Ironically, I'll probably never touch it considering how unlike the first two games it actually is. It's more of another Dragon-Age than a Baldur's Gate sequel. I'd consider anything that's emblematic of 5e to be kind of a dumpster fire by default. It's the edition of little to no player lethality. The edition of heterochromia half-orc demon winged intersexed spawn of a nephalim that's multiclassed four or five different ways. It's for the deviant art and tik tok tourists that have adopted D&D after Critical Roll and Stranger Things made it socially viable. And that's all clearly reflected in the anachronistic and quippy writing. Qualities that are all totally unlike the first two games. If it weren't called Baldur's Gate 3, I wouldn't have many qualms, but.... it is.
I get that 5e isn't for you but the writing definitely isn't anachronistic, quite the opposite in fact and both of the earlier BG (main) games definitely had their quippy moments.
Well you can't expect them to stick with 3.5, so what to do? I would say 13th Age, Pathfinder or Shadow of The Demon Lord. We need video games to get away from this DnD default mentality.
Ironically, I'll probably never touch it considering how unlike the first two games it actually is. It's more of another Dragon-Age than a Baldur's Gate sequel. I'd consider anything that's emblematic of 5e to be kind of a dumpster fire by default. It's the edition of little to no player lethality. The edition of heterochromia half-orc demon winged intersexed spawn of a nephalim that's multiclassed four or five different ways. It's for the deviant art and tik tok tourists that have adopted D&D after Critical Roll and Stranger Things made it socially viable. And that's all clearly reflected in the anachronistic and quippy writing. Qualities that are all totally unlike the first two games. If it weren't called Baldur's Gate 3, I wouldn't have many qualms, but.... it is.
I get that 5e isn't for you but the writing definitely isn't anachronistic, quite the opposite in fact and both of the earlier BG (main) games definitely had their quippy moments.
Well you can't expect them to stick with 3.5, so what to do? I would say 13th Age, Pathfinder or Shadow of The Demon Lord. We need video games to get away from this DnD default mentality.
3.5 is still wotc crap, and Pathfinder is even more of a power gamers dream. The insane marvel-esque scale and tone of 5e and pf2e make it anti-immersion. I can't imagine a better way to kill verisimilitude than make everyone a rapidly healing super soldier from first level. I'll suffer no fools that come to my table talking about their 'build' I understand why a developer won't ever use one of the OSR style systems, but mechanics do 100% inform the way people interpret and interact with the world.
Ironically, I'll probably never touch it considering how unlike the first two games it actually is. It's more of another Dragon-Age than a Baldur's Gate sequel. I'd consider anything that's emblematic of 5e to be kind of a dumpster fire by default. It's the edition of little to no player lethality. The edition of heterochromia half-orc demon winged intersexed spawn of a nephalim that's multiclassed four or five different ways. It's for the deviant art and tik tok tourists that have adopted D&D after Critical Roll and Stranger Things made it socially viable. And that's all clearly reflected in the anachronistic and quippy writing. Qualities that are all totally unlike the first two games. If it weren't called Baldur's Gate 3, I wouldn't have many qualms, but.... it is.
I get that 5e isn't for you but the writing definitely isn't anachronistic, quite the opposite in fact and both of the earlier BG (main) games definitely had their quippy moments.
Well you can't expect them to stick with 3.5, so what to do? I would say 13th Age, Pathfinder or Shadow of The Demon Lord. We need video games to get away from this DnD default mentality.
Yeah I wouldn't expect them to go with 3.5. I love the way that Larian have implemented 5e into the combat myself and its definitely not a true representation, rather a representation playable in a video game.
They give you the tools to essentially play the game how you want to which to me is the ultimate definition of role playing.
