Those critical of BG3, what games did it better?

[Naamtar]

Would be interested in hearing what games you feel are of higher quality and possibly find some I've not heard of yet.

[Eternal Sidus]

Great game, not trying to bring it down at all, loving the time ive spend on it.
But the mass effect series did companions and romance better. To me bg3 feels like all your companions are just trying to get into my pants, and if you dont flirt with them then there is no platonic relationship to build up. I want a bromance like Garrus in mass effect, not a twink vamp trying to suck me dry from both sides. I don't hate the bi or "player sexual" idea of companions, but it doesn't seem natural and personally i would like to have the sexuality of a character make sense rp/lore wise. if all we are fighting for is inclusion then why can't we include a sexuality option in the character creation something like straight/bi/homosexual. it would even added replayabvlity and in my opinion improve the roleplay aspect

[Dorok]

Originally posted by Eternal Sidus:

Great game, not trying to bring it down at all, loving the time ive spend on it.
But the mass effect series did companions and romance better. To me bg3 feels like all your companions are just trying to get into my pants, and if you dont flirt with them then there is no platonic relationship to build up. I want a bromance like Garrus in mass effect, not a twink vamp trying to suck me dry from both sides. I don't hate the bi or "player sexual" idea of companions, but it doesn't seem natural and personally i would like to have the sexuality of a character make sense rp/lore wise. if all we are fighting for is inclusion then why can't we include a sexuality option in the character creation something like straight/bi/homosexual. it would even added replayabvlity and in my opinion improve the roleplay aspect

It's alas a design goal they had, not work in priority on attachment to companions, but on confrontations with companions. It comes in part from Origins designs and coop spirit targeted.

But it's not meaning that they didn't let open attachment building to companions later in a play, if not it's more they failed than it was a design goal.

ME first trilogy is something hard to compare to anything, on start neither BG1&2 are a bilogy with so few links between both, BG1 to 3 is evn less a trilogy, but also not any BG3 to 5 will be ever a trilogy according to dev comments on the topic of follow up.

EDIT:
I'd say it's all to credit to BG3 that games as DAO and ME first trilogy come back in comments, the overdose of Skyrim clones to half clones was more and more unbearable.

EDIT:
To remind the implicit screw up of Origins, to keep stuff fresh for origin play of a companion, the companion keeps stuff secret, so it pushes make them less open and hardly attaching, without mention it generates often weird writing, at least in DOS2.

[corisai]

Originally posted by Dorok:

It's alas a design goal they had, not work in priority on attachment to companions, but on confrontations with companions.

Absolutely unrealistic. People usually get united by sharing risk of a gruesome death.

[mutantspicy]

Originally posted by SnuffSaid:

[quote=caev9


The pathfinding in BG3 is just as bad. There are times where my companions literally seem to be going out of their way to stand on traps, and unlike pathfinder, the damn game doesn't pause when I discover one. How on Earth did such a basic quality of life feature escape all this player testing?

The only areas BG3 beats Wrath Of The Righteous are graphics and voice acting, in every other area it comes second. Somehow it even comes second in writing despite Owlcat being Russian and having greater language barrier issues than the Belgians at Larian. And I'll take a sprawling mess of choice any day over the zero choice we get here. I have never played an isometric RPG with as disappointing level ups as BG3, which is doubly frustrating considering how few and far between they are. This game is practically on rails in every way.

No. This game is a major step forward in movement, pathfinding and environmental control, there are still some issues. One of them you mentioned I agree with. But with other games, pathfinder very much so. I had to reload so many times just simply because the players were glitched out or stuck on some random object. I gave up because it simply took too long to move from point A to point B and with all of "platforming" in act 3 the game was way too buggy to handle it and went way past my patience threshold. POE is boring sorry it just is. And sorry but Pathfinder while loved by some, to me it doesn't bring anything really new to the 3.5 table just adds more ♥♥♥♥ to sift through.

[Seswatha]

Pillars of Eternity 1 was better. 2 kind of ruined what 1 had by trying to make classes more same-y and balanced. Just like dnd.

