| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Gyor |
Posted - 12 Jun 2023 : 01:21:59
https://youtu.be/t0uYhTLPGLQ
The mad lads/lasses did it, its the whole freaking city, I can see all the wards,even the Outer City. And its the 5e version which is much bigger then in BG1, because of massive amounts of Spellplague refugees. BG is now the biggest city on Faerun in 4e/5e and when it full releases in August (28th for EA players, 31st for everyone else).
Its soooo beautiful. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Zeromaru X |
Posted - 14 Aug 2024 : 04:51:53
So, canonish, as all videogames are, according to Ed Greenwood. |
| Werthead |
Posted - 13 Aug 2024 : 19:10:38
I met Swen Vincke and one of the other BG3 writers at WorldCon in Glasgow this weekend (where BG3 added a Hugo Award to its vast library of other awards) and saw a panel on the game. They had an interesting bit where they discussed canon and what they could and could not do, and apparently after the first year or two of development of being very careful in tracking canon, Wizards of the Coast told them they couldn't keep tabs on the immensity of everything they were doing and suggested they'd simply declare BG3 itself not-exactly canon to the tabletop game. So they proceeded on that basis and that made development easier.
They still tried to stick to FR/D&D canon, but in the broad strokes, and if they needed to simplify something to make it work and fun in the game, they did that. So the official stance is that BG3 itself is not canon, but broadly speaking the game happened, but what precise decisions etc are canon will only be decided by WotC in later game materials that reference BG3 (which they might avoid doing too much). The other writer, who was mainly responsible for Lae'zel and the githyanki, talked about having all this material from the githyanki (starting with Charles Stross's original Fiend Folio article from 1979; Stross, now a major SFF writer, was at the convention, amusingly, but did not talk about his contribution there) that he was able to use but he had some areas where he could invent things, like precisely how githyanki reproduction worked. But that's not necessarily now canon in future D&D products going forwards unless WotC confirm it is so. |
| Azar |
Posted - 01 Dec 2023 : 09:09:18
quote:
So, this is indeed BG
No, it is not. |
| Marc |
Posted - 02 Nov 2023 : 17:59:03
only Divinity parts were those paintings you could find of Fane, Lohse etc. and starting items like the Mask of the Shapeshifter |
| Irennan |
Posted - 01 Nov 2023 : 09:45:39
quote:
Originally posted by mastermustard
Rather than simply skipping forward in time, this game takes place in a different universe. The ruleset changes in new editions are equivalent to changes in the physical laws of the universe, not to mention the geographical and historical retcons that are unexplainable in-universe.
The 5e realms is a similar but different universe to previous editions, with a different timeline, different but similar races and different physical laws.
How can the laws of Physics change if they've never been defined in first place? Let's not pretend D&D has any semblance of well-defined magic system. Stuff happens because "uhh... a wizard did it", and magic can do literally whatever the hell a wizard wants it to do, you just have to pour in enough bullshittium to make it happen.
But 5e rules are fairly similar to old rules (they're no 4e), and you can chalk most of those up to "ah well, the Weave has changed", and/or to "races have been cross-mating like mad, so there's hardly anything like a "pure elf" on Faerun, you always have a certain, small % of human in them.
Basically, when you have a fictional world so loosely defined, and so prone to radical changes, it's really easy for massive changes to be justified by time. Good design? No, I wouldn't say, because it lacks identity, but that's what we've been getting for decades. |
| Irennan |
Posted - 01 Nov 2023 : 09:18:56
quote:
Originally posted by Azar
Incorrect. This has nothing to do with graphics. This has nothing to do with the rules. Hell, this has nothing to do with the year. From the explosive attention-grabbing spectacles, the contemporary sounding characters, the hurried/pointlessly vulgar romances, the mood-whiplash inducing scenes, the relatively squashed maps, the (visually) off-model races, the butchered recurring personalities, the mishandling of lore and more, this is not Baldur's Gate.
A bunch of hyperboles or outright falsehoods.
The butchered recurring character is one, and she wasn't butchered because she was OOC, but because the quest associated with her was subpar, so it has nothing to do with this "being BG" or not.
The characters don't sound "modern", save for Karlach.
There's nothing anti-Baldur's Gate with spectacle, I don't even know what's this supposed to mean, and I'm pretty sure that, had Biowared had the same tools as Larian, they would have made such scenes too.
The map is quite large, and remember that the Upper City was cut before release. I'm pretty hopeful they'll reintroduce it after it's polished and cleaned of bugs.
The romances... As I said, I rarely do romances, and didn't do any of them in BG3, but your insistence that they're rushed and vulgar made me chek them out, and nope: you're just acting on prude prejudices. Not only the romance approach varies from character to character to fit their personality and needs (you even have the old school, pseudo-"no sex until we marry" romance in Wyll, or the classic "we talk and just spend time together romance in Shadowheart), but the romances feel much more natural than 2 characters just kissing in the last act of the game, like it usually happens. If you actually want to engage in romance content, it's obviously much better to see characters form a relationship in the early stages of the game and see how it evolves, than have no romance throughout the game, and only start it at the very end, when it no longer matter anyway because the game is basically over. Also, remember that the FR are VERY open from a sexual perspective, so if you really want fealty to the lore like you claim, hypeer-delayed romances should feel very out of place in such a setting. And for the love of the Realms and life, don't call sex vulgar. It sounds like some stuck-up Catholic priest going to young people and forcing the flawed aspects of his morality on them.
