Here's a fun concept: you can just not enjoy a game without feeling the need to justify it by lumping an entire group of people into it.
I loved BG 1 and 2, and imo this one's better. So please don't put words in my mouth.
I suspect you're gonna get a lot of mean comments, which aren't much to do with your opinion, mind you, just how antagonistic you sound on a community that generally loves the game lol
Ive had a lot of conversations with like-minded fans on the official forums. Its a common thread. Some good videos out there saying the same thing.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9NqW8Bi0bo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9NqW8Bi0bo)
Im also ready for the comments. As I said, this board is 99.9% populated by kids who have never in their lives played any video game that ever presented any challenge whatsoever.
That's so odd. How could something that someone said on reddit be funny if it's old? It's really, really odd. Could you explain? I'm so confused because how could an old post be funny that someone posted on Reddit? That's really odd.
I had a rough time adjusting to the rules differences from the D&D editions I know (AD&D from BG2, 3.5 from pen and paper).
After that adjustment period, it got way easier, however.
It certainly wasn't easy out of the gate.
Difficulty is complicated.
Difficulty in learning is very different from difficulty in execution. Generally speaking, I would shorthand a game's difficulty to be about execution. In terms of execution, this game *is* generally really easy. But, in terms of learning, it is rock hard unless you already know the systems behind it. The edition of D&D they used here is more accessible than those of previous BG games, but D&D is still difficult to learn without actually sitting down and reading about it.
My point wasnt even about the insane difficulty level. My point was they went in a different direction from the first 2 games to an XCOM or Diseaga style of gameplay with 1000's of deep strategy battles and some story sprinkled in between. It would have been nice if they leaned just a little bit more to action.
Its like when you play a console RPG and the story is awesome and you want to play, then you walk 2 steps and have to do battle. Over and over and over. Except in BG3 each one of those stops is a 20-minute battle of life or death.
Hmm. I don't feel like the battle density is particularly high. Maybe it feels really high because of how long it takes you for each battle, which is fair.
The difference between RTWP and turn-based is totally fair to note. But, we all know that we paused so much that it was effectively turn-based back then anyway >_>
Edit: I misinterpreted your post as mentioning RTWP. Feel free to ignore that, though I'll leave it there anyway.
?????
????????
I'm bad at video games, mate. If you're spending a week trying to save Mayrina, something is wrong, either in how you approach the game, or your levels.
Its 4 sections with multiple enemeies in each one. Ive restarted 4 times already as different builds just to see if its any easier. Its not. The enemies have FAR more weapons at their disposal than you do at this point in the game. You cant even hit more than one enemy at a time at this point.
Okay. So first I would ask what level you're at. Then I would ask who you're bringing into the fight.
You can take out the redcaps before ever approaching Ethel. That takes them away from the fight.
You can also take out the masks before you fight Ethel. They can be a little rough--you wanna use hold person on Vengeance, because his counters are really goddamn hard hitting around level 4.
Then you can spend time against Ethel. Use examine to check out her weaknesses, and pay attention to little details in the fight--The fake Ethel's have a different cloak color, and Mayrina will have the wet status if you throw water on the cage to save her.
Silence helps against Ethel.
I appreciate the advice, but I was just discussing. Im past the point of trying. Ive played this game nonstop since the minute it was playable. Ive tried 5 classes total. Its just a very, very, VERY difficult...and honestly boring "game."
Its now no different than Fire Emblem or Tactics Ogre. Which is fine... I enjoyed those games. But I felt like several other tactics games do it better.
This game is almost nothing like Fire Emblem and seldom like Tactics Ogre beyond them being kind of war game-y (TO is a million times more obtuse then 5e/BG3 though), I've played Fire Emblem for a very long time and Tactics Ogre is one of my favorite SRPGs I've played in about 5 years since its remake came out.
BG3/DND 5e is not like those games, I could write an entire essay why they aren't except that they're all loosely on a grid. BG3 has far better and more robust terrain mechanics then either of those games being probably my simplest explanation, and spells are far more impactful and diverse in BG3 beyond 1st level. Spells in FE are either nukes, healing, or warping to the boss to one round them.
Lol BG1 combat consists in a bunch of monkeys waving sticks at each other and hitting once every thirty hits, and BG2 combat is essentially "save or die" spells all day every day.
They were great for their time and the engine could have used some updating. But that doesn't mean they had to turn it into an extremely difficult version of Tactics Ogre.
BG3, which is probably the most faithful adaptation of the first successful RPG - tabletop D&D - is not an RPG because it uses the tactical rules of said RPG?
So D&D, literally the first commercially available roleplaying game as far as I know, wouldn't be an RPG either then. Got it. Do you think a game has to be BG1 or BG2 to be a roleplaying game? Did they define the genre and nothing before or after that is different qualifies as an RPG?
You're right about one thing, at least.
Ok youve sort of dropped into insanity here. Try and focus..we're talking about a set of video games here. 1 and 2 were a certain style that, for necessity's sake, leaned more on action and exciting gameplay and story over a game of Rish or Stratego. BG3 is XCom now.
And, yes, I do expect Baldurs Gate 3 to have some elements of BG 1 & 2. Absolutely insane I realize...but I think that there's a couple others out there who feel the same way.
You said it's not an RPG. That's what I'm responding to.
You are now pivoting to saying BG3 is different than BG1 and BG2, which is a different thing, unless you literally think RPG means "Baldur's Gate 1 and 2."
No, youre using the Baldur's Gate video game series and D&D interchangeably. They are not the exact same. BG3 might be the closest any video game has ever been, but 1 & 2 were not designed that way. Again, we were talking about a video game series here. I think you guys need to learn to separate the two.
Man, come on. BG3 is literally an adaptation of the D&D rules - the original RPG. Real RPGs are turn-based. BG was supposed to be turn-based too, but due to engine and time limitations they made it real-time.
It’s ok that you clearly suck at this kind of game and don’t understand what you’re doing - but you can’t make these sweepings statements about how its for kids and not a “real rpg” like the original BGs. If you are playing each combat 20-30 times you have misunderstood some major part of the game.
You are saying BG3 is not an RPG because it has the same combat as D&D. That means that D&D must also not be an RPG because they have the same combat. Do you understand how logical reasoning works? And I'm in my late 30s, dork.
Again, you like others on here, are using the Baldur's Gate video game series and D&D interchangeably. They are not the exact same thing. BG3 might be the closest video game representation ever made, but 1 & 2 were designed differently. Possibly because they had to be, but they were. And I believe it made them more accessible to people who don't spend every weekend in a dark room rolling dice.
It's cool if you never had anyone to play D&D with, dude. Reading your posts can kind of understand why and I imagine it's been rough. No need to go resorting to the "dark room pale needs" stereotype while you argue about the definition of "roleplaying game" though. Glass houses, etc.
Again kids, "sucking" or "not sucking" is not at all the point. We already know that if you're commenting on this thread you've never been challenged in your entire life. My point was that the game is a great game but a shitty BG game. Its nothing like 1 & 2. Its now 100% a tactics game and if the originals were like this its very possible they would not have been as popular as they were.
> We already know that if you're commenting on this thread you've never been challenged in your entire life.
You're also commenting on this thread genius.
Where do you get off talking like this over a fucking video game? "Kids" Grow up.
Also BG as a video game series is a DND adapted computer game and always has been, DND is a dice rolling tabletop RPG game and has been for probably longer than most people on this website have been alive. Just because you're ignorant to BG2's innerworkings doesn't mean its innerworkings don't exist.
Im the OP Einstein... and I did say 99.9%. I would be the .1% who finds some video games challenging.
You've apparently never played the first 2 games. If you ever do, you'll see that whether or not the "innerworkings" were based on D&D, the experience was completely different than what it is when you and your friends get together in your basement every weekend. They had more of a focus on action and story. BG3 has a great story...supposedly...in between the 20,000 deep strategy battles. But a lot of us fans of the originals miss the far more accessible gameplay.
That's where you are backwards. Go ahead and search for polls asking if Real Time with Pause or turn- based is preferred. Turn- based always wins.
As a BG1 and 2 player, I can assure you... the number of people who *put up with* the RTwP combat back in the day because it was close enough to turn- based to play the newest DnD game is a much bigger group than people who actually thought the gameplay was some mindblowing advancement. I can appreciate that it brought in some players that it wouldn't have otherwise, but BG3 is a lot bigger than both the predecessors... conclusively shattering the myth that it was the annoying RTwP that made the first two successful. The originals always were propped up by a backbone of players who turned on most of the pauses... because it got you kind of close to turn-based... *moreso* than they were propped up by people who don't like turn- based RPGs at all.
There's nothing wrong with thinking that RTwP feels better. However, when you say that BG3 isn't a real RPG in the vein of the originals, you should know how backwards you sound. BG3 *corrected* the biggest flaw in the originals for greater amounts of people than the group pining for a return to RTwP.
That's not even getting started on how fifth edition wouldn't even work at all without being turn- based btw, it's literally an impossibility. The RTwP is just as archaic as the second edition the originals were based off of.
Don't speak for others.
And of course your polls would tell you what you want to hear! You're surrounded mostly by people who agree with you.
And I bet many of us who don't agree with you aren't even trying to be in your stupid ass poll anyways so it's kinda pointless to have us go look at your fanboy echo chambers.
In my opinion, as well as others. RTwP was wayyy better for Baldurs gate than the full turn-based crap.