[BhaalSakh]

BG1 and 2 were much better imo. Felt more like DnD, gameplay was better for an actual video game (I love turn based on tabletop, in JRPGs too since you're usually facing a reasonable amount of enemies, it does NOT work in a game when you're facing 10+ enemies (including many mages), especially since we tend to miss half of our attacks even with a 90% hit chance), the atmosphere was better, companions weren't trying to sleep with you all the time, you had more party members, actual towns with interiors to explore.

I dislike BG3's art direction as well. The color tones, the architecture, it all looks very bland and cartoony. The art direction feels very ''corporate'', like from unimaginative artists who learned from gnomon workshop tutorials.

[Dorok]

Originally posted by corisai:

Originally posted by Dorok:

It's alas a design goal they had, not work in priority on attachment to companions, but on confrontations with companions.

Absolutely unrealistic. People usually get united by sharing risk of a gruesome death.

Dysney/Hollywood tales. To each their own is no way a myth and even deeply in human nature. Past it or to counter it, it's social aspects, necessity, but not being attached to.

EDIT:
But more simply, it's still a video game, and refuse use attachment to companions is a big let down. But again, I don't think it's supposed to be all along a play.

[SnuffSaid]

Originally posted by mutantspicy:

No. This game is a major step forward in movement, pathfinding and environmental control, there are still some issues. One of them you mentioned I agree with. But with other games, pathfinder very much so. I had to reload so many times just simply because the players were glitched out or stuck on some random object. I gave up because it simply took too long to move from point A to point B and with all of "platforming" in act 3 the game was way too buggy to handle it and went way past my patience threshold. POE is boring sorry it just is. And sorry but Pathfinder while loved by some, to me it doesn't bring anything really new to the 3.5 table just adds more ♥♥♥♥ to sift through.

It truly just isn't. As I said, I have been gobsmacked by how bad the pathfinding is here, and unlike Pathfinder games I can't even set up a formation to keep my squishies safer from the pathfinding errors. I've seen pathfinding here so crazy that it genuinely looked like a human had taken over my companions and was actively trying to get them killed. The Hag trap puzzle in act 1 caused more reloads than any other part of the game due to the awful pathfinding, and having to unintuively ungroup the companions to move them. At one point I clicked down a ladder after a trap, three members of the party stayed down the ladder where I had clicked while Shadowheart, inexplicably, climbed back up the ladder, moved away from it and stepped directly on the trap. I just gawped in slackjawed amazement at how bad it was.

Don't get me wrong, I had moments in WOTR where companions triggered relentless attacks of opportunity trying to take a stupid path around an enemy, but I've had so many similar situations here that it just isn't an improvement. And again, at least Pathfinder has a pause, a pause that activates automatically at logical moments no less. Here there isn't a hard pause at all, just one of a number of uniquely inexplicable decisions in a big budget game. There is so much quality of life missing here, even the UI is terrible and inventory management cumbersome. It's so much harder to forgive these flaws because Larian had all the money in the world, as well as serious manpower.

[corisai]

Originally posted by Dorok:

Dysney/Hollywood tales. To each their own is no way a myth and even deeply in human nature. Past it or to counter it, it's social aspects, necessity, but not being attached to.

This "myth" is also called battle brotherhood. People on frontlines tend to unite for survival. Not everyone, true, some are sociopaths or psychopaths.

Devs just saved money on voiceover and dialogues for "bro" paths. As result immersion suffered a lot.

[raubrey]

This thread might be a decent read while waiting for STARFIELD. The game to end all games. :-)

Ok, so who did it better?

Larian -- DOS: 2 -- Balance of FUN, Challenge, Newness, Compelling Story (yes, I said that) and overall technical superiority, map balance, romance, companion quality and, and the ending.

Owlcat -- Pathfinder scratches the D&D itch while being such a joy to replay with concrete differences in builds and companions. If a game deserves a 96-97 (shame on PC Gamer) it is Wrath of the Rightous. I can scarely think of what the game doesn't have that it should besides Bear Sex.

Bioware

*** Dragon Age Origins -- RPG Standard-bearer for story, companions, abilities, pacing, balance, challenge and HEART.

*** Dragon Age Inquisition -- THEY broke the mold with their maps and graphic quality, their romances and their gameplay. They didn't get the credit they deserved because of its launch (performance issues for AMD) and because it wasn't DAO/DA 2.