----------
So, this is indeed BG, this is the Realms how they are now (and, in some part, as they've always been). The year and edition matter a lot, and denying it like denying that fire exists. The Realms change with year and edition, and we all know it. For example, people now (and before too, tbh) want elves to just look like "hot humans" with longer lifespan, so they now look like "hot humans" in 5e (the 5e description doesn't even mention angular or chiseled features, just "fine features", which means a whole load of nothing except "hot", which in turn means a whole load of nothing, and is not something you can use to create models).
I repeat: we'll hardly get any novel or game set in the old Realms, it just is very unlikely to happen. This is how the Realms and BG look now, and you have 2 choices: either stay away from all D&D/FR products for the time being (because old school fans are a tiny minority, and companies will hardly make products for us), or accept them for what they are, rather than looking for stuff they'll never provide, and see if any of them can be of your enjoyment.
I'm not saying "be a eat-it-all", far from it. I'm arguing for evaluating the new stuff for its own value as entertainment, not compared to the old Realms. For example, I stay away from new FR books or movies (save for Ed's, George's, and others' stuff on DMguild), because books and movies are for stories, and the new stories that carry the FR/D&D brand (many of the old ones too, actually) tend to be hilariously poor, or trite and cheap. Videogames, however, aren't mostly for story: they're for interactivity and freedom and gameplay, so I check them out to see if I can find some fun in it, even if I far prefeer the old Realms. I don't try to summon up arguments related to old FR to rationalize away my enjoyment of a game. Returning to the example of elves, yes, they look like humans in BG3 (and in 5e D&D/FR), but that doesn't make the game less fun by any stretch of the imagination, even though I was hoping for fae-like elves like in DOS2. That's because the game remains (for the most part) well crafted, *immense*, and it'll only get better as Larian gets about fixing bugs, adding even more options, and reworking some quests, like it happened for DOS2.
quote:
This is a Larian game that took two IPs and kind of played with them a bit...using that which was convenient/profitable and downplaying or discarding the rest. I can keep pointing back to the Vincke interview all day long.
There are plenty of major counterexamples, you know. Stuff from D&D/FR that hurts the story and game, but that they kept. Tons of people really disliked the D&D mechanics (me included), so that didn't help the game, yet they kept them. The whole Sharran and Dead Three take on evil was sheer idiocy (except Bane, Bane's could actually work on the scale it was portrayed working), yet they stayed true to the lore. They could have made the cults far more interesting and engaging, had they chosen to ditch some of the lore and rewrite it. Like actually making the Sharran tempt people with relief from pain and painful emotions. Or give Bhaal more appeal, and even a semblance of point, by making him a twisted version of Hoar. This would have helped the game, but they stayed true to lore.
As for merging 2 IPs, I don't see any trace of Divinity lore in BG3, so Idk what you're talking about. |
| mastermustard |
Posted - 01 Nov 2023 : 02:44:29
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
quote:
Originally posted by Azar
It is incredibly amusing seeing folks try to twist themselves into pretzels in order to defend/rationalize
I know it's hard to fathom such an exotic possibility, but hear me out for a moment: what if discussions aren't necessarily about attacking and defending, but about exchanging information? In this case, exchanging experiences with the game.
Also, this game *is* Baldur's Gate, but 5e/1490s. You prefer the 1360/70s Baldur's Gate--and trust me, so do I--but I repeat: this is indeed Baldur's Gate. We're extremely unlikely to get a game set in the past, because WotC is interested in garnering interest in the present of their IP, in the "fancy new stuff", and because most people who play videogames or D&D nowadays don't give a single flying about Baldur's Gate in the past or the Realms in the past. Sad, but true, and yet I'm still glad we got a good game out of it, even if it isn't the 1360s/1370s Baldur's Gate.
Rather than simply skipping forward in time, this game takes place in a different universe. The ruleset changes in new editions are equivalent to changes in the physical laws of the universe, not to mention the geographical and historical retcons that are unexplainable in-universe.
The 5e realms is a similar but different universe to previous editions, with a different timeline, different but similar races and different physical laws. |
| Azar |
Posted - 30 Oct 2023 : 08:10:22
That's the problem when you apply modern real-world mores to fantasy that was (is)...fantasy.
quote:
Originally posted by Seravin
If Larian picks up the Gold Box games (as stand alone adventures of Pool of Radiance and (Curse of the) Azure Bonds) I would be the happiest guy in the world.
The very thought makes my stomach turn, my skin crawl and my blood run cold; they need to make their own adventures and stay the hell away from any established Realms lore/journeys.
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
Like all drows, actually.
Nope. There are black-skinned Drow (remember them?). There are Drow with angular features (as opposed to a full human-esque physiognomy) and a slope to their eyes.
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
Also, this game *is* Baldur's Gate, but 5e/1490s.
