This game, vs Baldur gate 3?

[トリッシュ]

I was interested about the differences, because I can't buy Baldur Gate 3 right now,
but I would like to understand which one is better, the strong points and everything related you could know about, thanks in advance

[Winter]

It's hard to compare the two. Both are Larian games. Both offer origin chars with developed stories and extra dialogue and story hooks associated with them, while also offering a completely customization experience.

DOS2 suffers from a compressed Act 3 that feels like it needed more time and story that it just didn't get. Acts 1 and 2 though are amazing. It also has a skill- Warfare- which ends up being very overweighted and part of the meta for almost any build.

DOS2 has a unique combat structure, with a magic armor vs physical armor. Taking down mobs' armor is key to being able to damage them or crowd control them, making the ability to focus on one type or the other critical.

BG3, for better or worse, goes out of its way to feel like D&D. If you like D&D, and D&D combat with actions, free actions, bonus actions, reactions, etc...well, it's all in there.

BG3- unlike DOS2- level caps at 12. From a design standpoint, this was done to limit accessible spells from the literally world-changing ones D&D starts to introduce with level 7 spells- planar gates, limited wish, minor miracle, etc... It can be frustrating to come into the 3rd and final act at level 10, and realize that no matter how many side quests you do, or plots you resolve, you are only getting 2 more levels, and after that, you've peaked.

Both games are good for hours and hours of gameplay, and repeatability. Changing classes and party structure in BG3 in particular can make for a very, very different playthrough.

[トリッシュ]

Originally posted by Winter:

It's hard to compare the two. Both are Larian games. Both offer origin chars with developed stories and extra dialogue and story hooks associated with them, while also offering a completely customization experience.

DOS2 suffers from a compressed Act 3 that feels like it needed more time and story that it just didn't get. Acts 1 and 2 though are amazing. It also has a skill- Warfare- which ends up being very overweighted and part of the meta for almost any build.

DOS2 has a unique combat structure, with a magic armor vs physical armor. Taking down mobs' armor is key to being able to damage them or crowd control them, making the ability to focus on one type or the other critical.

BG3, for better or worse, goes out of its way to feel like D&D. If you like D&D, and D&D combat with actions, free actions, bonus actions, reactions, etc...well, it's all in there.

BG3- unlike DOS2- level caps at 12. From a design standpoint, this was done to limit accessible spells from the literally world-changing ones D&D starts to introduce with level 7 spells- planar gates, limited wish, minor miracle, etc... It can be frustrating to come into the 3rd and final act at level 10, and realize that no matter how many side quests you do, or plots you resolve, you are only getting 2 more levels, and after that, you've peaked.

Both games are good for hours and hours of gameplay, and repeatability. Changing classes and party structure in BG3 in particular can make for a very, very different playthrough.

How is the end-game? Boring or still a lot of fun? There are many things to do?
You can go where you want? Is not limited I mean?
Thanks, sorry for the questions, I'm very curious

[Chaoslink]

Both games are story based campaigns. The “end game” is just the story wrapping up. It isn’t any different from the mid game or early game. You finish your run and that’s it. You’re done. There aren’t any grindy mechanics where you have to go farm enemies for levels. There are only so many things to fight and once you’re done, you’re done.

BG3 has more to it. More details, little things to interact with and more creative ways of doing things. Divinity still has that stuff, but to a lesser degree. It’s still a good game though.

From a story perspective, Latina is great at world building and immersing you in the area, but the overarching narrative is pretty basic and open ended. The games themselves are pretty linear though, Divinity even more so. BG3 has less level ups and less power creep per level up, meaning enemies of your level are more spread around and fighting above your level isn’t as hard. Divinity has a pretty set path you’ll want to follow or you’ll stumble into enemies multiple levels higher than you and they’ll crush you. You get forced to follow a particular path. Divinity also has some structure to how you want to build your party, whereas BG3 lets you do pretty much any combination you like.

BG3 is based off 5th Edition D&D, meaning it relies heavily on randomness where everything is a dice roll. You roll to hit, so you’ll miss roughly half your attacks and status effects allow enemies to make a saving throw to evade them. You can land a critical hit where you roll low on the damage dice meaning your critical hit might do less damage than a regular hit that rolled high. It’s all RNG. DOS2 removes most of that RNG. Base hit chance is 95% and getting that last 5% is pretty easy. Status effects are blocked 100% of the time of you have intact armor, which is just an extra health bar. You always know what the effect of your attack will be in Divinity, you don’t know in BG3.

[ohio skibidi sigma boss]

i cant roll a persuasion check to have hot lesbian sex with red big lady, bad game

[Emperor Zero]

If this game is anything like bg3 then i'd be shocked by how popular bg3 because this game is one of the worst games i've played lmao. i quit it ages ago decided to give it a fair chance again and its one of the most boring garbage games.

[yuzhonglu]

If you quit it ages ago, why are you here in this forum?

[Emperor Zero]

Originally posted by yuzhonglu:

If you quit it ages ago, why are you here in this forum?

Can you read? i said i played it again recently lmao, still sucks!

[Feto]

If you are part of the D&D cult, then you will like BG3. If you aren't, then it's hit or miss, mostly miss. It does have better cutscenes, conversations and things like that. But the combat is so D&D that's just dumb.

DOS doesn't have as polished conversations but the combat is more modern and feels a LOT better.

So if you prefer all the reading and roleplaying in RPGs then BG3 is better. If you prefer good combat then DOS is better.