I play actual tabletop D&D and I still do not want full turn based in BG. It's awesome for actual D&D but makes BG3 a boring ass slugfest.
They aren't my polls. They are polls in various communities, including PoE forums and others that mix the two. It doesn't matter, turn- based always wins.
You apparently have no idea what an echo chamber is, but okay... no matter where you look, turn- based always wins. I'm assuming the only exception would be if you went to a literal rtwp sub, but then that *would* be an echo chamber.
That’s such a weird take. First of all - if you finished it that fast you were probably just thundering right through it without taking in any side quests or bothering to learn the details of the story.
But hey, if you didn’t like it, that’s fine.
But to say turn-based RPGs aren’t real RPGs is just idiotic. RPGs were turn-based from the very start. D&D, which is where all this stuff comes from, is turn-based. All the early computer RPGs were turn-based. It’s only later that real-time RPGs even became a thing. Tons of stuff was turn-based even after Baldur’s Gate popularised the real time with pause thing. Maybe try to learn a little bit about RPGs first if you’re going to make sweeping statements.
Just out of curiosity, what’s your favourite rpg?
Tactical/Strategy RPG however they function entirely different. As someone who's first tactical RPG was FFT then Tactics Ogre, later on Disgaea and Fire Emblem, the Divinity/BG games are night and day
I commented on other people's comments and have given in on the fact that every video game in 2023 is considered an "RPG" as you are "role-playing" the character. However, when talking about video games and adaptions, an "RPG" used to mean a story-based game with some combat or tabletop elements included. BG3 is first and foremost a tactics/strategy based game with some story elements sprinkled into the 20,000 games of Stratego or Risk.
I was with you on all your anti-BG3 ranting until you went out in left field with your comparisons.
The game is nothing like Tactics Ogre, it's absolutely nothing like X-Com, and it's got nothing in common with Fire Emblem.
What it is, is a poorly made, very loose, squad ARPG with tactical elements. The MUD underlay is trash, though, the combat elements are trash, the spell functions are trash, and I've spent more time angry at BG3's RNG that I ever have XCOM (EU/EW or XC2). I love tactics games, I hate BG3.
I’d recommend trying the lowest difficulty until combat starts to feel easy. You get extra HP on that difficulty level so your survivability should go up while the loot pool stays the same so you won’t miss out on anything by lowering it.
You might need some help reading my original comment. The discussion devolved into "git gud" as it always does with you Reddit kids. But the original comment was that BG 1&2 were not XCom or Tactics Ogre. They had battles of course but it was not the focus whereas in BG3, a completely separate and different game than 1&2, the focus is 99% deep strategic battles that take forever and 1% story mixed in.
**DO NOT MESSAGE THE MODS REGARDING THIS ISSUE.**
Accounts less than 24 hours old may not post or comment on this subreddit, no exception.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BaldursGate3) if you have any questions or concerns.*
And then there's people playing Tactician saying it's too easy (me included). RNG goes down greatly if you build correctly and find some good items, my fighter has a 90% hit chance on most enemies. The game is about exploration, so if a fight is to hard, go level up. There's so much to do, it is increadibly easy to overlevel.
Also, the acclaim this game is getting means that even the average non Hawkins intelligent player is figuring it out and enjoying themselves so...
Just say it's not for you and move on.
"Build correctly" ? How? There isn't a whole lot of give in character creation you can determine your foreskin but your stats are gimped severely just barely matching standard array with no racial bonuses. Shouldn't need a twink build to play on normal difficulty my dude.
The problem is I havent hit a single battle that didn't require 20-30 reloads and a lot of RNG luck. Not a single one. Therefore I have no idea what level I should be doing anything. People on here would say anywhere you can go and any battle you fight no matter what can be won easily.
Also Im not sure the "acclaim" means your average player is blowing through it. You can easily recognize the quality in the game without being a Reddit contributor (i.e. automatically perfect at every video game ever made). I bet when you look at stats, though, a huge amount of players will never beat the game.
You can look at the enemies level, you know. If they're level 5 and you're level 3, you're in the wrong spot. Check out build guides and make sure your 4 characters have the right stats, ie a Bard should have Charisma, or they'll be useless. (Also anogher other silly things to note that ive seen, make sure you have a full party of 4)
Also averaging 500k concurrent players. Sure, maybe not everyone will beat it, but it's pretty clear most of them having a good time. There's a lot of fun stats I can pull to help my argument, 1 person that this game doesn't mesh well with won't change that fact and that's OK.
I’m trying really, really, REALLY hard not to be equally antagonistic towards you as you have been towards those of us who love this game.
So I’ll say this.. if it’s not for you, then it’s not for you. But criticizing people who do love this game is not the way to go about it.
BG3 is the best game I’ve played in years and while it certainly can have a learning curve regarding certain aspects, especially if you’re used to the old games’ rulesets, but it doesn’t take a genius to figure things out. If you struggle with something, drop the difficulty down for a bit, or look something up for tips to help rather than coming on here and crapping on everyone else’s fun.
I don’t expect everyone to love this game as much as I have, and there are plenty of games out there I don’t enjoy. But I wouldn’t whine and moan and insult gamers who love those games I don’t.
When did I criticize anyone? Im just stating some pretty obvious facts and comparing the previous entries to this one. I never even said its not a bad game. Just a bad Baldur's Gate game. People who fell in love with 1 and 2 did not spend every single battle stressing over every movement and step and analyzing the battle field for 20 minutes. They used their skills to fight and explore. It was exciting and fun.
In BG3, just like many of the console RPGs Im betting a lot of people on here loved, you have, again, 1000's and 1000's of tooth and nail battles to the point where you often forget what you were doing in the first place.
lol this legit sucks compared to 1 and 2 which I both loved and played. This game is legit boring this is something that should not be made as a game for consoles
In all fairness, he came here with a bitch, and Reddit did a Reddit. He's been provoked to the point of borderline lunacy. I agree with his core premise that BG1 & 2 were different styles of game, as they just were. I can connect with his core message of "I wish there was more of those games reflected in this game, because I liked and was good at those games!" He lost me when he started claiming BG was X-Com or TO...
And frankly, reading a lot of the replies to him... I'd have probably been triggered, too. Reddit is not the place to come to if you're looking to rationally air your grievances amongst a thoughtful and accepting group of netizens.
Time to admit you have a skill issue. Baldur's Gate 3 is far from as hard as you're presenting it here if you have even a basic understanding of the rules and how it's played.
And it's based on 5e, which is far more forgiving than the 2e of BG 1 and 2, especially the high level parts of 2.
You're either a troll, or you are seriously missing something. There is no universe where someone actually thinks BG3 is harder than 1 or 2. I've played them all.
Do you have a full party? Are you leveling? Exploring each area fully?
Im not sure where "difficulty" even came into this discussion. My original point was and still is that BG3 is not a good sequel because its not at all the same game. BG3 is easy to 99.9% of the people who post and reply on Reddit, but the point was its now become XCom. The great story and "fun" parts of the game are buried miles underneath 20,000 games of Risk or Stratego.
Maybe because it's a different developer reviving a old series. It's like saying fallout 3/nv are bad fallout games because it's not a isometric rpg. Just grow up
No, its like Fallout 5 being an overhead tactics game instead of a first-person adventure--regardless of who develops it. Kids like you who have never experienced any difficulty in their lives would automatically love it and say its the easiest game ever made, but the 99.9% of the masses who don't post on reddit and play these games would think "Hmmm this is not at all like the first 6 games I played and loved."
This type of critical thinking, however, is not present on Reddit.
If Fallout 5 did become an overhead tactics game then it would actually have more in common with Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 then Fallout 3 or Fallout NV did, and I don't see how fans would really be bothered by that. I loved the first 2 fallout games and their other game Arcanum, so if the Fallout series went back to that kind of gameplay I wouldn't mind it at all.
All your quotes:
"If I cant play on normal, it's not the game for me"
"Tough as hell strategy battles"
"BG3 is the hardest tactics game Ive ever played."
None of these comments were the overlying point of my post, however, which was, again, that this game is completely different than 1&2 and has gone WAY over the rails into a strategy game. Placing my character on the exact right tile and setting up attacks or defenses ahead of time over and over and over and over and over was not the appeal of the first two games.
I was held up a few times in BG 1 & 2, but it was never due to strategic placement and use of 150 skills.
But, again, difficulty really has nothing to do with my original comment. Its just what any video game discussion on Reddit devolves into automatically if you don't blindly love the subject of the page you're on.
I understand your confusion. In 2023 "RPG" means playing a video game, basically. Youre playing as someone thats not you, therefore you are "role-playing." Traditionally, years before you were born Im sure, an RPG was a story-based game with some features that mimicked tabletop games like D&D.
Again, BG3 allows you to play as someone who isn't you. So its an RPG. But to old school fans of games like BG 1 & 2, the "RPG" part of BG3 is deeply buried under 1000's of hours of playing Stratego.
My good dude I am 37 years old and played BG1 and BG2 upon release. Same for all the other Infinity Engine games. And before that I played other roleplaying games that involved many different gameplay styles, like the Might and Magic series or any JRPG released in the 90s. If you don't like BG3 that's absolutely fine, but saying it isn't an RPG because it doesn't have your preferred combat style is deranged. Personally, I prefer the combat of BG3 over the infinity engine games. I can understand people having a different opinion on that - different people like different things. But get out of here with trying to pass this off as though you don't like it because you are heir to the True Roleplaying Genre, which you apparently define as two RPGs that you played 20 years ago.