Incorrect. This has nothing to do with graphics. This has nothing to do with the rules. Hell, this has nothing to do with the year. From the explosive attention-grabbing spectacles, the contemporary sounding characters, the hurried/pointlessly vulgar romances, the mood-whiplash inducing scenes, the relatively squashed maps, the (visually) off-model races, the butchered recurring personalities, the mishandling of lore and more, this is not Baldur's Gate. This is a Larian game that took two IPs and kind of played with them a bit...using that which was convenient/profitable and downplaying or discarding the rest. I can keep pointing back to the Vincke interview all day long. |
| TKU |
Posted - 30 Oct 2023 : 06:46:11
In regards to Mystra, it's unfortunate that because of this game I'm starting to hear about 'Mystra the groomer' propagate in multiple other places as a sort of meme, but also something people sincerely believe, much like the 'mindflayers don't have souls' business, or a number of other places where Larian's loose approach (and/or lack of research) gets the context/details wrong.
Whatever's going on with Baldurian and Moonrise towers could probably deserve its own thread, it's quite a bit messy.
Now I don't consider myself quite the expert on Realmslore as some of the people here, but I have noticed that they seem to get Drow lore pretty consistently wrong in rather avoidable and easily researchable ways, which is odd to me, because that's one of the more popular sections of the settings, so should be harder to make so many simple mistakes-for example, Minthara has an exchange where she tells Gale that the drow kill every male child after the second in a household...which isn't accurate, they kill the third one the first time they have three male children at the same time...a one time sacrifice. Her own house had Gromph, Dantrag, Jarlaxle and Berg'inyon alive at the same time because house Baenre already performed said sacrifice, otherwise Berg'inyon wouldn't have survived to adulthood.
Changing Viconia, Sarevok, and possibly Mystra I think shows that Larian not only doesn't have a particularly strong inclination towards the lore of the setting, but that they don't necessarily have a particularly strong affection for it either, particularly in regards to the original saga, which just feels bafflingly *wrong*. And in nowhere else is this more clear than with how they treated Sarevok and Viconia. There's no way a writer who actually liked the previous games would write a line where the narrator compares sarevok to a...dried....'bodily fluid' stain left behind by Bhaal, or the whole incest subplot. |
| Seravin |
Posted - 29 Oct 2023 : 09:42:55
If Larian picks up the Gold Box games (as stand alone adventures of Pool of Radiance and (Curse of the) Azure Bonds) I would be the happiest guy in the world. |
| Azar |
Posted - 29 Oct 2023 : 01:14:17
This was mentioned elsewhere, but I thought it worth sharing here ->
quote:
The whole "collective burden which brings the characters together" was done better with the titular Azure Bonds in "Curse of the Azure Bonds" (specifically, the early AD&D 2e module) than the Illithid tadpoles in Larian's project.
|
| Irennan |
Posted - 28 Oct 2023 : 11:50:20
quote:
Originally posted by sno4wy
What do you guys think of the portrayal of Mystra? I'm not really a fan of how it's led a lot of people, especially those who like Gale, to hate her so much that they desperately want to kill her; perhaps it's because they aren't aware of the history of the Realms, but that doesn't feel like a good takeaway from all of that at all, at least for me. I mean, it's like, do you guys WANT a catastrophic world-ravaging event, like as happened in the past when the goddess of magic was killed? While I like Gale well enough, the only thing I can think of when he talks about possibly supplanting Mystra is, "Have we learned NOTHING from Karsus?"
Me and Zero have been talking about Mystra in this very page. The TL; DR of my position is that both Gale and Mystra were terrible to each other, but Larian should have provided more of Mystra's PoV--having your partner violate your boundaries and endangering your life and all you have built in the same way that your enemies have endangered it before, right as you're recovering, deserves more of an exploration. |
| Irennan |
Posted - 28 Oct 2023 : 11:47:17
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
As a young child. I'll search for the dialogue.
But how? Mystra stopped being a bear in the 1480s, and she only returned in 1487 DR (only by then she was well enough to potentially take new apprentices, bnefore that she was preoccupied with not dying again, and seeing Lolth's BS off). BG3 happens in 1492 DR. How could have she taken Gale as a young child, if Gale is currently an adult? You would have to take a wild leap, and assume that Gale's currently 18 (I refuse to believe that, honestly), and Mystra took him whe he was 13. If Gale stated that Mystra took him as a young child, then he was clearly making stuff up.
quote:
The fault is of both here: Gale for being so full of himself and Mystra for being a Karen — whether because she is a shit person or scared out of trauma (something we aren't sure about, as we don't know if Larian is aware of that and wrote her character that way; you are going all meta here); however, that doesn't justifies the way she treated Gale.
I can agree that Mystra shouldn't have asked Gale to kill himself (though, as I said, I can understand why she did--it was the safest choice), that's her mistake. Which isn't to say it's a small thing, but it's in reaction to: a)Gale intentionally trying to break her boundaries b)Gale betraying her trust and doing reckelss sh*t that endangered her when she was at her weakest. She didn't just one day wake up and ask Gale to sacrifice himself to destroy the Absolute.