Want to have a completely overpowered party? No problem, Sorc/Cleric/Wizard as tank (basically cant be damaged and damages anyone who tries), Rang/Rogue/Fight as dps ( attacks with duel welded hand crossbows, insane amount of attacks per turn), Cleric/Monk (insane DPS, 4 attacks), Bard/Rogue/Fighter (another insanely good DPS build with the added bonus of Bard utility thrown in for good measure)
Want to be challenged? No problem, just go with the standard classes and don't multi-class
Want to solo? No problem, just go with an insane throw build or barrelmancy or both!
Honestly we should be applauding when a game gives us so many role playing options in a game.
Ironically, I'll probably never touch it considering how unlike the first two games it actually is. It's more of another Dragon-Age than a Baldur's Gate sequel. I'd consider anything that's emblematic of 5e to be kind of a dumpster fire by default. It's the edition of little to no player lethality. The edition of heterochromia half-orc demon winged intersexed spawn of a nephalim that's multiclassed four or five different ways. It's for the deviant art and tik tok tourists that have adopted D&D after Critical Roll and Stranger Things made it socially viable. And that's all clearly reflected in the anachronistic and quippy writing. Qualities that are all totally unlike the first two games. If it weren't called Baldur's Gate 3, I wouldn't have many qualms, but.... it is.
I get that 5e isn't for you but the writing definitely isn't anachronistic, quite the opposite in fact and both of the earlier BG (main) games definitely had their quippy moments.
Well you can't expect them to stick with 3.5, so what to do? I would say 13th Age, Pathfinder or Shadow of The Demon Lord. We need video games to get away from this DnD default mentality.
3.5 is still wotc crap, and Pathfinder is even more of a power gamers dream. The insane marvel-esque scale and tone of 5e and pf2e make it anti-immersion. I can't imagine a better way to kill verisimilitude than make everyone a rapidly healing super soldier from first level. I'll suffer no fools that come to my table talking about their 'build' I understand why a developer won't ever use one of the OSR style systems, but mechanics do 100% inform the way people interpret and interact with the world.
Don't hold back Phaedruslives!
Are you named after the philosopher or more likely the classic old rpg btw?
You are right up to a point, there is in fact a parallel here with MMO's, just like every class must heal in a MMO, every class must heal in a tabletop RPG. Personally I look at this as great for storyteller narrative, woeful for that excitement born out of any combat encounter ending your career. The problem for RPG's from both worlds is they have all headed the same way, one gameplay concept becoming a monolith we can find few exceptions too. The alternatives I mentioned are all firmly of the "modern" TTRPG approach.
Ironically, I'll probably never touch it considering how unlike the first two games it actually is. It's more of another Dragon-Age than a Baldur's Gate sequel. I'd consider anything that's emblematic of 5e to be kind of a dumpster fire by default. It's the edition of little to no player lethality. The edition of heterochromia half-orc demon winged intersexed spawn of a nephalim that's multiclassed four or five different ways. It's for the deviant art and tik tok tourists that have adopted D&D after Critical Roll and Stranger Things made it socially viable. And that's all clearly reflected in the anachronistic and quippy writing. Qualities that are all totally unlike the first two games. If it weren't called Baldur's Gate 3, I wouldn't have many qualms, but.... it is.
I get that 5e isn't for you but the writing definitely isn't anachronistic, quite the opposite in fact and both of the earlier BG (main) games definitely had their quippy moments.
Well you can't expect them to stick with 3.5, so what to do? I would say 13th Age, Pathfinder or Shadow of The Demon Lord. We need video games to get away from this DnD default mentality.
Different rule sets are fine but isn’t pathfinder somewhat complicated?
the average person isn’t going to go for that.
Heck, I play games and wouldn’t go for that.
the beauty of the dungeons and dragons ruleset is the that it’s somewhat straightforward.
of course a computer would do most of the heavy lifting but aren’t the current pathfinder video games deemed hard to learn?