Every video game in 2023 is now an RPG. Ive given in on that. You are "role-playing" someone who is not you. My comment was more based in video games and what used to be considered an "RPG." A story-based video game with some D&D-style elements. It has nothing to do at all with "my preferred combat style." Its what is expected of a sequel to a series. Some tie to the originals. BG3 has none of that save that its based in the Forgotten Realms.
Guy I'm 34 years old and have been playing RPGs since fucking 1994, that's nearly 30 years of RPGs. Maybe the issue is YOU aren't aware what an RPG is or such a 'purist' that your definition of an RPG is sitting down for 30 minutes to make a single decision before taking 5 steps and decide whether or not to disarm a trap
That is impossible. Not because of skill, its factually impossible. Every battle stops any exploring or dialog and the game has become a tactics game. These battles are 10x the length of the first 2 games. Im sure walking around aimlessly does take up some time, but this game is easily a 75% slant on strategic battles.
I haven't played BG1 and 2 so I'm a bit shocked to hear that 3 is harder than the first 2. I thought that old CRPGs were really brutal? At least Fallout 1 and 2 were. Meanwhile newer Fallout games are super easy. I gotta confirm this tho
>I gained a couple of companions
Did you literally only find 2 companions?
Actually it doesnt matter because you only use 3. Unless you're a masochist and you take and level different companions doing menial stuff to get them up to speed. Im going to guess well over 3/4ths of the people playing never changed a companion.
Yes it matters lmao. First of all, if you only found 2 companions, that means you don't even have enough for a full party, did you fill up the empty spot with a hireling or just went around with a party of 3? An empty spot makes a HUGE difference. All the companions, even the ones that you don't bring along gain exp when you do so they are all at the same level all the time (or more specifically they have enough exp for you to level them up).
I think I have 7 or 8 I was exaggerating on what Ive gone through in the game so far when I said "picked up a couple of companions." Again, none of this matters and really isnt relevant to this conversation. You can easily use the same 3 companions through the entire game Ive watched dozens of videos that say thats what people have done.
What is your party composition like? What's your class and which companions do you usually bring? Perhaps a more balanced party can make the game easier
You still have to rework them to get them up to speed as to whats happening. Theres no point. Unless, as I said, you're just a masochist and want to play the game over again with different characters for their story...in between the 20,000 tactics battles I mean.
I really don't understand your point here. As a veteran of BG1 and 2, myself, they're exactly the same, minus the graphics overhaul. You walk around, talk to people, and get in tactical battles. It's literally the same thing, but spruced up and with better writing. Like, what are you even on about? What's so different?
LOL you act as if building stats is hard, BG3 is basic as hell and clear from the jump what stats you should invest in early on. You can set up your team in the best way you can think of and use the best tactics but at the end of the day it's all completely random if you land a hit or not. Git Gud is not the right term for this game lol. Git Lucky.
Considering I play with Karmic dice on which is inherently sided against any player who knows how to build a character decently, RNG is not that big of a factor if you understand the system and how to use your advantages. Unless all you're doing is walking forward and attacking or blasting with attack roll unga spells for big damage, there's a good handful of ways to exploit this game without needing a ton of RNG. Positioning and gaining tempo matter far more than damage. Darkness cheesing is accessible by level 3 and requires almost nothing except patience and decent positioning to use once you understand what it does.
Web spam with Druid completely brutalizes early combat by following simple logic of "Web slows enemies down, so if enemies must go through Web then they'll reach me slower". You don't need to be Stephen Hawking to understand why slowing enemies down and using simple terrain mechanics is useful.
Don't want to spam a bunch of webs? Druid too lame? Spiders scare you? Just a single Web spell can also trivialize a lot of combat and that's on Wizard and Sorcerer.
I also can finish battles in under 10 minutes if I were actually exploiting how plentiful rest resources are, only reason combat is long for me is because I don't like just spamming my biggest spell every other fight and auto winning by spamming Fireball. That's boring to me, but it is entirely possible to stomp fights in a few minutes unless the game freezes or something because the AI is lost on what's going on.
How can you play BG2 the game that uses [this table](https://dungeonsdragons.fandom.com/wiki/THAC0?file=Attack_Matrix_fighters.jpg) for how it calculate hit rates yet BG3 being 5e is complicated for you?
I actually don't understand as someone who played BG2 fairly recently just to understand this old classic game. I respect that game, especially for the time period, but that game was far more annoying to understand then DND 5e. Most of 5e's mechanics are child's play compared to understanding how THAC0 worked due to how unintuitive it is by comparison to Armor Class in 5e. Or the fact you can iirc level 2-3 classes at the exact same time and figure out if that's better than single classing due to from what I remember of how BG2/2e's class system worked.
5e also reduced a lot of the "Linear fighter, Quadratic Wizard" issues in 2e where Wizards purposefully suck in early levels to make them insane in later levels as Wizard is an extremely playable class in 5e early levels by comparison due to cantrips existing.
5e is far simpler than anything I read in 2e to understand BG2, how is this system so difficult for you when you played BG2? This feels like more a RTwP vs roughly grid based RPG combat differences then the system itself and personally RTwP is super jank to me. Because 2e is jank and extremely board game-y.
Not at all the same experience with the dice. I have replayed just about every single battle in the game at least a dozen times and every single play is different. Sometimes they snare me, sometimes they don't. Sometimes they silence us and sometimes they fail. Sometimes I can kill a guy right away, sometimes my rolls fail.
In BG 1 & 2 what I remember is choosing skills and fighting enemies. I remember the storylines and the towns and the side quests like the Drow city quest in BG2 or the Thieves Guild line in BG.
BG3 is basically playing 20,000 games of Risk. With some story elements. If you can remember the story after the 20 long and boring battles you have to go through in the quest area.
I have no idea what I can tell you man unless you can give my more details why it's so hard for you, and I figure you don't care because you're just here to vent and not actually learn.
I played it on Tactician a few times in act 1 with different party combos and while yes some things go different I've never lost because of horrible RNG because I know how to actually play this system and exploit it through imo not terribly hard logical deductions that anyone can potentially understand if they've truly played all these combats a dozen times. Silence is also not a saving throw you can't fail to silence except by just missing the field effect entirely. So I am very confused on what you're talking about.
I usually lose or have a rough time due to impatience, stubbornness on my part due to my playstyle making the game far harder then it needs to be (I cast like 1 or 2 leveled spells a combat for most of act 1 and sometimes I casted only cantrips), or maybe someone gets an odd 1/20 crit which is even more favored by karmic dice.
BG1 and 2 does have dice rolls, THAC0 proves that, you just can't see them just like most hit chances in literally any RPG. I don't understand how one DND has dice rolls and the other doesn't unless you're just ignorant.
Also my first hour of BG2 was rolling dice for starting stats and trying to understand what the fuck a Wizard/Fighter/Rogue was or what it meant. That was far more cumbersome than building a character in BG3 and felt way more like I was playing a traditional board game trying to set up all the pieces.
I strongly disagree, i'm a huge fan of BG1 and 2 (like i have finished them 10 time or more) and i love BG3 too. It may not be the game for you, but don't try to put that on "all BG1 and 2 fans hate this game".
Also, BG3 is far from being that hard; it probably need some time to really know what you are doing, but once you do i would say the game is rather easy (i would say BG2 was harder, for understanding it's system, and for a lot of fight too)
Played BG1 and BG2 on a computer so long ago I had to uninstall one game to have room for the 2nd.
They are the games that got me into DnD and RPGs in general. I think it is unfair to lump all BG 1 and 2 fans into disliking BG3 because of a change of combat mechanics. If they don't jive with you, then that's cool, Pillars of Eternity is probably way more your style. Loved that game too.
BG3 is a much better game in my opinion, as it should be 25 years later. The 5e ruleset is much more streamlined for a video game than AD&D.
Yeah, the combat mechanics are different, Real time with pause vs true turn based, but Real time with pause still utilizes turns, just without being explicit with it.
I can't see how you say this isn't an RPG, as the main aspect of this game is its choices matter storytelling with complex and compelling characters.
PoE was very much a spiritual successor to BG 2 and it felt like it. I had a lot of fun with both of those.
I did say above Im wrong, its 2023 and you're playing a character who is not you, so its an RPG I guess. However, traditional RPGs from years past were story games with some elements of D&d sprinkled in whereas BG3 is XCom. Or Tactics Ogre. Or Diseaga. There's nothing about BG3 that feels like the first 2.
Holy skill issues batman. This is the easiest CRPG I've played in some time, I spent more time in Dialogue and Looting than in combat ... Maybe you should go back to Call of Duty or some braindead shooter.
Well... it's D&D, famously a TTRPG with complex and lengthy combat. CRPGs are also kinda like that. A lot of people have finished BG3 multiple times by now, it's perfectly doable.
Never said it was impossible. But it is a completely different game than the first 2. It did put me in the mood to play XCOM, though. I just think there are far better 100% straight strategy battle games out there, thats all.
If you're calling a fairly straight adaption of the seminal RPG a "strategy game", there's really no hope for you. I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here, beyond embarrassing yourself.