Which means that yes, they're both at fault, and that's a point I've never meant to argue. It remains that I wouldn't say that Mystra's fault is being a Karen, rather I'd say that she was too hardned and cold (which, as I said, is 100% understandable, but I agree it's not not justifiable). If you do some reckless sh*t that endangers countless lives, you should be held responsible to it, and you should give your all to fix it. A Karen behavior would be something like "this thing is threatening me--give your all to erase it, and if you have to sacrifice, then so be it", not "you did this thing that's made you a ticking bomb and a danger to not only me, but to the Weave and countless others--you should fix it, even if it kills you". This latter behavior is cold, some may say cruel (I disagree), but not Karen-like.
It's true that we don't know Larian's intentions (but seriously, they know about the Spellplague, they know that Mystra has just returned, etc... Because there are books in the game that talk about Spellplague and Sundering). However, Mystra's portrayal was a mistake regardless, because Lairan only offered us Gale's PoV.
quote:
Excuses, as you say.
Excuses to us (I was talking from a writing perspective, not in-universe), but not from the characters' PoV, because those barriers are very real. You know what happens when Ao gets mad.
quote:
Don't get your hopes high. Those endings are for Gale if you play with him as your main character. I haven't watched Gale's ending as a companion. Though, it gives us a hint of what would happen if Gale goes all "Bruh, Ima god!" route.
That's a bummer. I wanted to do a Dark Urge playthrough, and am not really feeling like playing a wizard again (my Eilistraee "priestess" was actually a Bard/Wizard multiclass with the "Deity for All" mod. Btw, that combo is fun as hell, especially if you use the mod that adds the Bladesinger subclass). Maybe I'll do a Gale playthrough when I decide to pick up the game again. Hopefully they'll ahve fixed many of the bugs by then. |
| Zeromaru X |
Posted - 28 Oct 2023 : 04:21:43
The thing is that we don't really know if Larian took the "Mystra is tired/traumatized because she is the Kenny of the Forgotten Realms" into account when writing her character. We don't know what information WotC gave to Larian, and what stuff they decided on their own. Yeah, we the fans know her background from earlier editions, but trying to use that perspective to explain her character in the game is just meta, especially when we know WotC's approach to canon lately.
We also know that Larian did some characters dirty, like what happened with Viconia and Sarevok, so it's not farfetched to think Larian just wanted her to be a Karen. Until there is no official explanation, this is what we have. |
| Werthead |
Posted - 28 Oct 2023 : 01:05:44
quote:
Originally posted by sno4wy
What do you guys think of the portrayal of Mystra? I'm not really a fan of how it's led a lot of people, especially those who like Gale, to hate her so much that they desperately want to kill her; perhaps it's because they aren't aware of the history of the Realms, but that doesn't feel like a good takeaway from all of that at all, at least for me. I mean, it's like, do you guys WANT a catastrophic world-ravaging event, like as happened in the past when the goddess of magic was killed? While I like Gale well enough, the only thing I can think of when he talks about possibly supplanting Mystra is, "Have we learned NOTHING from Karsus?"
I think Mystra's fine in the game. She is so over the BS of people trying to screw with the Weave at this point given what's repeatedly happened. She was also like canonically stuck as a bear for a century and is only ten years or so back to full power, which is probably not helping her crankiness. |
| sno4wy |
Posted - 28 Oct 2023 : 00:57:50
What do you guys think of the portrayal of Mystra? I'm not really a fan of how it's led a lot of people, especially those who like Gale, to hate her so much that they desperately want to kill her; perhaps it's because they aren't aware of the history of the Realms, but that doesn't feel like a good takeaway from all of that at all, at least for me. I mean, it's like, do you guys WANT a catastrophic world-ravaging event, like as happened in the past when the goddess of magic was killed? While I like Gale well enough, the only thing I can think of when he talks about possibly supplanting Mystra is, "Have we learned NOTHING from Karsus?" |
| Zeromaru X |
Posted - 27 Oct 2023 : 22:37:59
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
I don't recall this being stated anywhere. The version I remember is that Mystra took Gale under her wing after he showed insane skills with spells. It isn't specified at which point of his life this happened. Also, yes, Gale certainly isn't old, but his age is unspecified as far as I know.
As a young child. I'll search for the dialogue.
quote:
and the direction that Gale's throught process takes after learning about the Karsite Weave (since he basically just wants to replace Mystra at that point).
Yes, I cannot argue this point, Gale there is a stlarning idiot full of himself, believing himself better than Mystra out of self-righteousness (which only betrays how young he is). But all of this is also a fault of Mystra, as well. Had she decided to treat Gale as a person instead of as a possession, things wouldn't have escalated to that point.
The fault is of both here: Gale for being so full of himself and Mystra for being a Karen — whether because she is a shit person or scared out of trauma (something we aren't sure about, as we don't know if Larian is aware of that and wrote her character that way; you are going all meta here); however, that doesn't justifies the way she treated Gale.
quote:
You know that gods can't intervene, because Ao and whatever other excuse.
Excuses, as you say.
quote:
Thank you for the links, I haven't finished the game yet, but I'll check Gale's ending as soon as I'm done, as I'm interested in the conclusion to his arc.