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Ironically, I'll probably never touch it considering how unlike the first two games it actually is. It's more of another Dragon-Age than a Baldur's Gate sequel. I'd consider anything that's emblematic of 5e to be kind of a dumpster fire by default. It's the edition of little to no player lethality. The edition of heterochromia half-orc demon winged intersexed spawn of a nephalim that's multiclassed four or five different ways. It's for the deviant art and tik tok tourists that have adopted D&D after Critical Roll and Stranger Things made it socially viable. And that's all clearly reflected in the anachronistic and quippy writing. Qualities that are all totally unlike the first two games. If it weren't called Baldur's Gate 3, I wouldn't have many qualms, but.... it is.
I get that 5e isn't for you but the writing definitely isn't anachronistic, quite the opposite in fact and both of the earlier BG (main) games definitely had their quippy moments.
Well you can't expect them to stick with 3.5, so what to do? I would say 13th Age, Pathfinder or Shadow of The Demon Lord. We need video games to get away from this DnD default mentality.
Different rule sets are fine but isn’t pathfinder somewhat complicated?
the average person isn’t going to go for that.
Heck, I play games and wouldn’t go for that.
the beauty of the dungeons and dragons ruleset is the that it’s somewhat straightforward.
of course a computer would do most of the heavy lifting but aren’t the current pathfinder video games deemed hard to learn?
Well its the idea that the computer does the work that means players can leave the headache behind. What about Anima Beyond Fantasy, which is very Final Fantasy but awfully crunchy. Its is not highly rated as a TTRPG, but flavour may be more important in a video game.
Ironically, I'll probably never touch it considering how unlike the first two games it actually is. It's more of another Dragon-Age than a Baldur's Gate sequel. I'd consider anything that's emblematic of 5e to be kind of a dumpster fire by default. It's the edition of little to no player lethality. The edition of heterochromia half-orc demon winged intersexed spawn of a nephalim that's multiclassed four or five different ways. It's for the deviant art and tik tok tourists that have adopted D&D after Critical Roll and Stranger Things made it socially viable. And that's all clearly reflected in the anachronistic and quippy writing. Qualities that are all totally unlike the first two games. If it weren't called Baldur's Gate 3, I wouldn't have many qualms, but.... it is.
I get that 5e isn't for you but the writing definitely isn't anachronistic, quite the opposite in fact and both of the earlier BG (main) games definitely had their quippy moments.
Well you can't expect them to stick with 3.5, so what to do? I would say 13th Age, Pathfinder or Shadow of The Demon Lord. We need video games to get away from this DnD default mentality.
3.5 is still wotc crap, and Pathfinder is even more of a power gamers dream. The insane marvel-esque scale and tone of 5e and pf2e make it anti-immersion. I can't imagine a better way to kill verisimilitude than make everyone a rapidly healing super soldier from first level. I'll suffer no fools that come to my table talking about their 'build' I understand why a developer won't ever use one of the OSR style systems, but mechanics do 100% inform the way people interpret and interact with the world.
Don't hold back Phaedruslives!
Are you named after the philosopher or more likely the classic old rpg btw?
You are right up to a point, there is in fact a parallel here with MMO's, just like every class must heal in a MMO, every class must heal in a tabletop RPG. Personally I look at this as great for storyteller narrative, woeful for that excitement born out of any combat encounter ending your career. The problem for RPG's from both worlds is they have all headed the same way, one gameplay concept becoming a monolith we can find few exceptions too. The alternatives I mentioned are all firmly of the "modern" TTRPG approach.
The philosopher. I stand by the old school systems because of their rulings over rules approach. This would actually make adapting easier, given that you can layer mechanics onto them without violating any of the core principles and style of play. It really feels like Wotc went in the complete opposite direction from something like B/X or BECMI. I believe that they basically reversed the cultural feedback loop and started copying video-game mechanics, rather than all of video-gaming copying them for the first 25 years or so of D&D, and that is really clearly reflected in the addition of feats and skills, and then even more plainly in 4E. They pared it back a bit, but kept the VG style design philosophy of each character being the protagonist in terms of power and agency. This is kind if antithetical to the idea of a group of a tough, but working class adventurers braving some dark hole where monsters and curses and traps are minute to minute realities. I accept that gaming has moved away from this since BG1-2 but man, Baldur's Gate really leaned into the lethality of adventure, particularly for low level characters. Running into an Ogre that was nearly always going to wipe your party just out of candle-keep.
