Instal Steam
login
|
bahasa
简体中文 (Tionghoa Sederhana)
繁體中文 (Tionghoa Tradisional)
日本語 (Bahasa Jepang)
한국어 (Bahasa Korea)
ไทย (Bahasa Thai)
Български (Bahasa Bulgaria)
Čeština (Bahasa Ceko)
Dansk (Bahasa Denmark)
Deutsch (Bahasa Jerman)
English (Bahasa Inggris)
Español - España (Bahasa Spanyol - Spanyol)
Español - Latinoamérica (Bahasa Spanyol - Amerika Latin)
Ελληνικά (Bahasa Yunani)
Français (Bahasa Prancis)
Italiano (Bahasa Italia)
Magyar (Bahasa Hungaria)
Nederlands (Bahasa Belanda)
Norsk (Bahasa Norwegia)
Polski (Bahasa Polandia)
Português (Portugis - Portugal)
Português-Brasil (Bahasa Portugis-Brasil)
Română (Bahasa Rumania)
Русский (Bahasa Rusia)
Suomi (Bahasa Finlandia)
Svenska (Bahasa Swedia)
Türkçe (Bahasa Turki)
Tiếng Việt (Bahasa Vietnam)
Українська (Bahasa Ukraina)
Laporkan kesalahan penerjemahan
Pedoman dan Aturan Diskusi
Laporkan postingan ini
BG3 is Baldurs gate and much more. Its much better then BG1 and BG2 combined. More choices, consequenses and much more different paths. All of them are great games. BG3 went for the Larrian studios gamedesign and thats only good. The depth in the programming is very impressive. At least 3 playthroughs with different classes and moral alignments is required to fully understand all the work that has been put in BG3. The nuanced moral ambiguity is my favorite part in BG3. Its not traditional Good vs Evil anymore. Just different layers of gray. Before you start with some elitism i can inform you that i´m an old fart of 43 years old and have played the Ultima games, all the D&D infinty engine games, some SSI dungeoncrawlers in the 90´s. BG3 and Pathfinder are the most impressive Crpg´s ever made. i´m 100% sure that you never played BG3 much considering your simplistic opinions. BG3 will be regarded as one if not THE best Crpg ever made and its welldeserved. PS Yes i C&P my answers to save time.
Yeah, i agree there is a bit of an elitism for some. It is a solid (though flawed) game. And I will never why people get so bent out of shape over people saying it's the "best game ever."
Practically every game gets called that anymore. I think some need to stop taking differing opinions as personal attacks.
But don't mind that guy. He tends to make the same laundry list of complaints every time the game is mentioned (on every. single. thread. on here). He certainly thinks a lot about a game he despises so much.
And saying SSI just brought back memories of one of my first party based RPGs: Thunderscape. It's a shame WotC squashed the franchise.
The STORY and design of BG3 is what youre confusing for depth of the rules.. There is nothing to 5th edition d&d.. Light, height, win... Theres no depth to builds, no real strategy required, only 4 classes to take so theres not even alot of option. Larian crafted a great story DESPITE the weak ruleset! Theyve done it exactly like their prior two successful titles.. So much in fact, that they can be almost indecipherable. Its more Divinity OS, than Baldurs Gate, in all but name, and rules. In practice, its absolutely Divinity OS3
Theres a reason 5th edition is so successful, compared ot prior iterations.. Its been dumbed down for the masses, and is more accessible to a wider audience.
BG3 is checkers, to Pathfinder as Chess
i can agree on some points and no BG is not a bad game. Its just like super mario vs dark souls. Both are great game and in fact super Mario is the more successful game. Yet its made for people who enjoy simpler and more accessible games. Dark Soul players would be bored by the simple gameplay of super Mario.
And thats the same here. People love Pathfinder WotR because it is COMPLEX and they dislike BG3 because its so shallow. Both are great games but made for entire different audience. Pathfinder is a highly advanced and complex system that originated from DnD. Bg3 is a entry level RPG that is aimed to bring non RPG fans to the genre. Both succeeded at their goal. Its just 2 different goals.
BG3 can never be better than BG1 and BG2 combined as it's a much shallower RPG than these two. It's a shallow RPG in general. We don't even have a world map, in an adventure game. It's a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ cRPG game, with no world map. No exploration. Not even your main character is the main character because he is secondary to EVERYTHING that happens in the game.
