really feels like the true spiritual successor to dragon age 1. also the goblins are way too adorable despite being sadistic little creatures.
Its really fucking good. That said high charisma feels a bit strong. Like im out here debating my enemies into submission.
I feel that. I thought my main character was a pain, but then they went a'charming/deceiving NPCs. Just had to remember it's deep in that D&D ruleset like an amateur. Maybe I should've just ran an aggressive warrior. Possibly next time.
Yeah, even worse if you pick a charisma based caster like sorc or warlock.
pick a charisma based caster like sorc or warlock.
How could you do this to bard :(
I've never picked bard in anything so I forgot they're casters.
my next character is definitely going to be an 8 cha 8 int barb/druid lol
just play a sorcadin or a sorlock and then you can smite/blast them into instant submission
I just wish my characters would walk faster
baldurs gait is too damn slow
yeah i would kill for the ability to run. and also not randomly clicking shit when moving
They put a bra on my boobless scalie, and put fake boobs on my scalie's blouse!!!
really feels like the true spiritual successor to dragon age 1
tbh its not a controversial thing to say. BG3 is what dragon age should have evolved into but bioware's focus was elsewhere.
Yeah, turns out that if you made a long-overdue sequel to the game that was the spiritual predecessor of another game, it would feel like the spiritual successor to that other game. My entire point is that dragon age was the spiritual successor (and a shitty one at that).
God damnit I took the bait.
I don't really agree with that. For starters, BG3 is no different from Dark Alliance and other games set in the city. It's a sequel, in the 'kind of' sense. Then there's how the idea that Dragon Age was the spiritual successor of the BG trilogy was a marketing gimmick. BioWare wanted to coach their new fantasy IP in something old and celebrated, even as they tried to diversify away from the design elements of their past. Dragon Age: Origins differed from Baldur's Gate in game design and tone. Drastically too. It's real focus was in the idea of Choice and Consequence, which wasn't a legacy of Baldur's Gate, rather one of Fallout's.
In truth the reason why Baldur's Gate 3 relates to Dragon Age is 90% because the late 90s/early 00s RPGs were just that influential and shaped the industry for years to come. The last 10% are things like the campsite aesthetics and rhythm, which are borrowed straight from Dragon Age. Baldur's Gate 3 is it's own beast, one that Larian and other RPG developers have been chasing for many years, and it actually doesn't care to be much of a sequel to Dragon Age's spiritual predecessor. It's not even in the same subgenre.
TL;DR BG3 is more of a refinement of Dragon Age than a sequel to Dragon Age's predecessor.
I think it's a generalised successor to Black isle.
But it's also a direct successor because of [redacted]
They definitely improved on the mechanics that dragon age was supposed to be improving. I think they even got the voice actor for hawke from dragon age 2 as one of the protagonist voices.
thats the thing. they were always chasing trends, some entirely fallacious. they added horses because skyrim had horses. they created open maps because skyrim was open world. they made dragon age 2's combat faster because they thought da:o's had no mass appeal. at the end of the day all growth in bioware was because games as a whole grew over time, they definitely underperformed with all the trend chasing they did.
Inquisition would have been great if they didnt saddle it with a bunch of open world bullshit
They really nailed the best parts of BG2/NWN/DA:O
Best RPG since Morrowind. Add NWN's DM mode and mod tools and it'd be damn near perfect.
nah best RPG for the past 20 years imo is Pathfinder Wrath of the Righteous, even with all its bugs. they just have so many branching story points and well written characters.
I played through Wrath of the Righteous and I did enjoy it but so far Baldurs Gate 3 blows it out of the water for me. The only aspect that I prefered in WotR was the fact that you could have very different story experiences in it due to the mythic paths (from angel to demon and lich etc) I also didnt really like the combat in Wrath of the Righteous or Kingmaker. With that said I am looking forward to the 40k Rogue Trader game owlcat is working on.
I will say, one thing the Pathfinder games did great was showing you the entirety of a class when you're in the character creator, so you don't have to guess at what you might unlock by leveling up the class. It's kind of annoying that BG3 doesn't show you what your class will unlock later in the game, so you're sort of blind if you don't somehow already know.