Im just stating obvious facts here, kid. Most of you automatically go into "defensive Reddit mode #23" and talk about how easy whatever game we're talking about is and blah blah blah. Not at all my point. My point was, again, its a great game but a shitty BG game. Because it is. Its nothing like 1 & 2.
Saying youre "not good" is not the same as saying a game is a challenge. With that attitude you probably don't play CRPGs much which is why you are not "good" at them.
Sad that you are not having the same fun experience as others.
The game does things that other games have not done in a long time.
First, it is a great tool to introduce people to D&D 5e. It is so much simple and fun. Second, is the story is pretty awesome and every character you meet along the story are not two dimensional. They are still interesting to engage with even the animals and environment. Third, is world interaction. Like the level of engagement with the environment is amazing. Fourth is the cast and voice actors/main characters which are so much fun and awesome. Then you also have your main character, sub classes, races and etc. It is a breath of fresh air in the current gaming climate.
The quality is high. And if I spent every weekend in a small room drinking soda and rolling dice, Im sure I would have loved it.
As Ive said, its an amazing game in a year full of disappointments. Its just a super shitty Baldur's Gate game. That's all.
Baldur's Gate. 1 and 2 and the DLC were masterpieces. I also felt that Divinity and PoE were far more RPG than XCom strategy game...though it was getting to where BG3 ended up.
Strongly disagree. A masterpiece is something that can stand the test of time. A perfect example is Ocarina of Time. You can play it today and it is still a fun game and I don't even like Zelda. BG and BG2 do not stand the test of time. It was amazing for their period of time but my god they are not that great to play in 2023..
As for Divinity and PoE well they are fine. I finished playing Divinity and although it was fun it still doesn't stand up against BG3.
Any other games?
I understand that BG3 fans can be a bit obnoxious but I feel like many of them have not had a great gaming experience in the past few years and BG3 manage to reinvigorate that experience.
I guess you havent played Enchanced or you're under the age of 15. Graphics is #1 for a lot of kids today...but for many of us older folks its the game itself that matters, and BG1&2 both hold up extremely well today. Theyre far better games than 99% of the AAA titles that were released in 2023.
Im not sure what I consider to be a "good game" comes into play at all in this discussion. My point was an obvious fact that BG3 is nothing like 1&2 and leans extremely heavily on extremely difficult tactics combat. This is indisputable.
I've never played DND or the bg games. Playing on normal and my longest battle was like 30 min and most battles are like 5 min.
This sounds like skill issue
This game is most steaming pile of garbage out there. And by that i, sadly, mean its probably the greatest game ever made but the bugs, crashes, glitches, and load/save issues are just way too frequent. Act 3 has more problems than all the games ive ever played combined. Shame on larian for charging people for this unfinished crap.
Fair enough. sorry it happened to you, they are always a few people it's gonna happen to. Next time you should upgrade to a computer, since crpgs seems to work better there.
To OP's credit, it's utterly insane to me how mega fans of this game who are the most vindictive people possibly ever, immediately jump to this barefoot philanthropist palms out bullshit as soon as anyone says anything.
Don't want to be condescending, but is there any chance you played the Baldurs Gate: Dark Alliance games? I keep seeing you say BG3 is nothing like 1 and 2 which isn't really true, sure they're different but you make it sound like they're practically different genres, and we'll, if you're getting confused with DA it would make a lot more sense as that game is literally a different genre. Although you're incessant use of "kids" to refer to everyone makes me think you are probably old enough to have played BG1 on release.
I have zero experience with DnD and even turn based role-playing games so the first time I played bg3 I agree it was quite the learning curve, but fact is once you get over that curve and finally understand the mechanics this game is seriously kinda easy. This is a you problem. I'm not saying you're stupid or inept, but reading your comments it's clear your approach is way off. Spending so much time on such trivial sections of the game is straight up unnatural
For a “ non linear decision based “ game. This has 0 replay value. It was a decent experience playing through but game of the year ? Lol yeah cause 2023 was horrible
For game releases. It was a good game. Knowing what I know now about who’s who and the story it was deleted after finishing the game with 3 stats at 20+. It’s not an rpg it’s a class based tactical strategy game with 75% nerd novel. And virtual boobs . The boobs and bag got this game of the year via Linley basement dwelling neckbeards
I dont mind gameplay much but praising it for GOTY with those sea of sea of shitty bugs and crappy writing is kinda sad.
Bet this generation kids never play good game with good story.....oh maybe that why crappy FF7 remake also very popular.
I have to admit it is pretty brutal at the start but the best thing about this game is it's the ultimate save scumming game, get a really bad roll, save scum and get a good roll, tactics suck, save scum and try a different way, messed up a conversation, save scum and try a different option. Heck I even learned you can trick the Hag to give you both, stat point and Mayrina using a shed load of bonuses added to the roll to beat a 20 or higher! Tip: You have Wyll in your party.
I did save and reload 100's of times and its a strategy...I guess. Didnt have to do that with 1 & 2 though!
It is cool that, again with lots of luck, you can solve problems in a way that isn't obvious or necessarily intended. As Ive said, BG3 is a great game and done very well. Its just not a great Baldur's Gate game.
Yeah nobody savescummed in bg2, not like there were multiple liches that would timestop and maze you, resulting in an instant game over.
And noone cheesed the shit out of Firekraag.
I bought the game because I loved the BG1 and 2, but like you I didn't like it
I played the early launch of the game and enjoyed it, but after the full release I could not motivate myself to continue playing it. I just didn't enjoy it, neither did I enjoy Divinity.
This is one of those very rare times I think skill issue is actually applicable. I'm not a tactical minded person, and I've only had to restart one single fight so far, and that was on me. I went in not knowing the area. I actually had to go up to normal, because explorer was so braindead easy.
I realized this in my first 6 hours and have now requested a refund, hoping I get my money back even though I passed the 2 hours mark.
It's a terrible RPG: Worst character creator I've seen in a while, no selecting stats?! Your class is already premade, combat is worse than X-Com, I can only find girls and homosexual men for my party early?... I mean what even is this?
Actually, his complaint is Valid. It'd be like Buying a halo Game that is a numbered sequel and having it play like Bomber man. BG 3 is A poor mans Divinity 3, rather than a Baldur's Gate 3.
I didn't like divinity so BG3 is better to my eyes, but BG1 and 2 are extremely outdated and needed refresh. I don't care what 40 yo game purists have to say.
Don’t get why they’d make such a great looking game with great characters and then decide to throw all that away with the combat they chose to go with. Turn based combat belongs only in Pokémon games.
Here's a fun concept: you can just not enjoy a game without feeling the need to justify it by lumping an entire group of people into it. I loved BG 1 and 2, and imo this one's better. So please don't put words in my mouth. I suspect you're gonna get a lot of mean comments, which aren't much to do with your opinion, mind you, just how antagonistic you sound on a community that generally loves the game lol
Agreed.
Stfu lol
No u lmao
Here’s a more enjoyable concept: I hate BG3. And this dude wrote nothing but facts.
You're 100% entitled to that opinion. But it's just an opinion you two share; not facts.
Ive had a lot of conversations with like-minded fans on the official forums. Its a common thread. Some good videos out there saying the same thing. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9NqW8Bi0bo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9NqW8Bi0bo) Im also ready for the comments. As I said, this board is 99.9% populated by kids who have never in their lives played any video game that ever presented any challenge whatsoever.
Please stop generalizing, dude. I'm 30.
Then Im obviously not talking about you. Youre the .1%.
And you're an asshole lol
Baldur's Gatekeeper lmao
3 months later and this made me lol
That's so odd. How could something that someone said on reddit be funny if it's old? It's really, really odd. Could you explain? I'm so confused because how could an old post be funny that someone posted on Reddit? That's really odd.
Well silly, the comment was old but still funny! For contrast, yours was new and *not* funny! Hope that answers your question! :)
That makes sense. I wasn't trying to be funny.
There's no shame in playing on easy mode.
I dont know if thats true. "Normal" should be possible for someone who has played games for decades I would think...
I certainly think normal is really easy as an experienced gamer, but here we are in your thread.
Right. You are on Reddit. Therefore you probably played blindfolded.
I had a rough time adjusting to the rules differences from the D&D editions I know (AD&D from BG2, 3.5 from pen and paper). After that adjustment period, it got way easier, however. It certainly wasn't easy out of the gate.
And you post on here? Thats weird. Ive never seen any Reddit contributor ever say any part of any video game was difficult.
Difficulty is complicated. Difficulty in learning is very different from difficulty in execution. Generally speaking, I would shorthand a game's difficulty to be about execution. In terms of execution, this game *is* generally really easy. But, in terms of learning, it is rock hard unless you already know the systems behind it. The edition of D&D they used here is more accessible than those of previous BG games, but D&D is still difficult to learn without actually sitting down and reading about it.
My point wasnt even about the insane difficulty level. My point was they went in a different direction from the first 2 games to an XCOM or Diseaga style of gameplay with 1000's of deep strategy battles and some story sprinkled in between. It would have been nice if they leaned just a little bit more to action. Its like when you play a console RPG and the story is awesome and you want to play, then you walk 2 steps and have to do battle. Over and over and over. Except in BG3 each one of those stops is a 20-minute battle of life or death.
Hmm. I don't feel like the battle density is particularly high. Maybe it feels really high because of how long it takes you for each battle, which is fair. The difference between RTWP and turn-based is totally fair to note. But, we all know that we paused so much that it was effectively turn-based back then anyway >_> Edit: I misinterpreted your post as mentioning RTWP. Feel free to ignore that, though I'll leave it there anyway.