Don't get your hopes high. Those endings are for Gale if you play with him as your main character. I haven't watched Gale's ending as a companion. Though, it gives us a hint of what would happen if Gale goes all "Bruh, Ima god!" route. |
| sno4wy |
Posted - 27 Oct 2023 : 18:29:48
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
To me, the most jarring part was that you face godlike entities AND their bodyguards at like level 11. I mean, it's pretty on par with what I've heard from 5e DMs (monsters just aren't a threat anymore past lv 10), but it feels cheap.
I agree, level 11 felt more like level 19 in D&D terms. That being said, I don't necessarily agree that monsters aren't a threat anymore past level 10 in 5e, I've DMed several 5e campaigns with players who are way more experienced in D&D than I am that min-maxed their characters to the teeth, and while there are certainly encounters where it's really frustrating how easily they defeated them, it is also the case that they wouldn't have been able to defeat things on par with Demon Princes and above until after level 15. I feel like BG3 scaled up the power of the higher levels since 12 is the level cap.
quote:
Originally posted by IrennanThe only failing forward I've seen in BG3 happens at the very end (failing to control the brain leads you to the whole end battle. Then again, given the DCs, I can tell you are supposed to fail those checks).
The DC99 check was certainly one of those, but nonetheless one that you can beat with a nat 20. That being said, none of those rolls mattered in the end, you could succeed or fail them but the results were the same either way; I reloaded a bunch of saves to succeed on each roll, only to get the same results as when I failed them. |
| Irennan |
Posted - 27 Oct 2023 : 09:49:54
To me, the most jarring part was that you face godlike entities AND their bodyguards at like level 11. I mean, it's pretty on par with what I've heard from 5e DMs (monsters just aren't a threat anymore past lv 10), but it feels cheap. It's way too easy for us to defeat Raphael, (Mephistophele's son,ffs- At that point I was half expeting the game to let me face Zariel at lv 11. Or yet, Myrkul's Avatar is a joke, and you face him at lv 9-10...).
I didn't really feel the clunkyness of movement (aside from jumping), but that's because I had installed the WASD and free camera mods before I started the game. Pretty sure I would have found it frustrating to use click-to-move as well. To me, the most frustrating mechanic was the dice roll; I can't stress enough how anooying it is in a videogamee. That's because in TTRPGs the DM can help craft an interesting "failing forward" narrative, which means that both successes and failures contribute to enhancing the story (as it should be in storytelling games). In VGs, dice roll fdailures tend to just amount to "you miss content". I also don't like how the dice roll always manages to interrupt the pacing. The only failing forward I've seen in BG3 happens at the very end (failing to control the brain leads you to the whole end battle. Then again, given the DCs, I can tell you are supposed to fail those checks).
I tend to agree on Balduran. When I found out, however, I was less bothered than I probably should have been. Perhaps because it fits well withing the thematic viewpoint of the story. The game offers a cynical viewpoint, as the mighty and the legends almost always turn up to be overrated, and latching on to them leads characters to ruin. On the contrary, renouncing them leads to freedom. And true legends (Orpheus) know and make sure that the power is in the hand of the individuals. Is this story well-suited for a setting of heroics like the Realms? It's not ideal, but I'm not too bothered by that, because the game's non-canon (per WotC's stance on canon), so what happens in the game stays in the game.
Btw, the game's missing the Upper City (from what I know, they cut it from the game pre-release). I hope they eventually get around to releasing it. |
| sno4wy |
Posted - 27 Oct 2023 : 09:02:26
I just finished the game. I wish I were a lot more into it than I am, but as it is, I can recognize that objectively it's a good game, however to me it felt clunky much of the time and more stressful than relaxing. I know there are mods to address the clunkiness, but I couldn't even begin to put into words what I found clunky about it. The clicking to move is a big part of that feeling, especially when it comes to doors and jump/fly actions through doors. Inventory management was a nightmare. But most of all, I found a lot of what they did with the lore to be really jarring: Ao being relatively common knowledge, people of the world referring to it as the "Forgotten Realms", the plethora of magic items (and I don't mean that we as players can find; Gale makes a comment about how the Realms is just covered with magical items), what they did with Balduran, the entire thing with the dragon underneath the city and his oath, ... those are the major ones that come to mind. I can understand why they needed to do it from a video game perspective, but maybe it's because I'm soured on how literally every recent Drizzt trilogy is about how he saves the world that I wasn't keen on a game where we save the world. Also, why do the portals in Raphael's portal room include Luskan alongside the major cities instead of, say, Cormyr? Is it because they were trying to restrict the scope of things to the Sword Coast, even when it's inconsequential as it was in that case since we couldn't use those portals anyway?
Back to the topic at hand: Is it just me, or did the city of Baldur's Gate feel kind of small? Again, I can understand why they had to do it that way for the scope of the game, and admittedly it's not quite as bad a compression as Stormwind in WoW, but I'd expected the major cities of Faerun to be bigger. Not as big as NYC per se, but not like only an hour to traverse it from one side to the other. |
| Irennan |
Posted - 26 Oct 2023 : 20:21:00
As far as I know, the weird dialogues are bugs. Like Gale thinking that you accepted Raphael's deal even if you didn't. There have been quite a lot of complaints about this kind of bug floating around, I hope Larian fixes them soon. But yeah, I agree with you that these bugs have a negative impact on the core strength of the game. |
| Werthead |
Posted - 26 Oct 2023 : 20:08:11
quote:
Personally, I don't think the game is overrated (at least not by far), because most people aren't claiming the story is amazing or whatever. Most are praising the game due to how much freedom in approaching situations it provides, how much care for details went into it, and how much of an impact you can have on stuff. And in a videogame, that's arguably worth more than the best stories, because it provides interaction, exploring different possibilities, etc... which is at the core of what games are. It's the same reason why people feel so involved in their D&D campaign even when the story is something already seen: it doesn't really matter, because it's different in that it's *their* story. If I want the best stories, I choose a well written book and read it (and this is why I no longer can enjoy D&D/FR stories--WotC couldn't write if their life depended on it--only as a VG setting), or choose a plot/character-focused movie and watch it.
