Looking back what made this game's gameplay mechanics great from other CRPGs and fantasy RPGs?

[TheFibrewire]

Hi BG3 community,

So what made this game get so much praise compared to other RPGs like Neverwinter Nights, old BG games, Pathfinder games etc.

We all know Larian is good, good customer experience and characters are all good.

What gameplay mechanics make this game great and better compared to other CRPGs?

[Larco]

Probably not the answer you want but I think an awful lot of this is just down to herd mentality. You get a few streamers to talk a game up, their followers parrot what they say and the rest of the herd follows. That generates a sort of self reinforcing buzz whereby other people feel they need to agree and anyone who disagrees just gets shouted over...

Not saying Bg3 isn't a good game but is it really "flawless" or the "game of the decade" or the "best game ever made"? - the sort of claims you see made for it regularly. It's got some good stuff, sure - cutscenes esp - but also takes quite a few steps back. Indeed, it lacks basic features & Qol stuff that have been standard in the genre for years.

Don't want to ♥♥♥♥ on your pony or anything; I like the game and love that it's really mainstreamed what sometimes feels a bit of a niche genre. But I question the idea that in terms of gameplay and mechanics at least (as opposed to budget, production, advertising etc) it's some sort of qualitative leap forward from what's gone before.

[cyb3rc001]

The gameplay is rather simple yet it has some depth to it. Quite a good adaptation of tabletop rules, at least from a video game side of things.

[Mike Garrison]

The reason I will replay XCOM, BG3, etc. over and over is that due to the RNG every combat is different enough that it's still fun to react to what happens and play it out.

[Nixonator]

Originally posted by Mike Garrison:

The reason I will replay XCOM, BG3, etc. over and over is that due to the RNG every combat is different enough that it's still fun to react to what happens and play it out.

Please no, RNG in X-COM is the absolute worst.

I have Pathfinder WoTR and BG3's presentation is just leaps and bounds better. Great voice acting, zooming in to NPC's to make it feel like you are having real interactions, lots of character development and the tactical combat is great. If min/maxing is your thing, the available loot and class builds makes for some interesting options. If you want to role play, you can have a very nice experience. I am on my third play through and invariably I find new stuff and story arks develop differently each time. The quests are usually interesting and rarely will you be doing the common tedious fetching. It's just an all around good game.

[quothz]

This game. . . hasn't received the level of acclaim of the original Baldur's Gate. BG was groundbreaking in a lot of ways and set new standards for CRPGs. It was a whole new world. Nothing Larian has done could have happened without BG laying the groundwork.

I daresay Planescape: Torment also has a long-term enthusiasm that stands up well against it. BG3 might be as well-loved in 25 years as Planscape is now, but only time will tell.

I also don't think the mechanics are particularly better than BG2. They're necessarily different. Both are very suitable for their games, although both have some annoyances.

BG3 is a great game. It sets a standard going forward and will hold up as a classic. But just the standard - not the entire paradigm like BG1.

[Mike Garrison]

Originally posted by quothz:

This game. . . hasn't received the level of acclaim of the original Baldur's Gate.

Get real.

BG1 and BG2 are classics, Very well remembered. Sold 2-3 million copies each. Still have a modding and playing base 25 years later. Great games.

But BG3 has sold about 15M copies. I am pretty sure more people have played BG3 in the last two years than played BG1/BG2 in the last 25 years.

[Worlord]

Originally posted by Larco:

Probably not the answer you want but I think an awful lot of this is just down to herd mentality. You get a few streamers to talk a game up, their followers parrot what they say and the rest of the herd follows. That generates a sort of self reinforcing buzz whereby other people feel they need to agree and anyone who disagrees just gets shouted over...

Not saying Bg3 isn't a good game but is it really "flawless" or the "game of the decade" or the "best game ever made"? - the sort of claims you see made for it regularly. It's got some good stuff, sure - cutscenes esp - but also takes quite a few steps back. Indeed, it lacks basic features & Qol stuff that have been standard in the genre for years.

Don't want to ♥♥♥♥ on your pony or anything; I like the game and love that it's really mainstreamed what sometimes feels a bit of a niche genre. But I question the idea that in terms of gameplay and mechanics at least (as opposed to budget, production, advertising etc) it's some sort of qualitative leap forward from what's gone before.

I never watched a single stream or read a single review when it came out. I actually just saw it in the Steam store a month or so after it came out, and I just thought it sounded like exactly the kind of RPG game I was looking for - i.e., a video game adaptation of D&D that featured conspicuous, rather than hidden, rolls of the dice. I waited almost a year for a sale (word to the wise - don't wait for a sale for a good game, just buy the damned thing) before playing, and - still never having read a review or stream - and thought it was an excellent game. GOTY good? IDK because I haven't really bought a video game in a a while, and I can't compare it to any other game that came out at the same time. I just know it's really fun to play and I was never influenced by the hype.

[EricHVela]

Strip away everything down to gameplay mechanics—no story, no visuals other than gameplay feedback, no other interaction whatsoever. What game with the same mechanics is better than another once all that is gone? They're all the same when it's just mechanics.

