Why are BG1/2 Fans mad?

[󠀡]

I didn't play BG1/2 but I watched a lets play and my friend had the game. The original games looked pretty cool although dated. I played Dark Alliance (the one with Drizzt) and it was a fun game, although nothing like BG1/2.

BG3 doesn't give me the feeling of being in the setting of BG1/2 but I get the feeling of being in a 5e campaign and that is fine for me. It's the best DnD video game I have ever played and IMO still seems better than BG1/2 in that it's updated to today's standards of quality.

I could imagine BG1/2 would be great games in this engine.

Having been a fan of Diablo 1/2 I can understand being let down by BG3 not being what you expected but this game does not compare to how bad Diablo 3 was. I have no complaints so far about BG3 because it reminds me so much of a 5e campaign.

And everyone complaining that is Divinity... I don't even know why you are here. If you don't like it, don't play it; or instead of just saying "Wah wah, this game is just like that game!" make a coherent complaint and elaborate what it is you were expecting!

I just really want to know, What were you expecting from BG3? What did you want to see? What do you expect to see in the Release version of BG3? What do you want to change about BG3 from it's current state in EA?

[󠀡]

Ursprungligen skrivet av Underprivileged White Male:

Ursprungligen skrivet av FoE Rosa:

people who think baldur's gate games were about the combat system are not even baldur's gate fans if we are being honest

The thing is the the story of BG WORKED because of the combat system. It felt quick and brutal. It felt like combat. When you turn 30 second encounters into multi minute long micro management slogs it detracts from the story and just becomes a board game with some dialogue between fight scenes.

The thing is, they should have had both systems in the game. It doesn't make sense that they wouldn't. The reality is though, the other games should have been turn based just based on the rules of DnD.

But I think everyone should be able to agree that there is no reason they couldn't just have both turn based and RTwP. Except for that I am not sure how it would work in multiplayer; things could get desync'd very quickly.

[Asfastasican]

Three reasons:

1. BD2 set such a high standard as an overall product. The writing, characters, classes, setting, etc etc. Nobody doubts Larian's skill or their potential, but its a high bar that has been set. By a game that's like 20 years old.

2. No real time action with pause. Larian is playing it safe by going with what they know. Some critics will argue thats a stupid thing to get mad about, but when you bring up Dragon Age: Origins, they immediately go silent. Why? Because basically the same people made Dragon Age Origins and it was the exact same combat system and the game was a masterpiece. As a player, you can literally take as much time as you want with either system, but people just want to defend Larian for making the wrong decision.

3. Too much feature creep (including valid complaints about surface mechanics.) Larian clearly threw everything they had from DOS 1 and 2 and threw it into this game just because. And they have proven that they believe in stuffing in a quantity of features over quality. Just because you can have a game where you can move/carry objects without penalty doesnt mean you should. Also surface mechanics severly affect the DnD aspects of gameplay and even the general combat itself. There's very little dissuading a player or even npc's from just covering the floor in ♥♥♥♥ then setting it all on fire. It can dumb down the combat in a negative way.

[Xan84]

Its simple and easy to understand. Imagine if they make Baldur's Gate 4 and its going to be rtwp. Will the tabletop players so happy with the current combat system, not be royally pissed?

[Ryllharu]

Ursprungligen skrivet av Ravenwolf:

The thing is, they should have had both systems in the game. It doesn't make sense that they wouldn't. The reality is though, the other games should have been turn based just based on the rules of DnD.

But I think everyone should be able to agree that there is no reason they couldn't just have both turn based and RTwP. Except for that I am not sure how it would work in multiplayer; things could get desync'd very quickly.

RTwP is not compatible with 5e. It wasn't compatible with 2e back then either.

5th edition's action economy combat is about decisive, strategic actions where a bad roll can really mess you up, and good roll can turn the tide of a battle that had been going sour.

RTwP is about auto-attacking, constantly wiffing tanks taking aggro while your spellcasters and rogues do interesting things. And kiting an enemy for a dozen rounds is not "strategy."

That said, there's nothing inherently wrong with RTwP games, they just don't work with D&D. Tyranny was great because it did its own thing. Pillars of Eternity at launch was awful because it tried too hard to be "basically BG2 but not D&D because we don't have the license."

A very vocal minority is trolling every discussion space available. They do not speak for fans of the original, but like to think they do. I'm a BG1 & BG2 fan, played them when the launched, and I love BG3.

I tried IWD:EE for the nostalgia. edit: Without the amazing story of BG1&2, those infinity engine games aged very poorly. What's the least liked part of the EE's? The expansions that weren't there before.