I do actually have something of an issue with how the game presents that. It says it's reactive and you can choose how to do things and in what order to tackle things, but it's actually quite proscriptive on that. For example, I went to the Goblin Keep via an underground passage without going through the camp outside the front gate in Act I, and then the Gauntlet of Shar before going Moonrise Towers in Act II, which is (in both cases) the reverse order that the game expects you to do them. In both cases, it broke the game logic and I kept getting dialogue that was nonsensical because it had assumed I'd done things I'd not done at all, and my character's dialogue options were basically going along with that. Conversely, it's far too easy to miss content through silly means (like you can miss recruiting Karlach at all because she's standing in a weird, out-of-the-way place, and it's surprisingly easy to miss Wyll in the druid camp, and without Wyll you won't get the quest marker to find Karlach).
Howevere, I do highly respect the ways the game can adapt to your actions. For example, I found the fight with Nere ridiculously tough, so I cheesed it by having an invisible character wait until he ran by and then yeeted him into lava with a surprise push. |
| ElfBane |
Posted - 26 Oct 2023 : 18:11:53
I want a D&D RPG set in Waterdeep. Baldurs Gate and Neverwinter have had their turn.(Pssst... I don't count the Gold Box Games,,, the graphics were too primitive.) |
| Seravin |
Posted - 26 Oct 2023 : 16:37:00
Yeah, I so hope Larian makes more D&D Forgotten Realms games. I'd like a game that was akin to Act 1 - just grounded with out portal hopping through the hells being chased by red dragons in a space ship to start. Humble beginnings where the big threat is some orc/goblin/drow horde who want to kill you and your home. This could easily be a 100 hour game and progression could get you to level 8 or so; but the focus on choice, characters, and changing the world environment for the better or worse based on your actions.
Let it be set in Immersea, or for nastalgia sake - Phlan :P
|
| Irennan |
Posted - 26 Oct 2023 : 04:28:42
Personally, I don't think the game is overrated (at least not by far), because most people aren't claiming the story is amazing or whatever. Most are praising the game due to how much freedom in approaching situations it provides, how much care for details went into it, and how much of an impact you can have on stuff. And in a videogame, that's arguably worth more than the best stories, because it provides interaction, exploring different possibilities, etc... which is at the core of what games are. It's the same reason why people feel so involved in their D&D campaign even when the story is something already seen: it doesn't really matter, because it's different in that it's *their* story. If I want the best stories, I choose a well written book and read it (and this is why I no longer can enjoy D&D/FR stories--WotC couldn't write if their life depended on it--only as a VG setting), or choose a plot/character-focused movie and watch it.
It's inevitable that a videogame has to settle for a simpler story, because complex stories require you to control tons of factors (and to control when those factors come in play, when info is acquired, etc...). However, if you want to give player true agency, you have to relinquish a lot of this control. While a DM in TTRPG can adapt to what players come up with and determine how the network of characters and events that they set up for their complex story react, a videogame can only fo so much (and I'm surprised by what BG3 already does in this sense). Maybe in the future AIs will be able to emulate the role of a DM in a videogame, allowing videogames to have very complex stories AND player agency, but we aren't quite there yet.
TL; DR: I've seen a lot of people being happy with the game, because it was designed with the player's fun in mind, and from the perspective of a player, not for its story. It needs a rewrite of some quests, and bug fixing in act III (and, from what I hear, better support for evil playthroughs), but it's overall a very good game, and one of the best to come out in a long, LONG time (*too* long). |
| Werthead |
Posted - 25 Oct 2023 : 22:30:15
quote:
I know it's hard to fathom such an exotic possibility, but hear me out for a moment: what if discussions aren't necessarily about attacking and defending, but about exchanging information? In this case, exchanging experiences with the game.
Also, this game *is* Baldur's Gate, but 5e/1490s. You prefer the 1360/70s Baldur's Gate--and trust me, so do I--but I repeat: this is indeed Baldur's Gate. We're extremely unlikely to get a game set in the past, because WotC is interested in garnering interest in the present of their IP, in the "fancy new stuff", and because most people who play videogames or D&D nowadays don't give a single flying about Baldur's Gate in the past or the Realms in the past. Sad, but true, and yet I'm still glad we got a good game out of it, even if it isn't the 1360s/1370s Baldur's Gate.