[Haki]

History i prefer divinity, but as a game in general baldur's it is better

[Ballistic Drop]

I prefer Divinity, BG3 leans way too hard into forcing relationships and horny time for my taste.

[Xaphnir]

Originally posted by ohio skibidi sigma boss:

i cant roll a persuasion check to have hot lesbian sex with red big lady, bad game

Clearly you've yet to romance Sebille with a female character

[Shas'Ui Demotana]

Originally posted by Emperor Zero:

If this game is anything like bg3 then i'd be shocked by how popular bg3 because this game is one of the worst games i've played lmao. i quit it ages ago decided to give it a fair chance again and its one of the most boring garbage games.

I can assure you that it's nothing like Baldur's Gate 3. Combat is hyper asf if you're into XCOM 2, though it doesn't have the same kind of environmental destruction, and dialogues are not (at least "not as" for sure) tedious to go through. I'd be up for a co-op run if you end up buying it.

As for the original post, TLDR BG3 is fundamentally a waste of time and money, Div2 is good.

The personal opinion I can give is that BG3 has low-tier fodder writing. None of the characters are memorable, other than the Michael-Jackson-looking ♥♥♥♥♥ that keeps making "TCHK TSK GRRAK PRRA PRRA SKRR SKRR" noises in every dialogue. Also that one companion mage guy who keeps whining that for some reason you're apparently obligated to feed him rare weapons/armors, but otherwise has shallow and edgy personality. Not even the "cool" kind of edgy, just whiny and obnoxious. Every companion character then immediately proceeds to tell you how they're having very expressive sexual fantasies about you as soon as you get any kind of positive standing with them.

There is only one sort of "good" thing about the game. You have a lot of classes to choose from, and each of them has multiple subclasses, some of which affect how the story plays out or how your character can interact with NPCs in dialogue. It sounds great in concept, but you will see very little of it in action by the time you realize the game falls short in every other aspect that makes a videogame. Not to mention people can basically race ahead of you into starting a dialogue, so you might never get to have a chance at seeing that class-based option.

Also I guess it's kinda cool that the world is riddled with massive clusters of shiny items that you can collect for profit, which the loot goblin in me will always approve of.

The technical perspective is:

BG3 has horrible optimization, switching to low settings changes little and continues to render overly-high-res textures and particles.

The game pretends to be oriented around co-op first, but there are very frequent cases of desynchronization mid-combat where certain objects would remain present for certain players and obstruct their attacks, but not for others. That being among other various borderline game-breaking things related to desync, it's a total mess.

The level and UI design are monotonous. And I don't just mean boring, it all tends to blend into one mass of color where it's hard to tell what you're looking at, as though you're color-blind. Literally contrasting to this, Divinity 2's color scheme is vibrant, and every UI icon (including abilities) is self-explanatory without having to read every single detail of every button's description.

I could also write you an entire massive essay on every single reason that the combat system behind BG3 should never exist in a videogame, but the gist of it is that you have no real control over anything, and pure unpredictable RNG determines everything. Every small fight can last up to an hour because everybody either misses or deals little to no damage.

This is not even mentioning yet that all of the (not so) "fun" abilities are pretty much only usable once per fight, and you can spend this sort of "ammo" on only one ability from all those you have unlocked. Afterwards, you have to go through about 4 loading screens to "rest" and get it back. Once you've used them up, probably missed all of them, you're down to using default abilities that are even more likely to miss and deal even less damage.

All-in-all, it's sort of like how Black Desert is an AFK grinder with toxic monetization practices that pretends to be MMORPG, while BG3 is a virtual dating sim disguised as turn-based tactics which doesn't even have a good combat system.

And as for Div2? I can only give it praise. Perhaps, it has some kind of flaws that other people will find, but none that especially stood out to me. It's a co-op Fantasy RPG alternative to XCOM 2, which is a game that I have extensive experience with and consider a must-play even for people who aren't into the genre.

[solaris2]

I played both games, and altough I did enjoy DOS2 quite a lot, I enjoyed BG3 a lot more.
First because of the D&D ruleset and the Forgotten Realms setting BG3 is based on, which simply does appeal more to me. (I played BG2. and NWN too in the past) but this is just something personal.

Second: because of how the character classes work, in DOS2 anyone can do anything, In BG3 a mage feels like a mage, a rogue like a rogue, etc. this is not the case with DOS2. So for this reason the RP aspect and immersion feel much stronger in BG3

And last but not least, the graphics and cutscenes are way better in BG3, but since its a newer game and approx 3 times larger in size, it not really fair to compare them. But you can't ignore it either.

Still, both are worth the money and worth playing, but if I had to choose just one, it be BG3

[AmonAlouqua]

Larian took everything in DOS 2. The characters, their stories and the main story are much better in DOS 2. The crafting is huge in DOS 2, BG 3 the crafting haha... The combat system in DOS 2 is is pure tactics, no luck. In BG3 it's lamentably easy and rotten by the randomness of the dice (F5 voted best key of the year, in BG 3). BG3 I stopped at the beginning of act 3 which is not finished (probably missing 2 years of EA...). More than 1000 hours on DOS 2 and a part still in progress. There is so much to do in DOS 2 and even more with the new classes, skills and crafting mods that this game has enormous replayability. BG 3 apart from overdosing on dice with sleep-inducing cutscenes, I don't see the point in replaying. I avoid comparing character construction with Pathfinder WotR because it's so laughable in BG 3. In the DnD style Pathfinder WotR is vastly better (even the story is better). Finally, DOS 2 is better than BG 3.
Personal opinion from a TB fan.

[fulf]

dos2 is so much better