The lack of traditional "good vs evil" is also one thing that hurts BG3. Skill changes, party banters, reputations, all of these things could mechanically respond according to a character alignment. But guess what? Larian took that away too. Now reputation is how much you want to bang your companion, which also what BG has become. A romance simulator. No one gives a ♥♥♥♥ about the story which is crap, no one gives a ♥♥♥♥ about being a Bhaalspawn. No one gives a ♥♥♥♥ about the world of Baldur's Gate itself. All the game has become is a romance simulator. Shadowhear this, Karlach that, Halsin this, Astarion that. It has become a game of waifus and husbandos, and you can clearly see that even today the ♥♥♥ appeal is the biggest selling point for Baldur's Gate 3.
And guess what? I've completely finished BG3 already to be able to say it's a crap BG game. And guess what? I've played BG1 and BG2 as well. And guess what? I've started playing Pathfinder recently and i think it does a much better job at honoring BG than BG3 does despite being the same title.
And guess what? BG3 cannot be the best cRPG ever made when there is so much things that they took away from what makes an RPG and RPG.
Larian ♥♥♥♥♥♥ up BG franchise real bad by creating "DoS: Baldur's Gate".
I still ask the same fundamental question: so what? Opinions are like noses; everyone has one. It's funny watching people that are so bent out of shape over an opinion they don't agree with (and that goes both ways). Who cares if people think it is the best thing ever? I almost envy those whose lives are so problem free that this is what keeps them up at night. Liking/disliking a game does not mean person A is smarter than (or has better taste) than person B. I think some people are far too in love with their own ideas. For how passionate people get about their opinions, you would think these games are their personal identity.
Here's a simple question I wish many would think on: why do some feel the need to change other people's opinions? The world would be incredibly boring if we never had different ways of seeing things. Just as I think some people's opinions are terrible, I am sure some would say the same about mine. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter.
Every game has problems. I 100% agree about the epilogue and the decline in content in Act 3. I wish the camera controls and pathing were better. I also loathe turn based games on that scale. Still, I enjoy playing it. I have put more time into WotR, but I feel both have their appeal. That said, I really don't know what some out there are going to do when it wins multiple awards this year...
Well, I never played the DoS series, so I never saw Larian's work before this. That being said, it seems like it's becoming a more common occurrence (games being released without everything being finished). It's part of the reason I rarely back early access stuff. I see it the same way I see all the paid DLC out there: companies/designers realized people will keep paying money for every little extra, so it's an easy system to exploit.
Besides, remind me again: how many editions there are of both Kingmaker and Wotr? It's not like smaller devs aren't also guilty of the same thing.
Earth to Vertigo!, are you there! helloooo reality check, you can beat both pathfinders without DLCs and still sink hundreds of hours, quit smoking crack dude or just quit posting all together.
Devs need money to pay people too and sustain business, pay for ad's etc. hence the are DLCs are there to support cash flow, thats a no brainier !
EA is crookery. We used to be paid to test games and send feedbacks to developers. Now, people pay to work. Even slavers couldn't hope for a better model. "Spacer's choice".
Now, there's a better reason for that: this is a very addictive market, and companies capitalize on players' addiction, and like for any dealer, it's pretty easy to exploit consumers. That's why I "Torrent" 90% of games I'm interesting in and that go through EA.
As for Larian, they rarely do DLCs, but they rarely finish their game at release.
It's a real shame some people lack reading comprehension skills. A more savy reader might understand the difference between content expansion DLCs (ex: Starcraft Brood Wars) and a character skin for game X. A sensible person also realizes the difference between bundling DLC into packages with the base game versus releasing an updated version with bugfixes due to poor initial ratings. I will simply quote the Wikipedia page for Kingmaker:
"On the technical side, the game's launch was plagued by numerous bugs, long loading screens and balance issues, which hurt the game's initial reception with both professional critics and customers.[21] In the following months, many of these issues have been fixed by patches.[22]"
It appears the more poorly reviewed versions of Kingmaker have been scrubbed from Steam. I remember a LOT more negative reviews on the basic edition. Only the (mostly) bugfixed editions remain.
But I will also throw out a thought: if game companies released finished, bug free products at the get go, they probably would have far more sales and less bad press. A smaller company will be hurt by bad reviews a LOT worse than when a triple A developer releases a flop.
My point was not as much about DLC (which was an example of industry practices), but the fact that many of the people on here are complaining about games like BG3 being buggy and unfinished are ignoring the fact a lot of Owlcat's content is ALSO buggy and unfinished on release. I got Lord of Nothing on day 1 and could not finish the final area due to bugs.
Buy hey, I am sure your points sounded much more clever in your head...