Yup. I think this is the last "hold the line!" battle being fought for the pre-Spellplague Realms and the hope that one day they'll retcon everything post ~1380 DR and return to the "classic setting." Unfortunately, that is never going to happen. The Second Sundering, which was masterminded by Ed Greenwood and Bob Salvatore to fix the Spellplague, get rid of most of the lame elements of it and restore the OG setting and many of the missing countries and characters, is as good a retcon as we're ever going to get. Time has still moved on, dragonborn are still around, tieflings are more commonplace and, yes, they took advantage of the timeskip to drop the classic "medieval fantasy" feel of the early Realms which lots of people (myself included) enjoyed. They're doing a more magitek/pre-steampunk thing, but that's not out of keeping with Ed's conception (he was never keen on the Realms being the Middle Ages with fireballs, and often noted the Renaissance elements of the setting people overlooked, or even later elements like Waterdeep having printing presses and Mulhorand having steampunk tech they'd never fully developed properly).
More have people have played, run and enjoyed the Realms since 2014 than they ever did in all the years before it combined, and for those people the Spellplague is a minor bit of background lore they don't really care about, or if they do, it's an event that's over and no longer relevant (like the Fall of Netheril is in 1E and 2E material, before the Arcane Age boxed set), so the small number of people calling for the Realms to be rolled back to the way it was in 1987 (or 1993, or 2001) is just weird to them, and they're the people paying the bills for the setting now.
Is Baldur's Gate 3 overrated? Sure. In particular the entire last third of the game is a bit of a mess (technically and structurally) and they've been slow to fix it. But overall the story is fairly solid, the combat is okay, the Realmslore call-outs are mostly decent (they did Viconia a bit dirty though) and it's a reasonable follow-up to the first two games (which I both bought on day of release in 1998 and 2000 respectively). It's particularly impressive it exists at all: a BioWare-made Baldur's Gate III would probably look like the bloated and unsatisfying Dragon Age: Inquisition, and an Obsidian-made one would be brilliant but a retro-isometric RPG that nobody plays (like Pillars of Eternity II).
An old-skool, isometric, party-based RPG with insane production values, a decent story, very good characters, an exacting reproduction of the tabletop game and mostly solid attention to the lore (a few niggles aside)? We're very lucky this thing exists, and even luckier it's brought renewed and new fans to the Forgotten Realms. |
| ElfBane |
Posted - 24 Oct 2023 : 23:02:52
While I was against the going to only one die (the 20-sided die), I have to admit that it's made things simpler. My only complaint is that some events shouldn't have a 5% chance of happening. Divine Intervention, for example, should have a much smaller chance of happening. But the change to 20-sided did keep the the new generation involved. Us seniors should now use the OLD dice system as an invitation to another aspect of D&D. |
| Irennan |
Posted - 24 Oct 2023 : 21:06:56
quote:
Originally posted by Azar
It is incredibly amusing seeing folks try to twist themselves into pretzels in order to defend/rationalize
I know it's hard to fathom such an exotic possibility, but hear me out for a moment: what if discussions aren't necessarily about attacking and defending, but about exchanging information? In this case, exchanging experiences with the game.
Also, this game *is* Baldur's Gate, but 5e/1490s. You prefer the 1360/70s Baldur's Gate--and trust me, so do I--but I repeat: this is indeed Baldur's Gate. We're extremely unlikely to get a game set in the past, because WotC is interested in garnering interest in the present of their IP, in the "fancy new stuff", and because most people who play videogames or D&D nowadays don't give a single flying about Baldur's Gate in the past or the Realms in the past. Sad, but true, and yet I'm still glad we got a good game out of it, even if it isn't the 1360s/1370s Baldur's Gate. |
| TomCosta |
Posted - 24 Oct 2023 : 18:51:51
quote:
Originally posted by Seravin
I think the Gygax purest in me wants drow to be almost universally ebony skinnned with white hair and red eyes as described in the original Fiend Folio. But reality is that making an evil race black skinned in a mainstream product is unlikely to pass modern scrutiny, so we have purple people in graphic novels and video games and inevitbale big screen depictions. It still looks pretty good to me; although all the elves look like pointy eared humans in this game.
I prefer to think of theme as near ebon skinned, but with variations much like most mammals, except varying between shades of gray, brown, blue, or purple. |
| Irennan |
Posted - 24 Oct 2023 : 12:43:22
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
[
She took him under her wing when he was a child
I don't recall this being stated anywhere. The version I remember is that Mystra took Gale under her wing after he showed insane skills with spells. It isn't specified at which point of his life this happened. Also, yes, Gale certainly isn't old, but his age is unspecified as far as I know.
quote:
It's actually said in the game. Mystra just tells him the truth only after he decides to not go the suicidal route. Before that, Gale didn't even knew why Mystra has casted him down.
What I said is that Mystra couldn't have been withholding info before Gale took the Karsite Weave,l because she didn't know that he would have done that. The situation that led to Gale taking that Weave was: Gale wanted more than Mystra's comfortable giving, Mystra didn't budge, so he throught to mess with Karsus' stuff (and is very common knowledge among casters that you don't mess with Karsus' stuff) to impress her so that she could grant him the stuff that she wouldn't grant him before. He wanted to push her boundaries (by his own admission), and he acted out of sheer hubris and ambition (by his own admission), not love. He knew there were serious risks involved with that, he knew that Mystra wasn't even done healing the Weave from the umpteenth attempt to kill her yet, but he took the risks regardless, because he wanted to grab for more.
quote:
The point, Mystra never told him why what he was doing was wrong, not even after he did the did and she punished. Gale felt wronged because he even didn't knew why she punished him. In his point of view, she used him and discarded him at leisure. And she later has the "gall" (in Gale's POV) of asking to sacrifice his life for her. He only understood what he did wrong after Mystra had the decency to tell him the truth, way late in the game.