When I got to act 3 it kinda turned me off because I felt rushed and overwhelmed but then digging into that area and just exploring around for stuff to do, I found it to be much deeper than at first look and really enjoyed it.
It's a solid game and deserves all the praise but it's nowhere close to topping Baldur's Gate 2, for me personally.
Surely we have to wait until BG3 has roughly the same number of expansions as BG2 to make a judgment like that?
So one expansion then? Has Larian even said they're going to make an expansion for BG3? Even without Throne of Bhaal, BG2 is still a better game.
I saw that Larian stated no expansion plans for BG3.
Personally, I agree with you on BG2. Such great writing.
Come on, does anyone believe they will hold to that for what may well be GotY? I am astonished they said that mind you. If you think the writing is better though, then BG2 will remain the better game no matter what they now do.
It's a solid game and deserves all the praise but it's nowhere close to topping Baldur's Gate 2, for me personally.
Surely we have to wait until BG3 has roughly the same number of expansions as BG2 to make a judgment like that?
So one expansion then? Has Larian even said they're going to make an expansion for BG3? Even without Throne of Bhaal, BG2 is still a better game.
I saw that Larian stated no expansion plans for BG3.
Personally, I agree with you on BG2. Such great writing.
Come on, does anyone believe they will hold to that for what may well be GotY? I am astonished they said that mind you. If you think the writing is better though, then BG2 will remain the better game no matter what they now do.
They are probably the wrong studio to ask that question to, just after release on PC and PS5. Currently they are probably just concentrating on bug fixes (there are a few) and the macOS and Xbox releases.
Larian are not renowned for chucking DLC after DLC out and most of the DLC they have done to date has been free.
Saying that, what they said was that they were not planning/working on any DLC currently, that's bound to change once they have released to all platforms and chucked a few patches out.
It's a solid game and deserves all the praise but it's nowhere close to topping Baldur's Gate 2, for me personally.
Surely we have to wait until BG3 has roughly the same number of expansions as BG2 to make a judgment like that?
So one expansion then? Has Larian even said they're going to make an expansion for BG3? Even without Throne of Bhaal, BG2 is still a better game.
I saw that Larian stated no expansion plans for BG3.
Personally, I agree with you on BG2. Such great writing.
Come on, does anyone believe they will hold to that for what may well be GotY? I am astonished they said that mind you. If you think the writing is better though, then BG2 will remain the better game no matter what they now do.
They are probably the wrong studio to ask that question to, just after release on PC and PS5. Currently they are probably just concentrating on bug fixes (there are a few) and the macOS and Xbox releases.
Larian are not renowned for chucking DLC after DLC out and most of the DLC they have done to date has been free.
Saying that, what they said was that they were not planning/working on any DLC currently, that's bound to change once they have released to all platforms and chucked a few patches out.
No DLC is fine for me personally, if the base game feels whole without it. Hogwarts Legacy doesn't have any planned DLC either and I'm okay with that. It's been long forgotten but in my mind it's still one of the best games of the year and one of the few where my character truly felt like a wizard and not just a glass cannon nuker.
I think BG3 should be appreciated for what it is and how it's renewed the love for Forgotten Realms and D&D with a lot of gamers.
I'm not big on "goty" stuff anyways. I find the idea reductive and useless and I think it diminishes giving each game the appreciation they have earned on their own. So, I don't really care if BG3 gets awards from tangentially relevant media outlets. I'll play it someday regardless.
It's a solid game and deserves all the praise but it's nowhere close to topping Baldur's Gate 2, for me personally.
Surely we have to wait until BG3 has roughly the same number of expansions as BG2 to make a judgment like that?
So one expansion then? Has Larian even said they're going to make an expansion for BG3? Even without Throne of Bhaal, BG2 is still a better game.