Context and nuance matters. Everything involving people is about context and nuance. That also means it won't connect with different people the same way it connects with others. It might also not connect with someone at all. That's just how it is with people.

BG3 was a collection of opportunities (meaning luck) and content (meaning sustaining after luck did its job) that zeroed in on something nobody was expecting. The gameplay is just a tiny part of the equation.

[seeker1]

It's the only game other than Solasta that uses the current D & D (5E) system. Love or hate 5E, it's the current system. (Nobody's looking back at 4E, it's just been forgotten.) I want to like Solasta, but there are just so many aspects of it that seem ... jank. It has a Toolset, something I'd be messing with myself if the game wasn't ... jank. The cool thing is the Dungeon Maker runs within the app itself, and the app runs on Macs, so ... its Toolset CAN be used on Macs (please pay attention, Larian, Mac users want toolsets, too). I kinda skipped Solasta but I'm keeping my ears open on Solasta 2. If they improve the graphics and character models and some of the other jank, I might really like it.

.... I will say, though, it looks like they still aren't going to use anything but the OGL license, so the content will remain limited, that way.

I like Pathfinder and as I've said, while I had misgivings about WotR, it was a decent game. But IMHO it would have been a lot better if Owlcat had used the Pathfinder 2E update, which trims out and streamlines so much of the crap of 1E -- again, IMHO. Using the bloat that was 1E encumbered that game (among other problems).

[quothz]

Originally posted by Mike Garrison:

But BG3 has sold about 15M copies. I am pretty sure more people have played BG3 in the last two years than played BG1/BG2 in the last 25 years.

Ah, yes, the "AC/DC is more acclaimed than Mozart" angle. Ok.

[Pan Darius Cassandra]

The mechanics actually piss me off.

[Nixonator]

Originally posted by quothz:

Originally posted by Mike Garrison:

But BG3 has sold about 15M copies. I am pretty sure more people have played BG3 in the last two years than played BG1/BG2 in the last 25 years.

Ah, yes, the "AC/DC is more acclaimed than Mozart" angle. Ok.

AC/DC and Mozart are great, what does that have to do with the mechanics of BG3?

[Chaosolous]

The interwoven depth.

Like the goblins for example; how many ways are there to deal with just that one issue? Six? Seven? More? IDK, a lot.

That basically, but an entire games worth.

[.Master Jiren, The Strongest]

it had boobies.
player choice + good graphics = game people will enjoy playing.
you'd think it was a matter of good gameplay, but actually a lot of people enjoyed this game who don't even like turn based combat.

so really it was just the sheer amount of player choice coupled with the nice..."visuals".

also the game was really good in EA, because Act 1 is phenomenal. But they clearly were not able to keep up that momentum in Act 2 and quickly realized they were in over their heads with Act 3. They also dropped the ball with the companions, as they even admitted they were aware that these companions were not well received which resulted in all of them being made nicer and two of them receiving entire redesigns.

so yeah, the game isnt perfect and they know full well where they dropped the ball. but it does things other games don't let you do and has a lot of replayability, the game is fun and looks nice while you're doing it. thats really what it comes down to.

[Talbot]

It has some truly awful mechanics (inventory, particularly) as well as some great ones so I don't think they're the be-all, end-all of its reputation, but if you're asking why it rose above the pack?

The obvious, non-mechanical answers are twofold: it had more budget/production values than any CRPG ever by orders of magnitude, and it filled a niche that had gone unfilled for a long time with the genre somewhat out-of-vogue.

If you want to give the mechanics more credit, it does two things exceptionally well: it gives you options, and it makes different combats feel different. Playing a Ranger feels materially different, mechanically, than playing a Wizard, whereas in some games they're both just basically ranged attackers with different animations/elements. Things like invisibility, flight, crowd control spells, throwing, jumping, teleporting, and environmental manipulation give you more options and battles more outcomes; many CRPGs have one or two of those elements, few have all of them.

That flexibility also extends out of combat, which I personally love but is probably not nearly as big of a differentiator for the average gamer as the combat crunch (if it was, New Vegas likely would have out-sold Fallout 4... which is another good example of what a big difference production values and buzz make).

It also finds the sweet spot for build-crafting, where you can do it intuitively and without thinking about it much if you want and still have a lot of fun, or you can get in the lab and spend hours tweaking your multi-class and have different kinds of fun. Very few games offer both, allowing you to meet the game at the level of complexity you prefer it to have rather than having to meet it at the static level it comes with.

And those are both great things! Those are why I like the game! I don't think either of the has nearly as much to do with its success as the graphics, voice acting, and marketing push, though. I think if you'd made just about any above-average modern CRPG with the same production values and same buzz, you'd get similar (and maybe in some cases even superior) results, and that includes games I think are weaker. The genre simply hadn't seen this kind of money behind a quality product before.

But to its credit I do also think that accessibility advantage is the difference between "similar results" and "identical results." Even if, say, Wrath of the Righteous had a 100M budget it'd still require more book-keeping and system knowledge than a certain chunk of the player base would be willing to tolerate, for instance.