[Panic Fire]

Ursprungligen skrivet av allynborland:

I believe the reason for people being upset is nothing that you were talking about. BG3 doesn't need to 'feel' like BG1 or 2, the same way Harry Potter 6, didn't really feel the same as Harry Potter 1 or 2. They are set in the same world and have connected story line, but the 'feel' of the latter stories is quite a bit different from the first stories. That being said, Harry Potter 6 still did take place in the same world as Harry Potter 1 & 2, like this story 'may' take place in the same world as BG1 & 2. (I call out 'may' because I haven't finished the game as so at this point don't know if it ever gets back to Baldur's Gate, though I assume the story goes there, and in addition, this story so far has taken place in multiple dimensions, as the Mindflayer slipped between them during the initial fight.)

Where I think some may be upset, is that so far, it doesn't seem to follow the same storyline as BG 1 or 2. Both of which dealt with the MC being a child of Bhaal, known as Bhaalspawn, and being such, the main character had certain abilities that went beyond race and class. In addition to that, it dealt with the resurrection of Bhaal himself. This game thus far, does not seem to concern itself with these aspects of the first two games at all. Which may lead some to wonder if they are just using the title for name recognition to sell the game. So I believe it is the seemingly not connected story line that is causing some strife.

If you talk to the NPC's the druids glaid is about 1-2 days away from Baulder's Gate. So you are actually pretty close.

[alanc9]

Ursprungligen skrivet av Ravenwolf:

But I think everyone should be able to agree that there is no reason they couldn't just have both turn based and RTwP. Except for that I am not sure how it would work in multiplayer; things could get desync'd very quickly.

Whether Larian would do RTwP well is another matter. There's a long history of devs doing stuff they have no experience with and don't really like. Most of it is bad.

[Nameless Keeper]

Because there is no Barbarian multiclass.

[󠀡]

Ursprungligen skrivet av Asfastasican:

Three reasons:

Just because you can have a game where you can move/carry objects without penalty doesnt mean you should. Also surface mechanics severly affect the DnD aspects of gameplay and even the general combat itself. There's very little dissuading a player or even npc's from just covering the floor in ♥♥♥♥ then setting it all on fire. It can dumb down the combat in a negative way.

What? You can literally do this in the tabletop game..

Grease + Firebolt = flaming floor

So I don't really understand what you are trying to say.

Not to mention, there is a penalty for carrying too much stuff. You move slower and if you are carrying too much you won't be able to move at all.

Ursprungligen skrivet av Ryllharu:

RTwP is not compatible with 5e. It wasn't compatible with 2e back then either.

5th edition's action economy combat is about decisive, strategic actions where a bad roll can really mess you up, and good roll can turn the tide of a battle that had been going sour.

True. Fighters wouldn't even get to use all there attacks and bonus actions would be practically meaningless.

It really wouldn't work, exactly, but it doesn't mean they shouldn't allow it if that is how people want to play.

The bigger issue is can they implement it without breaking the game in other ways, not just because 5e.

Ursprungligen skrivet av Nameless Keeper:

Because there is no Barbarian multiclass.

Early Access.

[Milkie]

Because their identity is so tied to the products they loved as a kid and consume daily, that they feel like they've worked for and are entitled to the game they envision.

They're not entitled to ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥, but it sure doesn't stop them from throwing fits anyway.

[hello]

Ursprungligen skrivet av Ravenwolf:

Early Access.

Stop making excuses

[Peelsepuuppi]

Because many of them are stubborn and closed minded. They want things only to be certain way and if it's not exactly to their tastes they want to see it burn. Never understood it. My personal tastes in games are way too varied. I like more genres than I don't so maybe I just can't see this from the perspective of someone with highly limited taste in games.

[󠀡]

Ursprungligen skrivet av < blank >:

Ursprungligen skrivet av Ravenwolf:

Early Access.

Stop making excuses

They haven't even added all the classes or multi-classing.

[hello]

Ursprungligen skrivet av Ravenwolf:

They haven't even added all the classes or multi-classing.

It's not a Baldur's Gate game. There it is.

[Vlad von Carstein]

Ursprungligen skrivet av ToveriJuri:

I like more genres than I don't so maybe I just can't see this from the perspective of someone with highly limited taste in games.

How close minded of you

[󠀡]

Ursprungligen skrivet av < blank >:

Ursprungligen skrivet av Ravenwolf:

They haven't even added all the classes or multi-classing.

It's not a Baldur's Gate game. There it is.

It's called Early Access. It's a video game that isn't completed. It hasn't even been released yet.