demanded that Fallout 1 be real time because of Diablo. It was only by saying it would delay the game by 6 months that it wasn't. Baldur's Gate being real time with pause was almost certainly because of that. Real time with pause wasn't even a system that is familiar to Dungeons and Dragons which is a game that exclusively operates based on turns governed through initiative. The game being more faithful to the tabletop is a problem why?
Quote
Approach to adapting D&D: Larian seemed to explicitly try to replicate the tabletop with BG3, by keeping the combat turn-based but also going so far as to literally show animations of dice rolls on screen when you make a check like it's a pen-and-paper session. In numerous interviews, they spoke about the original BG games interchangeably with being a D&D video game adaption. If you ask me they always missed that (a) BG1/2 was never about replicating the tabeltop experience and (b) the D&D ruleset was never what defined the original BG games and made them so memorable in the first place.
As above real time with pause was specifically because of Diablo. It's also extremely debatable if real time with pause is what made Baldur's Gate successful as most people generally talk about things like the storytelling and level of freedom the game gives you. Things BG3 mimics.
Quote
Map Design: DOS2 and BG3 use what’s known as a “theme park” map design - maps that contain many villages/forests/points of interest tightly packed so even “distant” locations are right next to each other. The original BG approach has always been to have individual maps for each place, preserving adventure scale and immersion over gameplay convenience. This was more streamlined in BG2 compared to the expansive forests and mostly empty maps of BG1, but the avoidance of a dense theme park map still stands.
Why does a sequel need to strictly copy the original's to the extent that the levels be laid out identically? This isn't a standard set by rpg sequels even at the time. Ultima Underworld was a dungeon crawler that didn't feature any towns for example but nobody says it isn't an Ultima game.
Quote
Day/Night Cycle: BG1 and BG2 had a day/night cycle more than 20 years ago yet it is completely absent from BG3 (and DOS2). This didn't just effect immersion in terms of the passing of time, but it also affected some NPC schedules/merchant availability/quests.
I don't see why a day/night cycle is necessary for the game as it would amount to just having to spam wait constantly so you could shop. Which is what it amounted to in BG1/2. It again feels like "it's different therefore it's bad" as opposed to "this does something for the game".
Quote
UI: The exact same font from DOS2 is in BG3. DOS2 and BG3 have very clean UI, while BG1/2 UI was specifically made to look rough, like you were using an adventurer’s journal with worn parchment and hand-drawn images.
Complaining about font choices feels like the height of nitpicking tbh.
Quote
Companions: A hallmark of BG2 was the enormous diversity (and quality) of recruitable companions. There were 16 possible companions and you could have up to 6 people in your party, resulting in a huge number of possible party combinations. Enormous amounts of banter and interactions that depended on specific party comps made them feel real, and even 20 years later I’m still hearing banter I have never heard before. DOS2 and BG3 have far fewer possible companions (5 and 10, respectively, even fewer when you consider that recruiting some companions completely lock you from others), significantly less intra-party banter, and only allow a 4-person party, which reduces party diversity compared to BG1/2.
A big issue BG1/2 have with party members is the vast majority are throwaway and barely say/do anything. They easily could've cut half of the companions and nobody would've noticed. In BG1 especially the vast majority of companions just say 1 line to the player and that's all you get.
In terms of party size, D&D rpgs ever since the beginning have varied party size depending on game balance. Like NWN1 only let you have two party members. Extensive Party Banter was also way easier to program into a game in an era where voice acting was optional. Whereas with voice acting it becomes tedious having characters interrupt you constantly while you're trying to do something. This was also an issue with BG2 and it's why there were popular mods that made the party banter less constant.
Quote
Origin Characters: The concept of “origin characters”, where your protagonist can be a character that is otherwise recruitable in another playthrough (e.g. Astarion, Lae'zel, Gale, etc), is a Larian exclusive that they first introduced in DOS2. Aside from only further adding to the DOS2 feel, I don’t think that concept of origin characters are a good fit for a Baldur’s Gate game.
Why? I don't understand why a novel mechanic like this isn't allowed.
Quote
BG1/2 is a focused story of a specific character from Candlekeep, Gorion’s ward and the Bhaalspawn destined to determine the fate of Bhaal’s essence. Even if BG3 is about someone new, Origin characters make the game feel less like a specific person’s story.
Okay so you'd rather the game just copy the original exactly as opposed to doing something new?
Quote
Lore and BG1/2 story continuation: This is partially on WOTC for retconning canon but also on Larian for adopting that canon (they ignore canon in some places, such as the fate of Jaheira, so clearly they weren't totally beholden to it). Plot points established in Throne of Bhaal are directly contradicted in BG3, and the treatment of Viconia and Sarevok was really disappointing.
Caring about canon is confusing as Baldur's Gate was a game about the player having the freedom to make any decisions you want. Like you could kill characters like Minsc and Jahiera if you wanted to. BG2 even made it's own dubious canonical decisions that people didn't like at the time. Personally I think having Viconia be a boss you can fight is a pretty interesting way of reusing the character. Wanting every character to just be identical 100 years after the fact is frankly boring and uncreative.
Quote
So what would have made this game feel more like a BG sequel to me? UI that evoked the originals, using the weathered stone palette and hand-drawn parchment instead of the very clean style.
So what set Baldur's Gate apart from other rpgs wasn't the impressive storytelling or the amount of freedom the game gave you. It was superficialities like UI.
Quote
Specific, immersive maps with towns that feel large and lived in and the passage of the time that feels realistic.
So every sequel must copy the original down to the minutest detail like how big the levels are?
Quote
The RTwP style of combat (or at least the option for it).
As I said earlier RTwP was only there because of Diablo's popularity.
Quote
No origin characters, in favour of many more recruitable companions. More respect for the lore established by Baldur’s Gate 1 and 2, especially in the treatment of returning characters.
Again I don't see the problem with origin characters. Having more companions would end up making it so they end up being less focused upon in terms of story and most being just throwaway. A lot of this just reads like "they didn't copy the original game exactly, therefore it's bad" as opposed to looking at why certain decisions were done and how they impact the game. Like origin characters are a good example as they provide an immense amount of replayability.
Last edited by ThatDarnOwl; 17/01/24 01:22 AM.