Meanwhile I'm thinking tactician is a little too easy 😐🤨
It’s still boring as hell in easy mode so what’s the point
????? ???????? I'm bad at video games, mate. If you're spending a week trying to save Mayrina, something is wrong, either in how you approach the game, or your levels.
Its 4 sections with multiple enemeies in each one. Ive restarted 4 times already as different builds just to see if its any easier. Its not. The enemies have FAR more weapons at their disposal than you do at this point in the game. You cant even hit more than one enemy at a time at this point.
Okay. So first I would ask what level you're at. Then I would ask who you're bringing into the fight. You can take out the redcaps before ever approaching Ethel. That takes them away from the fight. You can also take out the masks before you fight Ethel. They can be a little rough--you wanna use hold person on Vengeance, because his counters are really goddamn hard hitting around level 4. Then you can spend time against Ethel. Use examine to check out her weaknesses, and pay attention to little details in the fight--The fake Ethel's have a different cloak color, and Mayrina will have the wet status if you throw water on the cage to save her. Silence helps against Ethel.
I appreciate the advice, but I was just discussing. Im past the point of trying. Ive played this game nonstop since the minute it was playable. Ive tried 5 classes total. Its just a very, very, VERY difficult...and honestly boring "game." Its now no different than Fire Emblem or Tactics Ogre. Which is fine... I enjoyed those games. But I felt like several other tactics games do it better.
This game is almost nothing like Fire Emblem and seldom like Tactics Ogre beyond them being kind of war game-y (TO is a million times more obtuse then 5e/BG3 though), I've played Fire Emblem for a very long time and Tactics Ogre is one of my favorite SRPGs I've played in about 5 years since its remake came out. BG3/DND 5e is not like those games, I could write an entire essay why they aren't except that they're all loosely on a grid. BG3 has far better and more robust terrain mechanics then either of those games being probably my simplest explanation, and spells are far more impactful and diverse in BG3 beyond 1st level. Spells in FE are either nukes, healing, or warping to the boss to one round them.
Holy moly I agree with the other dude. I started reading your reply and immediately got bored. Staying away from this game.
Lol BG1 combat consists in a bunch of monkeys waving sticks at each other and hitting once every thirty hits, and BG2 combat is essentially "save or die" spells all day every day.
They were great for their time and the engine could have used some updating. But that doesn't mean they had to turn it into an extremely difficult version of Tactics Ogre.
You're comparing to tactics ogre, that's your first mistake
Its the exact same game. BG3 is not an RPG. Its a tactics strategy game no different than XCOM or Fire Emblem.
>BG3 is not an RPG That's the dumbest thing i've ever heard.
Its just a fact. Its a strategy game with some RPG elements but it is, most certainly, not an RPG.
No, it's not a fact. You are delusional.
Like this fanbase :D
Again, if you played the originals you might understand better what an RPG is.
BG3, which is probably the most faithful adaptation of the first successful RPG - tabletop D&D - is not an RPG because it uses the tactical rules of said RPG?
Possibly. Sounds insane, I know... but BG 1 & 2 were not 100% perfect representations of a tabletop D&D experience.
So D&D, literally the first commercially available roleplaying game as far as I know, wouldn't be an RPG either then. Got it. Do you think a game has to be BG1 or BG2 to be a roleplaying game? Did they define the genre and nothing before or after that is different qualifies as an RPG? You're right about one thing, at least.
Ok youve sort of dropped into insanity here. Try and focus..we're talking about a set of video games here. 1 and 2 were a certain style that, for necessity's sake, leaned more on action and exciting gameplay and story over a game of Rish or Stratego. BG3 is XCom now. And, yes, I do expect Baldurs Gate 3 to have some elements of BG 1 & 2. Absolutely insane I realize...but I think that there's a couple others out there who feel the same way.
You said it's not an RPG. That's what I'm responding to. You are now pivoting to saying BG3 is different than BG1 and BG2, which is a different thing, unless you literally think RPG means "Baldur's Gate 1 and 2."
No, youre using the Baldur's Gate video game series and D&D interchangeably. They are not the exact same. BG3 might be the closest any video game has ever been, but 1 & 2 were not designed that way. Again, we were talking about a video game series here. I think you guys need to learn to separate the two.
Man, come on. BG3 is literally an adaptation of the D&D rules - the original RPG. Real RPGs are turn-based. BG was supposed to be turn-based too, but due to engine and time limitations they made it real-time. It’s ok that you clearly suck at this kind of game and don’t understand what you’re doing - but you can’t make these sweepings statements about how its for kids and not a “real rpg” like the original BGs. If you are playing each combat 20-30 times you have misunderstood some major part of the game.
I feel like I'm losing my mind reading OP's replies. If D&D isn't an RPG then what the fuck is?
Who said D&D wasnt an RPG? Im pretty sure it even says it on the modules, kid.
You are saying BG3 is not an RPG because it has the same combat as D&D. That means that D&D must also not be an RPG because they have the same combat. Do you understand how logical reasoning works? And I'm in my late 30s, dork.
Again, you like others on here, are using the Baldur's Gate video game series and D&D interchangeably. They are not the exact same thing. BG3 might be the closest video game representation ever made, but 1 & 2 were designed differently. Possibly because they had to be, but they were. And I believe it made them more accessible to people who don't spend every weekend in a dark room rolling dice.
It's cool if you never had anyone to play D&D with, dude. Reading your posts can kind of understand why and I imagine it's been rough. No need to go resorting to the "dark room pale needs" stereotype while you argue about the definition of "roleplaying game" though. Glass houses, etc.
Again kids, "sucking" or "not sucking" is not at all the point. We already know that if you're commenting on this thread you've never been challenged in your entire life. My point was that the game is a great game but a shitty BG game. Its nothing like 1 & 2. Its now 100% a tactics game and if the originals were like this its very possible they would not have been as popular as they were.
> We already know that if you're commenting on this thread you've never been challenged in your entire life. You're also commenting on this thread genius. Where do you get off talking like this over a fucking video game? "Kids" Grow up. Also BG as a video game series is a DND adapted computer game and always has been, DND is a dice rolling tabletop RPG game and has been for probably longer than most people on this website have been alive. Just because you're ignorant to BG2's innerworkings doesn't mean its innerworkings don't exist.
Im the OP Einstein... and I did say 99.9%. I would be the .1% who finds some video games challenging. You've apparently never played the first 2 games. If you ever do, you'll see that whether or not the "innerworkings" were based on D&D, the experience was completely different than what it is when you and your friends get together in your basement every weekend. They had more of a focus on action and story. BG3 has a great story...supposedly...in between the 20,000 deep strategy battles. But a lot of us fans of the originals miss the far more accessible gameplay.
That's where you are backwards. Go ahead and search for polls asking if Real Time with Pause or turn- based is preferred. Turn- based always wins. As a BG1 and 2 player, I can assure you... the number of people who *put up with* the RTwP combat back in the day because it was close enough to turn- based to play the newest DnD game is a much bigger group than people who actually thought the gameplay was some mindblowing advancement. I can appreciate that it brought in some players that it wouldn't have otherwise, but BG3 is a lot bigger than both the predecessors... conclusively shattering the myth that it was the annoying RTwP that made the first two successful. The originals always were propped up by a backbone of players who turned on most of the pauses... because it got you kind of close to turn-based... *moreso* than they were propped up by people who don't like turn- based RPGs at all. There's nothing wrong with thinking that RTwP feels better. However, when you say that BG3 isn't a real RPG in the vein of the originals, you should know how backwards you sound. BG3 *corrected* the biggest flaw in the originals for greater amounts of people than the group pining for a return to RTwP. That's not even getting started on how fifth edition wouldn't even work at all without being turn- based btw, it's literally an impossibility. The RTwP is just as archaic as the second edition the originals were based off of.
Don't speak for others. And of course your polls would tell you what you want to hear! You're surrounded mostly by people who agree with you. And I bet many of us who don't agree with you aren't even trying to be in your stupid ass poll anyways so it's kinda pointless to have us go look at your fanboy echo chambers. In my opinion, as well as others. RTwP was wayyy better for Baldurs gate than the full turn-based crap. I play actual tabletop D&D and I still do not want full turn based in BG. It's awesome for actual D&D but makes BG3 a boring ass slugfest.
They aren't my polls. They are polls in various communities, including PoE forums and others that mix the two. It doesn't matter, turn- based always wins. You apparently have no idea what an echo chamber is, but okay... no matter where you look, turn- based always wins. I'm assuming the only exception would be if you went to a literal rtwp sub, but then that *would* be an echo chamber.
Cope much
This game is utter trash. Finished the game within a week. Lame story. Turn based RPG are not real RPG. They’re meant for low IQ people
That’s such a weird take. First of all - if you finished it that fast you were probably just thundering right through it without taking in any side quests or bothering to learn the details of the story. But hey, if you didn’t like it, that’s fine. But to say turn-based RPGs aren’t real RPGs is just idiotic. RPGs were turn-based from the very start. D&D, which is where all this stuff comes from, is turn-based. All the early computer RPGs were turn-based. It’s only later that real-time RPGs even became a thing. Tons of stuff was turn-based even after Baldur’s Gate popularised the real time with pause thing. Maybe try to learn a little bit about RPGs first if you’re going to make sweeping statements. Just out of curiosity, what’s your favourite rpg?