I saw that Larian stated no expansion plans for BG3.
Personally, I agree with you on BG2. Such great writing.
Come on, does anyone believe they will hold to that for what may well be GotY? I am astonished they said that mind you. If you think the writing is better though, then BG2 will remain the better game no matter what they now do.
They are probably the wrong studio to ask that question to, just after release on PC and PS5. Currently they are probably just concentrating on bug fixes (there are a few) and the macOS and Xbox releases.
Larian are not renowned for chucking DLC after DLC out and most of the DLC they have done to date has been free.
Saying that, what they said was that they were not planning/working on any DLC currently, that's bound to change once they have released to all platforms and chucked a few patches out.
No DLC is fine for me personally, if the base game feels whole without it. Hogwarts Legacy doesn't have any planned DLC either and I'm okay with that. It's been long forgotten but in my mind it's still one of the best games of the year and one of the few where my character truly felt like a wizard and not just a glass cannon nuker.
I think BG3 should be appreciated for what it is and how it's renewed the love for Forgotten Realms and D&D with a lot of gamers.
I'm not big on "goty" stuff anyways. I find the idea reductive and useless and I think it diminishes giving each game the appreciation they have earned on their own. So, I don't really care if BG3 gets awards from tangentially relevant media outlets. I'll play it someday regardless.
I am not happy about game awards myself, but if we must have them then having an RPG win sends out a signal and we could do with more great rpgs.
Is it just me or does the quality of the game take a deep dive over time?
Act 1 is quite the masterpiece in comparison. Act 2 is still good. And Act 3... well, it almost feels like made by a different studio. All in all, it's becoming a bit of a drag to even go on.
I can't comment much on the ruleset, outside whichever 1/2 used was far superior to everything else. BUT any claiming superiority, with titles, like tyranny, Pathfinder (or, and I hate to say it, Pillars) Is woefully bad/incomplete. Pillars of Eternity (1) had the best new age ruleset, and, out the gate, the armor system favored EVERYONE wearing the biggest metal they could. I'd say there is no real ruleset outside of what (2.5/3/3.5) what BG /1 /2 / the icewind dales series (possibly neverwinter??))) used. EVERYTHING is so janky as to be nigh unusuable, without massive overwrites (pillars is entirely different than its initial foray). The games themselves are almost carbon copies, it's the story and the RULESET that make them unique.
Is it just me or does the quality of the game take a deep dive over time?
Act 1 is quite the masterpiece in comparison. Act 2 is still good. And Act 3... well, it almost feels like made by a different studio. All in all, it's becoming a bit of a drag to even go on.
This was my experience with Pillars of Eternity. It's a longish game, but Act 1 is fairly brilliant; in Act 2 cracks start to show; Act 3 is a slog I feel like they didn't expect many to reach. I feel like this is common with a fair bit of CRPGs and other long games in particular.
For me, this is why games like The Witcher 3 stand out because they're solid from start to finish, and the DLC (which could be their own standalone titles) only make the core game better, not distract from it.
Is it just me or does the quality of the game take a deep dive over time?
Act 1 is quite the masterpiece in comparison. Act 2 is still good. And Act 3... well, it almost feels like made by a different studio. All in all, it's becoming a bit of a drag to even go on.
This was my experience with Pillars of Eternity. It's a longish game, but Act 1 is fairly brilliant; in Act 2 cracks start to show; Act 3 is a slog I feel like they didn't expect many to reach. I feel like this is common with a fair bit of CRPGs and other long games in particular.
For me, this is why games like The Witcher 3 stand out because they're solid from start to finish, and the DLC (which could be their own standalone titles) only make the core game better, not distract from it.
Exactly how I feel about BG3 The Acts broke down to good, decent, ugly
Im in act 3 now and all my save games wont load since i get a error code like 306,116 or something...so no wi cant save my games anymore,,,so i must complete the game now from act 3......!!!!
