Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
They should take a long hard look in the mirror.
Either way, the answer is that they don't value their history. Today's developers have active contempt for the legacy of the games they're creating and believe it is their duty to correct them.
See, you acknowledge that the talent has changed, but what happens when the head changes?
In other words, who's writing the job description? https://comicvine.gamespot.com/app.php/forums/off-topic-5/what-does-queerosexual-gendermancer-mean-2349176/
No other dev did RTwP Rpg party combats with serious companions AI, even with companions builds a bit simplified but still involving a ton of party builds variations.
Reason is clear, too difficult or too expensive, it's clear the best bet is it's too expensive (too much tuning cost). Generative AI is still junk to program (at best an assistant for an expert), but clearly the track is open. When it will open, then companions AI could be tuned by such AI, but clearly it's a dream for future and the cost is to be seen anyway.
I've been watching oodles of gameplay to try to get my head around what it is and whether I would enjoy it. Which is difficult while avoiding spoilers. So I've gone ahead and just allowed some spoilers to hit me, because I do want to know more about the narrative structure, etc.
My impressions at least from what I'm seeing and reading, is that this is a game I will enjoy personally, but one that requires me to go into it knowing what I'm getting. It's not Origins. DA2 wasn't Origins either, and DA:I even less so. And this game is very much continuing to iterate in that vein.
This isn't a game intended to be compared to Larian or Owlcat's games in terms narrative branching, agency, or tactical combat. It's very, very intentionally a DA:I sequel (right down to the emphasis on the three choices it includes from that game regarding our Inquisitor during character creation.) The combat is action-oriented, but has more specialization via classes and sub-classes. There's less party control (though, watching more deeper analysis of gameplay, perhaps more than some people assumed there would be too - it's not like we have no way to affect what they do.)
Structure (physical structure I mean - map layout, etc.) is more linear. And as in DA:I, our ability to be "classically evil" as we could in older BioWare games is still not really present. Though, you can make some "dark" choices that seem pretty significant to me.
And the choices and interactions we can make, to me at least, look interesting and engaging. All companions can be romance options - with one of them getting "locked in" and the others "locked out" after a certain point based on our choices. But also, all companions can die depending on whether we do their companion quests or not, and our choices.
So honestly, it seems like a game I can enjoy as someone who also enjoyed DA:I. But yes, it's not Origins. BG3 is the game people want basically if they want that style of more granular, tactical CRPG, imo. And this game doesn't seem to be trying to be a competitor or peer of that game in terms of its design. I've decided to grab it once my new PC build is complete, but I am going into it knowing what I'm getting. If that doesn't sound fun to you, watch more gameplay and see if it changes your mind. If not, it's probably just not your cup of tea. But I am more convinced now that I'll enjoy it than I was.
The old Bioware is long gone and that's a fact.
It's no news either. It's been that way for quite some time.
DAO was a love letter to fans of the original Baldur's Gate but these days people are raving about BG3.
Don't get me wrong, BG3 is a great game but it's also very different and probably closer to Larian's previous titles than the Baldur's Gate legacy.
I'm waiting to play Veilguard to make up my mind about it and although I don't expect it to live up to DAO I fully expect it to surpass DAI which got so many things wrong despite having some of the most likeable characters in the series.
RTwP is dead, the difficulty that has some players to understand it is big. They fail get RTwP like done by owlgat, obsidian, some others can't work properly for enough players.
it's surprising that BG3 could reach a big AAA success with TB, even Fireaxis the ultimate AAA TB experts are far from having sell that much one game. But BG3 RTwP would have no chance, or with DAO like approach, not BG2 like.
DAI Tactical view is better than DAO tactical view. Let be clear as most players I rejected fast the DAI tactical view, until in a replay I decide try really learn use it. After no way DAO combats was looking that much better, still very different gameplay because the weird potion cooldown system was changed for a bizarre energy shield system.
DAI first area is to leave asap and explore more area, come back eventually progress in first area but in fact it's purely optional. Many player killed their DAI play with a completist exploration of first area before explore anything else.
Last trick is DAI has many activities, stop one becoming boring, pick another appealing at this time.
I don't know what to expect from Veilguard, a good RPG, perhaps a bit better than DA2 and MEA, and quite better than ME1.