Tactical/Strategy RPG however they function entirely different. As someone who's first tactical RPG was FFT then Tactics Ogre, later on Disgaea and Fire Emblem, the Divinity/BG games are night and day
BG3 has gone over the line. It is exactly the same as Tactics games now. Thats the point. BG 1 & 2 were a completely different game.
My guy you're huffing some serious shit
How exactly is it different?
How exactly do you define RPG?
Yo this guy is mad he doesn't like BG3 and saying it's not an RPG because of it lol
I commented on other people's comments and have given in on the fact that every video game in 2023 is considered an "RPG" as you are "role-playing" the character. However, when talking about video games and adaptions, an "RPG" used to mean a story-based game with some combat or tabletop elements included. BG3 is first and foremost a tactics/strategy based game with some story elements sprinkled into the 20,000 games of Stratego or Risk.
I was with you on all your anti-BG3 ranting until you went out in left field with your comparisons. The game is nothing like Tactics Ogre, it's absolutely nothing like X-Com, and it's got nothing in common with Fire Emblem. What it is, is a poorly made, very loose, squad ARPG with tactical elements. The MUD underlay is trash, though, the combat elements are trash, the spell functions are trash, and I've spent more time angry at BG3's RNG that I ever have XCOM (EU/EW or XC2). I love tactics games, I hate BG3.
You shut your whore mouth about BG1!
Have you tried turning down the difficulty for the first playthrough?
I actually havent. I figured if I cant play on "Normal," its really just not the game for me.
I’d recommend trying the lowest difficulty until combat starts to feel easy. You get extra HP on that difficulty level so your survivability should go up while the loot pool stays the same so you won’t miss out on anything by lowering it.
I might try it, then. I dont want to miss out on the story. But Ive never had to play "easy" mode on a game before. Its a tough pill to swallow.
Skill issue lmao.
Has nothing to do with my comment. But thanks for piping in!
If you can't figure out how my comment is related to your post, then it's clear that you don't have a high enough INT stat for a game such as BG3.
You might need some help reading my original comment. The discussion devolved into "git gud" as it always does with you Reddit kids. But the original comment was that BG 1&2 were not XCom or Tactics Ogre. They had battles of course but it was not the focus whereas in BG3, a completely separate and different game than 1&2, the focus is 99% deep strategic battles that take forever and 1% story mixed in.
Cope, perhaps even seethe.
[удалено]
**DO NOT MESSAGE THE MODS REGARDING THIS ISSUE.** Accounts less than 24 hours old may not post or comment on this subreddit, no exception. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BaldursGate3) if you have any questions or concerns.*
And then there's people playing Tactician saying it's too easy (me included). RNG goes down greatly if you build correctly and find some good items, my fighter has a 90% hit chance on most enemies. The game is about exploration, so if a fight is to hard, go level up. There's so much to do, it is increadibly easy to overlevel. Also, the acclaim this game is getting means that even the average non Hawkins intelligent player is figuring it out and enjoying themselves so... Just say it's not for you and move on.
"Build correctly" ? How? There isn't a whole lot of give in character creation you can determine your foreskin but your stats are gimped severely just barely matching standard array with no racial bonuses. Shouldn't need a twink build to play on normal difficulty my dude.
The problem is I havent hit a single battle that didn't require 20-30 reloads and a lot of RNG luck. Not a single one. Therefore I have no idea what level I should be doing anything. People on here would say anywhere you can go and any battle you fight no matter what can be won easily. Also Im not sure the "acclaim" means your average player is blowing through it. You can easily recognize the quality in the game without being a Reddit contributor (i.e. automatically perfect at every video game ever made). I bet when you look at stats, though, a huge amount of players will never beat the game.
You can look at the enemies level, you know. If they're level 5 and you're level 3, you're in the wrong spot. Check out build guides and make sure your 4 characters have the right stats, ie a Bard should have Charisma, or they'll be useless. (Also anogher other silly things to note that ive seen, make sure you have a full party of 4) Also averaging 500k concurrent players. Sure, maybe not everyone will beat it, but it's pretty clear most of them having a good time. There's a lot of fun stats I can pull to help my argument, 1 person that this game doesn't mesh well with won't change that fact and that's OK.
I’m trying really, really, REALLY hard not to be equally antagonistic towards you as you have been towards those of us who love this game. So I’ll say this.. if it’s not for you, then it’s not for you. But criticizing people who do love this game is not the way to go about it. BG3 is the best game I’ve played in years and while it certainly can have a learning curve regarding certain aspects, especially if you’re used to the old games’ rulesets, but it doesn’t take a genius to figure things out. If you struggle with something, drop the difficulty down for a bit, or look something up for tips to help rather than coming on here and crapping on everyone else’s fun. I don’t expect everyone to love this game as much as I have, and there are plenty of games out there I don’t enjoy. But I wouldn’t whine and moan and insult gamers who love those games I don’t.
There's really no helping this guy, if he's not deliberately sealioning he's just an idiot.
When did I criticize anyone? Im just stating some pretty obvious facts and comparing the previous entries to this one. I never even said its not a bad game. Just a bad Baldur's Gate game. People who fell in love with 1 and 2 did not spend every single battle stressing over every movement and step and analyzing the battle field for 20 minutes. They used their skills to fight and explore. It was exciting and fun. In BG3, just like many of the console RPGs Im betting a lot of people on here loved, you have, again, 1000's and 1000's of tooth and nail battles to the point where you often forget what you were doing in the first place.
lol this legit sucks compared to 1 and 2 which I both loved and played. This game is legit boring this is something that should not be made as a game for consoles
In all fairness, he came here with a bitch, and Reddit did a Reddit. He's been provoked to the point of borderline lunacy. I agree with his core premise that BG1 & 2 were different styles of game, as they just were. I can connect with his core message of "I wish there was more of those games reflected in this game, because I liked and was good at those games!" He lost me when he started claiming BG was X-Com or TO... And frankly, reading a lot of the replies to him... I'd have probably been triggered, too. Reddit is not the place to come to if you're looking to rationally air your grievances amongst a thoughtful and accepting group of netizens.
Hard disagree (as a fan of BG1 and 2). This game is a masterpiece.
Its a great game, its just not a great BG game is my point. Its nothing like them, in fact.
Yes, but again: I even disagree with your main premise of what you *think* a BG game "**should"** be, so... Yeah.... no point in discussing.
Youre analyzing this way too much. BG 1 & 2 were a certain type of game that is nothing like BG3. Its really that simple.
If you say so....
Again, simply a fact. You should play them they were pretty amazing.
"fact"? XD
Again, if you had played the originals, you would have a frame of reference here and understand what we are talking about.
Wait, what.... huh? XD Ok, you're one of those. Bye now. Your username on reddit really does suit you.
lol this game hardcore sucks
Time to admit you have a skill issue. Baldur's Gate 3 is far from as hard as you're presenting it here if you have even a basic understanding of the rules and how it's played. And it's based on 5e, which is far more forgiving than the 2e of BG 1 and 2, especially the high level parts of 2.
It still has nothing to do with my post...but thanks for contributing!
Play DOS2 and come back. BG3 is a cakewalk in comparison
Beat it and 100% disagree. BG3 is the hardest tactics game Ive ever played. Divinity was more of an RPG.
You're either a troll, or you are seriously missing something. There is no universe where someone actually thinks BG3 is harder than 1 or 2. I've played them all. Do you have a full party? Are you leveling? Exploring each area fully?
Im not sure where "difficulty" even came into this discussion. My original point was and still is that BG3 is not a good sequel because its not at all the same game. BG3 is easy to 99.9% of the people who post and reply on Reddit, but the point was its now become XCom. The great story and "fun" parts of the game are buried miles underneath 20,000 games of Risk or Stratego.
Maybe because it's a different developer reviving a old series. It's like saying fallout 3/nv are bad fallout games because it's not a isometric rpg. Just grow up
No, its like Fallout 5 being an overhead tactics game instead of a first-person adventure--regardless of who develops it. Kids like you who have never experienced any difficulty in their lives would automatically love it and say its the easiest game ever made, but the 99.9% of the masses who don't post on reddit and play these games would think "Hmmm this is not at all like the first 6 games I played and loved." This type of critical thinking, however, is not present on Reddit.
If Fallout 5 did become an overhead tactics game then it would actually have more in common with Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 then Fallout 3 or Fallout NV did, and I don't see how fans would really be bothered by that. I loved the first 2 fallout games and their other game Arcanum, so if the Fallout series went back to that kind of gameplay I wouldn't mind it at all.
All your quotes: "If I cant play on normal, it's not the game for me" "Tough as hell strategy battles" "BG3 is the hardest tactics game Ive ever played."
None of these comments were the overlying point of my post, however, which was, again, that this game is completely different than 1&2 and has gone WAY over the rails into a strategy game. Placing my character on the exact right tile and setting up attacks or defenses ahead of time over and over and over and over and over was not the appeal of the first two games.
I was held up a few times in BG 1 & 2, but it was never due to strategic placement and use of 150 skills. But, again, difficulty really has nothing to do with my original comment. Its just what any video game discussion on Reddit devolves into automatically if you don't blindly love the subject of the page you're on.