*** Mass Effect Trilogy-- As good or better than DAO -- consequences matter. Hard to find more immersion than with this sci-fi gem.

*** Andromeda perhaps the same level as BG3 for overall appeal and somewhat sluggish play. It should have been EPIC but it wasn't.

Obsidian

-- Fallout New Vegas: Dialog, Characters Not really party-based but if modded you can run with companions and that is how I play sometimes.
I didn't care much for their D&Dish games so I will leave those out.

SW:KotR 1-2

-- near perfection in story (#2) and immersion but limited by its time and advances in tech. The meaningful character building is yet to be beat in a game.


Bethesda

-- Morrowind -- lore, characters, dialog, story
-- Oblivion -- world, story, combat

I've left out Bethesda's Fallout 3-4 and Skyrim. Those games are what I would take to an island along with WotR but I don't feel like typing all their well-known attributes and besides they play so differently.


I am missing some. It is obvious that BG 3 is super popular. It has the makings of an Epic game but it is not there ... yet.

[Dorok]

Originally posted by corisai:

Originally posted by Dorok:

Dysney/Hollywood tales. To each their own is no way a myth and even deeply in human nature. Past it or to counter it, it's social aspects, necessity, but not being attached to.

This "myth" is also called battle brotherhood. People on frontlines tend to unite for survival. Not everyone, true, some are sociopaths or psychopaths.

Devs just saved money on voiceover and dialogues for "bro" paths. As result immersion suffered a lot.

Yeah USA army fairy tales.

[fRaNtIc]

No game can beat Dragon Age Origins. It was perfection! And the last game Bioware produced before being gobbled up by Evil incArnate.

[mutantspicy]

Originally posted by SnuffSaid:

Originally posted by mutantspicy:

It truly just isn't. As I said, I have been gobsmacked by how bad the pathfinding is here, and unlike Pathfinder games I can't even set up a formation to keep my squishies safer from the pathfinding errors. I've seen pathfinding here so crazy that it genuinely looked like a human had taken over my companions and was actively trying to get them killed. The Hag trap puzzle in act 1 caused more reloads than any other part of the game due to the awful pathfinding, and having to unintuively ungroup the companions to move them. At one point I clicked down a ladder after a trap, three members of the party stayed down the ladder where I had clicked while Shadowheart, inexplicably, climbed back up the ladder, moved away from it and stepped directly on the trap. I just gawped in slackjawed amazement at how bad it was.

Don't get me wrong, I had moment where companions triggered relentless attacks of opportunity trying to take a stupid path around an enemy, but I've had so many similar situations here that it just isn't an improvement. And again, at least Pathfinder has a pause, a pause that activates automatically at logical moments no less. Here there isn't a hard pause at all, just one of a number of uniquely inexplicable decisions in a big budget game. There is so much quality of life missing here, even the UI is terrible and inventory management cumbersome. It's so much harder to forgive these flaws because Larian had all the money in the world, as well as serious manpower.

This is a lot of words for one singular issue. I agree that there should be an automatic trigger into turn based mode when a trap is spotted. Formations I found them to be too limited, but moderately helpful not as much of a boon as you are making out. I think we have an issue of language, you are describe two very specific gameplay mechanics for one specific issue. I'm talking about the overall environmental pathfinding, the entire gameworld design. The pathfinding in pathfinder sucked terribly, way too may bugs, glitches and areas where the player would simply just get stuck and not in a good role playing way, but as in game breaking bugs.

[Garptain]

Originally posted by Razzen:

I'd have to say that I think in an overall package the Pathfinder games are simply better.

Pathfinder series are easily the worst RPGs i've played so i def know you're trolling

[Dorok]

Originally posted by raubrey:

This might be a decent read while waiting for STARFIELD. The game to end all games. :-)

So you believe in fairy tales? Big games com before release is often describing very well the real release gameplay? Or perhaps you never learn from past?

That it looks so much like a fairy tale is what makes it suspicious, it smells more some commercial tale than anything else.

But yeah, it's like Starfield is trying make an earhtquake. But Skyrim had in its back Morrowind and Oblivion. I don't see the same experience in back of Starfield, more Bethesda finally trying stop clone itself.