Also, Gale didn't even knew that what he was giving to Mystra was the last remnant of the Karsite Weave. He was under the assumption that he was returning Mystra some lost piece of her power. That he was bitter against her for most of the game is the only logical conclusion to that chain of events.
Gale didn't know that he had the Karsite Weave, but he 100% knew that he had unlesahed a powerful, Weave-devouring parasite that could erase a whole metropolis from the face of the Realms if left unchecked for mere days. He also knew that it was somehow connected to the Absolute. He tells you both these things when he reveals his orb. Maybe he didn't know that his hubris had unleashed a threat to Mystra's own life, but he surely knew that his hubris had unleashed something capable of hurting the Weave (which the game repeatedly equates to Mystra's own essence), while the Weave hadn't even finished recovering yet.
Either way, he had the tools to know that what he did was a massive betrayal of Mystra's trust, because he chose to downplay the possiuble consequences of messing with Karsus' stuff, potentially exposing Mystra to more of what had repeatedly been a wrecking ball in her life.
Now, if we're discussing his PoV, he's well written up until he gets the idea to go full Karsus (that's not out of character, but too dumb IMHO. They could have had him try different stuff, rather than the worst thing possible). Of course he feels wronged, because of course he thought that he had the best possible intentions. Good character thinking--characters always think themselves as the "good guys" so to speak, until they reach the "known zone", and realize the flaws in their worldview. Gale possibly has the "gifted kid" arc, in which he ends up realizing that striving for greatenss to impress someone is self-destructive (and other-destructive in his case, since magic is dangerous) and doesn't provide the love and belonging that "being one of the greats" was supposed to provide.
So, don't get me wrong: Gale's flawed PoV and attitude towards this past with Mystra are a necessity: without them, we can't get an arc and we can't get Gale's story. It is compelling precisely because of that. I only dislike that the game actively tries to paint Gale as the victim and Mystra as the abuser, and the direction that Gale's throught process takes after learning about the Karsite Weave (since he basically just wants to replace Mystra at that point).
quote:
So, yes, Gale is an idiot, selfish, arrogant mage who wanted even more of what he already had, and who did really stupid things in the name of ambition, but Mystra just acted like a Karen, never telling him what he did wrong or why she was punishing him. Trauma is not excuse to treat other people like expendable things.
The point relevant to Mystra's reaction isn't that Gale is an idiot and selfish (we all can be), but that when he cose to grab the orb, his hubris and ambition weighed more than any concern concern about Mystra and the Weave, as well as repsect for Mystra's boundaries (which is why it makes sense for Mystra to see it as a betrayal). Because of that, he ended up becoming a danger, regardless of his intentions. At this point, it becomes a matter of practicality, not morality.
And don't get me wrong, Mystra's actions were certainly flawed, but in the way that the actions of someone who acts out of fear and betrayal are. She very obviously feared that Gale would have tried to repeat what Karsus did, if he had known about the Karsite Weave in him, which is why she withholds info after the misdeed. And given Gale's motivations in ignoring common sense and warnings about Netheril (aka hubris and ambition), and given his reaction to acquiring that knowledge in act III, you can't exactly blame Mystra. But I wouldn't blame Mystra regardless, because she surely is traumatized by people trying to kill her and take the Weave, so her reaction was probably very raw and emotional due to that.
quote:
The game will get even more weird when implies sorcerers do not use the Weave, lol. Or if you play with the Dark Urge origin.
I meant a different kind of weird, not lore-weird. As for Dark urge, well, if you pick that you know what you're getting yourself into.
quote:
And, if we go that way, I cannot also justify a goddess that only thinks about herself and her survival, and as soon as Gale self-destructs and destroys the Netherbrain, left the Sword Coast to fend for itself against an invasion of mind flayers who where born from the tadpoles formerly controlled by said elder brain (as stated by the narrator if you get that ending playing with Gale as your main character. Yeah, the narrator doesn't say Mystra left the Sword Coast on its own, but it also doesn't say that Mystra did anything to help, either).
Again, Gale did stupid things with awful consequences, but Mystra is not innocent either. And trauma is not excuse to leave the people of the Sword Coast to die horrible deaths in the hands of self-conscious Illithids...
You know that gods can't intervene, because Ao and whatever other excuse. That excuse is also provided by the game itself when you tell Elminster that a little help on Mystra's side wouldn't hurt.
Anyway, my point isn't that Mystra is perfect or even good, just that her reaction towards Gale wasn't Karen-like, and very justified/understandable, as it's motivated by fear and betrayal. It comes from hurt.
Thank you for the links, I haven't finished the game yet, but I'll check Gale's ending as soon as I'm done, as I'm interested in the conclusion to his arc. |
|
|