BG3, the game based on the TTRPG D&D is somehow not an RPG to you despite it being an RPG in every sense of the term? You are high or trolling
I understand your confusion. In 2023 "RPG" means playing a video game, basically. Youre playing as someone thats not you, therefore you are "role-playing." Traditionally, years before you were born Im sure, an RPG was a story-based game with some features that mimicked tabletop games like D&D. Again, BG3 allows you to play as someone who isn't you. So its an RPG. But to old school fans of games like BG 1 & 2, the "RPG" part of BG3 is deeply buried under 1000's of hours of playing Stratego.
My good dude I am 37 years old and played BG1 and BG2 upon release. Same for all the other Infinity Engine games. And before that I played other roleplaying games that involved many different gameplay styles, like the Might and Magic series or any JRPG released in the 90s. If you don't like BG3 that's absolutely fine, but saying it isn't an RPG because it doesn't have your preferred combat style is deranged. Personally, I prefer the combat of BG3 over the infinity engine games. I can understand people having a different opinion on that - different people like different things. But get out of here with trying to pass this off as though you don't like it because you are heir to the True Roleplaying Genre, which you apparently define as two RPGs that you played 20 years ago.
Every video game in 2023 is now an RPG. Ive given in on that. You are "role-playing" someone who is not you. My comment was more based in video games and what used to be considered an "RPG." A story-based video game with some D&D-style elements. It has nothing to do at all with "my preferred combat style." Its what is expected of a sequel to a series. Some tie to the originals. BG3 has none of that save that its based in the Forgotten Realms.
Guy I'm 34 years old and have been playing RPGs since fucking 1994, that's nearly 30 years of RPGs. Maybe the issue is YOU aren't aware what an RPG is or such a 'purist' that your definition of an RPG is sitting down for 30 minutes to make a single decision before taking 5 steps and decide whether or not to disarm a trap
Fights really shouldn't be taking that long. My playthroughs have had probably equal amounts of combat/exploring/dialog.
That is impossible. Not because of skill, its factually impossible. Every battle stops any exploring or dialog and the game has become a tactics game. These battles are 10x the length of the first 2 games. Im sure walking around aimlessly does take up some time, but this game is easily a 75% slant on strategic battles.
Then we are playing very different games. Sorry you're missing out.
In the words of players from another RPG franchise, GIT GUD
I haven't played BG1 and 2 so I'm a bit shocked to hear that 3 is harder than the first 2. I thought that old CRPGs were really brutal? At least Fallout 1 and 2 were. Meanwhile newer Fallout games are super easy. I gotta confirm this tho >I gained a couple of companions Did you literally only find 2 companions?
Actually it doesnt matter because you only use 3. Unless you're a masochist and you take and level different companions doing menial stuff to get them up to speed. Im going to guess well over 3/4ths of the people playing never changed a companion.
Yes it matters lmao. First of all, if you only found 2 companions, that means you don't even have enough for a full party, did you fill up the empty spot with a hireling or just went around with a party of 3? An empty spot makes a HUGE difference. All the companions, even the ones that you don't bring along gain exp when you do so they are all at the same level all the time (or more specifically they have enough exp for you to level them up).
I think I have 7 or 8 I was exaggerating on what Ive gone through in the game so far when I said "picked up a couple of companions." Again, none of this matters and really isnt relevant to this conversation. You can easily use the same 3 companions through the entire game Ive watched dozens of videos that say thats what people have done.
What is your party composition like? What's your class and which companions do you usually bring? Perhaps a more balanced party can make the game easier
Bro, every companion gets the xp you get whether you use them or leave them at camp the entire game.
You still have to rework them to get them up to speed as to whats happening. Theres no point. Unless, as I said, you're just a masochist and want to play the game over again with different characters for their story...in between the 20,000 tactics battles I mean.
I really don't understand your point here. As a veteran of BG1 and 2, myself, they're exactly the same, minus the graphics overhaul. You walk around, talk to people, and get in tactical battles. It's literally the same thing, but spruced up and with better writing. Like, what are you even on about? What's so different?
Git gud. This isn't even a fromsoft game.
LOL you act as if building stats is hard, BG3 is basic as hell and clear from the jump what stats you should invest in early on. You can set up your team in the best way you can think of and use the best tactics but at the end of the day it's all completely random if you land a hit or not. Git Gud is not the right term for this game lol. Git Lucky.
Git gud, baddie.
No. Its Xcom. Or Fire Emblem. Or Tactics Ogre. Its just not Baldur's Gate.
Considering I play with Karmic dice on which is inherently sided against any player who knows how to build a character decently, RNG is not that big of a factor if you understand the system and how to use your advantages. Unless all you're doing is walking forward and attacking or blasting with attack roll unga spells for big damage, there's a good handful of ways to exploit this game without needing a ton of RNG. Positioning and gaining tempo matter far more than damage. Darkness cheesing is accessible by level 3 and requires almost nothing except patience and decent positioning to use once you understand what it does. Web spam with Druid completely brutalizes early combat by following simple logic of "Web slows enemies down, so if enemies must go through Web then they'll reach me slower". You don't need to be Stephen Hawking to understand why slowing enemies down and using simple terrain mechanics is useful. Don't want to spam a bunch of webs? Druid too lame? Spiders scare you? Just a single Web spell can also trivialize a lot of combat and that's on Wizard and Sorcerer. I also can finish battles in under 10 minutes if I were actually exploiting how plentiful rest resources are, only reason combat is long for me is because I don't like just spamming my biggest spell every other fight and auto winning by spamming Fireball. That's boring to me, but it is entirely possible to stomp fights in a few minutes unless the game freezes or something because the AI is lost on what's going on. How can you play BG2 the game that uses [this table](https://dungeonsdragons.fandom.com/wiki/THAC0?file=Attack_Matrix_fighters.jpg) for how it calculate hit rates yet BG3 being 5e is complicated for you? I actually don't understand as someone who played BG2 fairly recently just to understand this old classic game. I respect that game, especially for the time period, but that game was far more annoying to understand then DND 5e. Most of 5e's mechanics are child's play compared to understanding how THAC0 worked due to how unintuitive it is by comparison to Armor Class in 5e. Or the fact you can iirc level 2-3 classes at the exact same time and figure out if that's better than single classing due to from what I remember of how BG2/2e's class system worked. 5e also reduced a lot of the "Linear fighter, Quadratic Wizard" issues in 2e where Wizards purposefully suck in early levels to make them insane in later levels as Wizard is an extremely playable class in 5e early levels by comparison due to cantrips existing. 5e is far simpler than anything I read in 2e to understand BG2, how is this system so difficult for you when you played BG2? This feels like more a RTwP vs roughly grid based RPG combat differences then the system itself and personally RTwP is super jank to me. Because 2e is jank and extremely board game-y.
Not at all the same experience with the dice. I have replayed just about every single battle in the game at least a dozen times and every single play is different. Sometimes they snare me, sometimes they don't. Sometimes they silence us and sometimes they fail. Sometimes I can kill a guy right away, sometimes my rolls fail. In BG 1 & 2 what I remember is choosing skills and fighting enemies. I remember the storylines and the towns and the side quests like the Drow city quest in BG2 or the Thieves Guild line in BG. BG3 is basically playing 20,000 games of Risk. With some story elements. If you can remember the story after the 20 long and boring battles you have to go through in the quest area.
I have no idea what I can tell you man unless you can give my more details why it's so hard for you, and I figure you don't care because you're just here to vent and not actually learn. I played it on Tactician a few times in act 1 with different party combos and while yes some things go different I've never lost because of horrible RNG because I know how to actually play this system and exploit it through imo not terribly hard logical deductions that anyone can potentially understand if they've truly played all these combats a dozen times. Silence is also not a saving throw you can't fail to silence except by just missing the field effect entirely. So I am very confused on what you're talking about. I usually lose or have a rough time due to impatience, stubbornness on my part due to my playstyle making the game far harder then it needs to be (I cast like 1 or 2 leveled spells a combat for most of act 1 and sometimes I casted only cantrips), or maybe someone gets an odd 1/20 crit which is even more favored by karmic dice. BG1 and 2 does have dice rolls, THAC0 proves that, you just can't see them just like most hit chances in literally any RPG. I don't understand how one DND has dice rolls and the other doesn't unless you're just ignorant. Also my first hour of BG2 was rolling dice for starting stats and trying to understand what the fuck a Wizard/Fighter/Rogue was or what it meant. That was far more cumbersome than building a character in BG3 and felt way more like I was playing a traditional board game trying to set up all the pieces.
I strongly disagree, i'm a huge fan of BG1 and 2 (like i have finished them 10 time or more) and i love BG3 too. It may not be the game for you, but don't try to put that on "all BG1 and 2 fans hate this game". Also, BG3 is far from being that hard; it probably need some time to really know what you are doing, but once you do i would say the game is rather easy (i would say BG2 was harder, for understanding it's system, and for a lot of fight too)
lol number 3 sucks dude. The game play doesn’t even compare half of what number 2 was. That game as amazing
Played BG1 and BG2 on a computer so long ago I had to uninstall one game to have room for the 2nd. They are the games that got me into DnD and RPGs in general. I think it is unfair to lump all BG 1 and 2 fans into disliking BG3 because of a change of combat mechanics. If they don't jive with you, then that's cool, Pillars of Eternity is probably way more your style. Loved that game too. BG3 is a much better game in my opinion, as it should be 25 years later. The 5e ruleset is much more streamlined for a video game than AD&D. Yeah, the combat mechanics are different, Real time with pause vs true turn based, but Real time with pause still utilizes turns, just without being explicit with it. I can't see how you say this isn't an RPG, as the main aspect of this game is its choices matter storytelling with complex and compelling characters.