Is it just me or does the quality of the game take a deep dive over time?
Act 1 is quite the masterpiece in comparison. Act 2 is still good. And Act 3... well, it almost feels like made by a different studio. All in all, it's becoming a bit of a drag to even go on.
This was my experience with Pillars of Eternity. It's a longish game, but Act 1 is fairly brilliant; in Act 2 cracks start to show; Act 3 is a slog I feel like they didn't expect many to reach. I feel like this is common with a fair bit of CRPGs and other long games in particular.
For me, this is why games like The Witcher 3 stand out because they're solid from start to finish, and the DLC (which could be their own standalone titles) only make the core game better, not distract from it.
Exactly how I feel about BG3 The Acts broke down to good, decent, ugly
The Good the Decent and the Ugly? (Scot takes a look at his pocket watch and spits in his spittoon, "darn wrong film")
Comments
They give you the tools to essentially play the game how you want to which to me is the ultimate definition of role playing.
Want to have a completely overpowered party? No problem, Sorc/Cleric/Wizard as tank (basically cant be damaged and damages anyone who tries), Rang/Rogue/Fight as dps ( attacks with duel welded hand crossbows, insane amount of attacks per turn), Cleric/Monk (insane DPS, 4 attacks), Bard/Rogue/Fighter (another insanely good DPS build with the added bonus of Bard utility thrown in for good measure)
Want to be challenged? No problem, just go with the standard classes and don't multi-class
Want to solo? No problem, just go with an insane throw build or barrelmancy or both!
Honestly we should be applauding when a game gives us so many role playing options in a game.
Are you named after the philosopher or more likely the classic old rpg btw?
You are right up to a point, there is in fact a parallel here with MMO's, just like every class must heal in a MMO, every class must heal in a tabletop RPG. Personally I look at this as great for storyteller narrative, woeful for that excitement born out of any combat encounter ending your career. The problem for RPG's from both worlds is they have all headed the same way, one gameplay concept becoming a monolith we can find few exceptions too. The alternatives I mentioned are all firmly of the "modern" TTRPG approach.
the average person isn’t going to go for that.
Heck, I play games and wouldn’t go for that.
the beauty of the dungeons and dragons ruleset is the that it’s somewhat straightforward.
of course a computer would do most of the heavy lifting but aren’t the current pathfinder video games deemed hard to learn?
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I stand by the old school systems because of their rulings over rules approach. This would actually make adapting easier, given that you can layer mechanics onto them without violating any of the core principles and style of play. It really feels like Wotc went in the complete opposite direction from something like B/X or BECMI. I believe that they basically reversed the cultural feedback loop and started copying video-game mechanics, rather than all of video-gaming copying them for the first 25 years or so of D&D, and that is really clearly reflected in the addition of feats and skills, and then even more plainly in 4E. They pared it back a bit, but kept the VG style design philosophy of each character being the protagonist in terms of power and agency. This is kind if antithetical to the idea of a group of a tough, but working class adventurers braving some dark hole where monsters and curses and traps are minute to minute realities. I accept that gaming has moved away from this since BG1-2 but man, Baldur's Gate really leaned into the lethality of adventure, particularly for low level characters. Running into an Ogre that was nearly always going to wipe your party just out of candle-keep.
So one expansion then? Has Larian even said they're going to make an expansion for BG3? Even without Throne of Bhaal, BG2 is still a better game.
Personally, I agree with you on BG2.
Such great writing.
Larian are not renowned for chucking DLC after DLC out and most of the DLC they have done to date has been free.
Saying that, what they said was that they were not planning/working on any DLC currently, that's bound to change once they have released to all platforms and chucked a few patches out.
The Acts broke down to
good, decent, ugly
i start two days ago!
its really awesome game! top of 2023
supa supa
https://gayporn.name/models/danny-montero/
https://freegayporn.club/sites/sharp-men/
https://gaypornwebsite.com/videos/wet-wet-takes-10-inch-black-dick-raw/