With that said I am looking forward to the 40k Rogue Trader game owlcat is working on.
It feels pretty nice so far imo, nothing more satisfying than releasing a fusillade of bolter shells and watching a whole column of nerds turning into pink mist or roflstomping a blue horror in half with a chain blade crit
I played through Wrath of the Righteous and I did enjoy it but so far Baldurs Gate 3 blows it out of the water for me.
Both games are fantastic, but I think Baldur's Gate 3 does the non-combat stuff better, which is something the classic CRPGs never really nailed down (Planescape Torment being the closest, although it was still a little clunky).
really feels like the true spiritual successor to dragon age 1
I find it feels a lot like KotoR.
Why is my thief making arcana rolls in conversations when I have 2 wizards standing right beside me
They need to start the conversation. Gotta decide whether the situation looks like a magic one or not. Presumably your thief isn't high charisma anyway so it's worth using whoever has the best persuasion/charisma rolls in all non-magic conversations anyway.
I'd rather have rolls like that involve the whole party. I'd rather not wonder if each npc might make a historical/magic/religious reference out of the blue and end up missing it.
Besides, the game does do group rolls when the entire party is walking around so I don't see why that wouldn't extend to conversations.
When the whole party is walking around they're all triggering the events. Only one person gets to be having a conversation though?
This is how it is in tabletop too. You don't let your party Barbarian talk to the town guards because well it's just not a good idea unless you want to be fighting the whole city. You pick who should be making certain party interactions carefully.
I disagree, I've always done group conversations in tabletop, where everyone is listening and participating. We didn't really do solo stuff like that unless it was for something specific the DM planned.
Edit: I shouldn't say disagree, it's just I've had a different experience playing tabletop than what this game offers. I just think it would be more consistent in the game for conversations to allow all party members to participate.
Not that everyone needs speaking roles or even interjections since that would be a lot of work, but allowing them to aid in the check since they're standing there listening in anyway .
Hmm this means you run into a problem with consistency though. For example you can choose to start conversations with any of your party members and they all get different unique things to say based on race/class like "Barbarian" or "Drow". Should this be all-party too in any conversation initiated by the player?
Another side of this is that the game doesn't know whether you have your party split or together. Since there are various things in the world that could result in one or more characters being split by others, for example falling through a ceiling or down a hole.
Made a dragonborn barbarian, was cool, then I met Karlach the tiefling barbarian companion and decided she's much, much cooler than I am, and the only reasonable thing to do was to restart the entire game and pick Karlach instead.
I've already had to load some not-so-old saves after trying to be too big an adventure... and only 5 hours in!
The only Baulder's gate I previous played was one of the hack and slash PS2 games. I wish I could enable a hack and slash mode because turn-based bores the hell out of me.
nah it fucking sucks, the UI is trash in comparison to Wrath of the Righteous or even DOS2 (WHICH IS INSANE), probably one of the worst UIs of any game ive played. it also uses 5e which I feel does not transfer great to a CRPG at all, probably the most boring system choice. pathfinder 2e desperately needs a video game imo, itd be amazing for it. also the FUCKING MARVEL QUIPS DRIVE ME INSANE.
given that, i'll say the good things. it is impressive how many encounters there are and how many are voiced/mocaped, which is unheard of for a CRPG. i like two of the companions (karlach and astarion) because i guess im gay as fuck or something, but i dont really like the rest. i feel like the modeling and character options are generally good even though i feel like the skin options are limited (nigerian black, melanism, and albino white dont exist). zooming in to a conversation is a great way to give characters more personality.
Built a warlock for my first playthrough and I'm regretting not making a monk because the improvised weapon system is so fun to handle but I don't have a party member optimised for that sort of gameplay.
I'm about midway through act 3 by now, so I am able to respec. But all my gear is stuff to help me do sneaky magic things.
Btw did anyone notice the eu4 reference that the protagonist randomly spots when traverse trough the map. Its like „I wished I lived in more interesting times“ or something like that.
I recognized it as just an old, allegedly Chinese, expression. You shouldn't wish for someone to live in interesting times because interesting times are often violent and scary. Like now.
Reading Patrick Wyman's book about the Renaissance wistfully but repeatedly being reminded of the huge amount of untimely deaths.