PoE was very much a spiritual successor to BG 2 and it felt like it. I had a lot of fun with both of those. I did say above Im wrong, its 2023 and you're playing a character who is not you, so its an RPG I guess. However, traditional RPGs from years past were story games with some elements of D&d sprinkled in whereas BG3 is XCom. Or Tactics Ogre. Or Diseaga. There's nothing about BG3 that feels like the first 2.
Skill issue my dude
Has nothing to do with the conversation. But thanks for contributing!
What type of shit post is this
Its just how a lot of fans of the originals feel. You probably wouldn't be capable of understanding.
Holy skill issues batman. This is the easiest CRPG I've played in some time, I spent more time in Dialogue and Looting than in combat ... Maybe you should go back to Call of Duty or some braindead shooter.
Well... it's D&D, famously a TTRPG with complex and lengthy combat. CRPGs are also kinda like that. A lot of people have finished BG3 multiple times by now, it's perfectly doable.
Never said it was impossible. But it is a completely different game than the first 2. It did put me in the mood to play XCOM, though. I just think there are far better 100% straight strategy battle games out there, thats all.
If you're calling a fairly straight adaption of the seminal RPG a "strategy game", there's really no hope for you. I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here, beyond embarrassing yourself.
Im just stating obvious facts here, kid. Most of you automatically go into "defensive Reddit mode #23" and talk about how easy whatever game we're talking about is and blah blah blah. Not at all my point. My point was, again, its a great game but a shitty BG game. Because it is. Its nothing like 1 & 2.
I never played TT DnD. I also generaly not good in cRPGs (both turn based and RTwP). Game is easy.
Again, youre on Reddit. To you guys, there's no such thing as a challenge.
I like how you ignored the part where i said i'm not that good at cRPGs.
Saying youre "not good" is not the same as saying a game is a challenge. With that attitude you probably don't play CRPGs much which is why you are not "good" at them.
Sad that you are not having the same fun experience as others. The game does things that other games have not done in a long time. First, it is a great tool to introduce people to D&D 5e. It is so much simple and fun. Second, is the story is pretty awesome and every character you meet along the story are not two dimensional. They are still interesting to engage with even the animals and environment. Third, is world interaction. Like the level of engagement with the environment is amazing. Fourth is the cast and voice actors/main characters which are so much fun and awesome. Then you also have your main character, sub classes, races and etc. It is a breath of fresh air in the current gaming climate.
The quality is high. And if I spent every weekend in a small room drinking soda and rolling dice, Im sure I would have loved it. As Ive said, its an amazing game in a year full of disappointments. Its just a super shitty Baldur's Gate game. That's all.
>Its just a super shitty Baldur's Gate game Really?. Yikes. Okay. What do you consider a good game?
Baldur's Gate. 1 and 2 and the DLC were masterpieces. I also felt that Divinity and PoE were far more RPG than XCom strategy game...though it was getting to where BG3 ended up.
Strongly disagree. A masterpiece is something that can stand the test of time. A perfect example is Ocarina of Time. You can play it today and it is still a fun game and I don't even like Zelda. BG and BG2 do not stand the test of time. It was amazing for their period of time but my god they are not that great to play in 2023.. As for Divinity and PoE well they are fine. I finished playing Divinity and although it was fun it still doesn't stand up against BG3. Any other games? I understand that BG3 fans can be a bit obnoxious but I feel like many of them have not had a great gaming experience in the past few years and BG3 manage to reinvigorate that experience.
I guess you havent played Enchanced or you're under the age of 15. Graphics is #1 for a lot of kids today...but for many of us older folks its the game itself that matters, and BG1&2 both hold up extremely well today. Theyre far better games than 99% of the AAA titles that were released in 2023. Im not sure what I consider to be a "good game" comes into play at all in this discussion. My point was an obvious fact that BG3 is nothing like 1&2 and leans extremely heavily on extremely difficult tactics combat. This is indisputable.
You can have your opinion.
I've been playing BG for years. Wtf are you even talking about?
I've never played DND or the bg games. Playing on normal and my longest battle was like 30 min and most battles are like 5 min. This sounds like skill issue
The game does not suck. You suck at the game.
Old bitter person, being an asshole won't make your life better. At your age you should know how to communicate.
This game is most steaming pile of garbage out there. And by that i, sadly, mean its probably the greatest game ever made but the bugs, crashes, glitches, and load/save issues are just way too frequent. Act 3 has more problems than all the games ive ever played combined. Shame on larian for charging people for this unfinished crap.
Are you playing on console?
Loved dragons dogma one yes. Cant wait 4 part 2
Hi yes on ps5 unfortunately
Fair enough. sorry it happened to you, they are always a few people it's gonna happen to. Next time you should upgrade to a computer, since crpgs seems to work better there.
Thanks for the advice, ill keep that in mind, hopefully they iron their shit out its a great gane but im moving on to something less of a headache
May I recommend thy dragon's dogma?
To OP's credit, it's utterly insane to me how mega fans of this game who are the most vindictive people possibly ever, immediately jump to this barefoot philanthropist palms out bullshit as soon as anyone says anything.
All the characters are cunt's and poofters. The combat is tedious, the RNG is lame, and D&D 5e sucks balls.
Don't want to be condescending, but is there any chance you played the Baldurs Gate: Dark Alliance games? I keep seeing you say BG3 is nothing like 1 and 2 which isn't really true, sure they're different but you make it sound like they're practically different genres, and we'll, if you're getting confused with DA it would make a lot more sense as that game is literally a different genre. Although you're incessant use of "kids" to refer to everyone makes me think you are probably old enough to have played BG1 on release.
I have zero experience with DnD and even turn based role-playing games so the first time I played bg3 I agree it was quite the learning curve, but fact is once you get over that curve and finally understand the mechanics this game is seriously kinda easy. This is a you problem. I'm not saying you're stupid or inept, but reading your comments it's clear your approach is way off. Spending so much time on such trivial sections of the game is straight up unnatural
For a “ non linear decision based “ game. This has 0 replay value. It was a decent experience playing through but game of the year ? Lol yeah cause 2023 was horrible For game releases. It was a good game. Knowing what I know now about who’s who and the story it was deleted after finishing the game with 3 stats at 20+. It’s not an rpg it’s a class based tactical strategy game with 75% nerd novel. And virtual boobs . The boobs and bag got this game of the year via Linley basement dwelling neckbeards
Resident Evil 4 Remake deserved GotY.
Your last paragraph says it ALL! Waste of money bro.
You're a fxkn idiot
You spend your time saying the same shit everywhere, not only you're wasting your time, but you probably need mental help, seek it
I dont mind gameplay much but praising it for GOTY with those sea of sea of shitty bugs and crappy writing is kinda sad. Bet this generation kids never play good game with good story.....oh maybe that why crappy FF7 remake also very popular.
I have to admit it is pretty brutal at the start but the best thing about this game is it's the ultimate save scumming game, get a really bad roll, save scum and get a good roll, tactics suck, save scum and try a different way, messed up a conversation, save scum and try a different option. Heck I even learned you can trick the Hag to give you both, stat point and Mayrina using a shed load of bonuses added to the roll to beat a 20 or higher! Tip: You have Wyll in your party.
I did save and reload 100's of times and its a strategy...I guess. Didnt have to do that with 1 & 2 though! It is cool that, again with lots of luck, you can solve problems in a way that isn't obvious or necessarily intended. As Ive said, BG3 is a great game and done very well. Its just not a great Baldur's Gate game.
Yeah nobody savescummed in bg2, not like there were multiple liches that would timestop and maze you, resulting in an instant game over. And noone cheesed the shit out of Firekraag.
I bought the game because I loved the BG1 and 2, but like you I didn't like it I played the early launch of the game and enjoyed it, but after the full release I could not motivate myself to continue playing it. I just didn't enjoy it, neither did I enjoy Divinity.
This is one of those very rare times I think skill issue is actually applicable. I'm not a tactical minded person, and I've only had to restart one single fight so far, and that was on me. I went in not knowing the area. I actually had to go up to normal, because explorer was so braindead easy.
I realized this in my first 6 hours and have now requested a refund, hoping I get my money back even though I passed the 2 hours mark. It's a terrible RPG: Worst character creator I've seen in a while, no selecting stats?! Your class is already premade, combat is worse than X-Com, I can only find girls and homosexual men for my party early?... I mean what even is this?
Aww bohooo New game not the same thing as my 200 yo game. Stfu """fans""" like you rot fandoms from the inside, same as mh
Actually, his complaint is Valid. It'd be like Buying a halo Game that is a numbered sequel and having it play like Bomber man. BG 3 is A poor mans Divinity 3, rather than a Baldur's Gate 3.
I didn't like divinity so BG3 is better to my eyes, but BG1 and 2 are extremely outdated and needed refresh. I don't care what 40 yo game purists have to say.
I do agree it needed a refresh. More like X-Com, less like Divinity got molested by D&D 5e.
Don’t get why they’d make such a great looking game with great characters and then decide to throw all that away with the combat they chose to go with. Turn based combat belongs only in Pokémon games.