安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語（日文）
한국어（韓文）
ไทย（泰文）
Български（保加利亞文）
Čeština（捷克文）
Dansk（丹麥文）
Deutsch（德文）
English（英文）
Español - España（西班牙文 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希臘文）
Français（法文）
Italiano（義大利文）
Bahasa Indonesia（印尼語）
Magyar（匈牙利文）
Nederlands（荷蘭文）
Norsk（挪威文）
Polski（波蘭文）
Português（葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙）
Português - Brasil（葡萄牙文 - 巴西）
Română（羅馬尼亞文）
Русский（俄文）
Suomi（芬蘭文）
Svenska（瑞典文）
Türkçe（土耳其文）
tiếng Việt（越南文）
Українська（烏克蘭文）
回報翻譯問題
討論區規矩與守則
10 
檢舉此篇文章
Maybe BG3 is going to be great and nothing like their usual work but that seems like a very long shot.
Yep.
Amazing how people doesnt even understand what a saga is, or title, or identity, is. Like if they were treating games just like drugs instead of hobby and art
personally I dont mind the turn based that much, but all the rest... Godsake, they really need to work as hell into the project and respect BG saga
I haven't played the DOS games more than a brief moment, but I would prefer to try those again and pretend this Baldur's Gate 3 doesn't exist. Maybe I'm wrong and it'll be great, but it'll still lack in ways. It appears to be dnd 5th edition version of DOS as others have said.
If you think the rtwp is the only that makes bg series, you kind of missed the issue.
First, the game plays to much like d:os, environmental combos and puzzles using the stuff on the ground are all great but that's not really what's bg is about.
While there where puzzles, they were more like riddles. Also the big point of BG is the urban and social gameplay, opposed to the pure dungeon crawling, where you can make thief and diplomat's skills shine with stealth quests and shakedown, pickpocket etc.
That's not really part of divinity os.
There is also the issue of the dark humor and overall dark ambiance of the series. It's not dark as epic dark but subtle, borderline psycho dark, like imoen telling jaheira how irenicus made her watch while he cut khalid into pieces with details, the story of rape of viconia, the tourist getting killed in durlag tower and how nobody in the room cares and just continues the tour.
The serial killer quest in bg2 and how you can finish his work and complete the flesh armour after killing the guy.
The first assault in candlekeep in bg1 prologue where you can just tell your teacher the cat just wanted to play instead of saying that you just killed someone when he asks your about the noise inside.
The whole backstabbing and cloak and dagger stuff in quests, and unexpected resolutions. The general debauchery, like the mansion in beregost where you can visit the lady with her lover in the closet and just tell her you heard the rumors about her being open to things and scare the hell out her, with him standing naked and unable to do anything to defend her honor.
The fighting and pairing between party members is also a big part of the game, with people just starting to murder each other over an argument.
There is also the general ambiance, which is more dirty, more horrific. In bg3 the forests are just to colored, to bright, just like in d:os.
What's great with the game is that it's essentially the crazy sruff that can happen in real tabletop games, when someone makes his char just snap because why the hell not.
There is also the UI I hope they change it to something that looks like more tabletop, kingmaker had the good idea there with the book and flying papers. Something woody or stone like bg 1 would be great, as it is it looks to much like nwn and dragon age horrible ui.
The 4 man team also is going to be an issue, as it usually locks you into standard formations (warrior-like, thief, caster, healer), and doesn't allow much room to more crowd control and d&d specific buffs, which are not in d:os (stuff like charms, spell protections and breakers, illusions etc. are extremely limited, but are the basics of d&d).
We saw it in nwn2 and the 4 char party, as well as all other games with 4 char parties.
6 char parties also mean you can add more complexity to the big fights and bring them to a larger scale, without them turning into a hack fest.
Look, I see your point, I felt fallout 3 should have been called Fallout 3D. But it wasn't and it rebooted the franchise.
Its called Baldur's gate 3 because Larian owns the rights to Baldurs gate and it will sell better than, calling it something else.
the bulk of the people who played fallout 3 and rebooted the fallout franchise never played 1 or 2.
You aren't actually the target audience for this game, they fully expect you to stay in the past.
Yeah, this is what I'm getting at. Same thing happened to Fallout series (New Vegas being the only positive exception out of the whole lot), Bethesda butchered the lore and stuck with what they were half-competent (ie. not the writing, branching questlines and pretty much everything that Fallout was about, up to that point) at the cost of alienating the long-time Fallout fans.
And now we have these Larian fanboys crawling out of the woodwork, telling us how the games they've never played are inferior ("because those are old games") to Larian's upcoming game. I get it, I'm obviously not the target audience, but getting insulted by Larian fanboy simply for not being ecstatic as they are is another thing.
For comparison let's take a hypothetical example:
If the new Doom game turned out to be a cover-based shooter with auto-regenerating health instead of fast-paced FPS, Doom fans would be pissed while CoD / Gears of War fans would frantically yell at them "different times gramps!".
I saw many enthusiastic comments as well below the recent gameplay videos. Personally, I dont expect BG3 to be especially good. Because I played DOS2 and barely finished it one time. It just didnt captivate me very long. The beginning of the game wasnt bad but then the plot just lost momentum. The characters you could invite to your group werent anywhere near as charismatic as the BG2 companions. The voice acting wasnt that good.
The quests werent anywhere near as entertaining as BG2's quests. The overall story just wasnt very captivating. Compare the (voice acting of the) villain(s) of BG2 to the ones of DOS2. You cant even compare it. Irenicus was more charismatic than the entire game of DOS2. In BG2 you found fantastic artifacts, that had back stories, names, that you could enhance. That often times accompanied you throughout the entire game.
In DOS2? You ran to the vendor of the next area and upgraded your gear. Again and again and over again. Lifeless, nameless, boring, random gear. There are so many other things. Its personal preference but I played BG2 TOB prolly like ten times by now. Playing it again right now. DOS2 just bored me.
That's why I dont expect Larian's BG3 will be as addicting and awesome as BG2 where you had a insane amount of classes and class combos. Dual classing, multiclassing. Romance. ♥♥♥♥, there's so many things I loved and love about that game. If they create BG3 comparable to DOS2 then I will be disappointed.
Concurrent, realtime movement and actions are the bread and butter of modern CRPGs.
D&D time is measured in rounds (six seconds) and turns (10 rounds), but in an adaptation to computer based roleplaying, individual units don't need to wait until all foes have moved/acted. It is outright silly to watch a dozen characters wait (and be stuck in an idle animation loop) while only a single character can move/act.
Admittedly, I like the area graphics and camera freedom, but not the huge 3D models during conversation. The game seems to focus on cinematics and full acting also during conversation. That will get boring soon.
Its like a pc game being dumbed down so it can be played on console.