Baldur's Gate Baldur's Gate 3 RELEASE THREAD

[Dishonoredbr]

Squid/Bear zoophilia I haven't even engaged in. It is entirely avoidable after all. My take is that it was a combination of belgian humor and clever shock marketing.

People, even here, oversell how much Sex and Degen shit you have BG3. There's one , at best two, romance scenes in each act, you have one time option of doing all the zoophilia and it's entirely optional. If i was to take the internet words on BG3's content , i would think this game was a date sim.

But even then Larian did enought to sell the game as funny bear gay sex DnD game with Triple A graphics for people and that's enough.

 

[onemananadhisdroid]

Squid/Bear zoophilia I haven't even engaged in. It is entirely avoidable after all. My take is that it was a combination of belgian humor and clever shock marketing.

People, even here, oversell how much Sex and Degen shit you have BG3. There's one , at best two, romance scenes in each act, you have one time option of doing all the zoophilia and it's entirely optional. If i was to take the internet words on BG3's content , i would think this game was a date sim.

But even then Larian did enought to sell the game as funny bear gay sex DnD game with Triple A graphics for people and that's enough.

Without context, the entire bear sex meme would have been a giggle of the week in the Twittersphere. The context being Larian pitching this game on the idea that nothing would be off-limits. Like: Go on a quest of blasting fireballs into goblins with your friends. Stack crates a hundred feet high so you can climb into places we didn't expect you to. Get humped by a bear. And share or stream it for all world to see. Had the game delivered zero on that, this entire sequence would have fallen flat.

In a sense, it's the same pitch as for the more recent Zelda games. It also fits neatly into the entire D&D schtick of moment to moment improvisation and collaborative storytelling on the table. This narrative was quickly picked and spread up by "normie" channels as well. It doesn't matter what anybody thinks about the game. But most RPG developers could learn a lot from how Larian successfully pitched this... which in the case of the bear scene naturally also involved luck. You can't plan for such a sequence spreading like that and making people curious to take a closer look.


Oh, and speaking about choices: In Bioware games or The Witcher (made by former Bioware proteges, after all), the choices are always in dialogue mini-games. Be they wheels or trees or whatever. It's chose your own dialogue adventure, like an interactive movie pausing at key sequences and you getting to chose how it would progress. The choices in a game like BG3 aren't limited to that. They're about how you progress through the game, including individual quest resolutions. Yes, some chapters / quests allow for more, some less. But in general, this holds true. Any game that would explore that further would be incline. No less as it's about time that RPGs finally start exploring the use of magic outside of combat as well, D&D-based or otherwise.

 

[The Bishop]

Yeah, at least there are choices and branching paths. Can't say the same about ME and KOTOR.

Yes, and paragon/renegade system was pretty dumb as well. However the fundamental dilemma of ME is perfectly sound: either you do everything by the book or just get shit done. This is a reasonable choice, the kind that many people make on daily basis.

Compare that to BG3 where all the choices outside of "good" are just pure psychopathy. It's a tragedy that so many resources were spent on being able to make such an unappealing choice: either do things that obviously benefit you, or keep shooting yourself in the foot.

In my playthrough I told everyone what they wanted to hear, manipulated every situation for maximum personal gain, always looked for an angle to improve my position at a detriment of others. But I wasn't looking to rip random people's heads off and shit in their skulls, therefore my character is "good".

 

[onemananadhisdroid]

Yeah, at least there are choices and branching paths. Can't say the same about ME and KOTOR.

Yes, and paragon/renegade system was pretty dumb as well. However the fundamental dilemma of ME is perfectly sound: either you do everything by the book or just get shit done. This is a reasonable choice, the kind that many people make on daily basis.

Compare that to BG3 where all the choices outside of "good" are just pure psychopathy. It's a tragedy that so many resources were spent on being able to make such an unappealing choice: either do things that obviously benefit you, or keep shooting yourself in the foot.

In my playthrough I told everyone what they wanted to hear, manipulated every situation for maximum personal gain, always looked for an angle to improve my position at a detriment of others. But I wasn't looking to rip random people's heads off and shit in their skulls, therefore my character is "good".

My character certainly wasn't "good" in a traditional sense. He was a drow with a knack for knowledge and power. By lucky chance though, the game involved a questline running through all chapters, which was tight to his main interest: Necromancy.

However, the wasted opportunity here is what they actually still teased shortly prior to release: The abuse of power actually having repercussions proper. Like the tadpole powers having severe consequences down the line (it's mostly cosmetical). It seems people didn't like that though, and would rather just be able to "maximize their gains". See also Dishonored. Despite the game being as blunt as a kick to the head about that it was a story about (abuse of) power and corruption -- people still feel punished to this day for going on murder hobo sprees with the tools gifted to them. Curiously, the game actually does the opposite if you do, as it gifts you with more stuff to kill (game's easy as is) and a more dramatic ending fitting to your playstyle to boot...


Bottom line: Most people are min-maxers and completionists accepting and finishing every quest in the way they perceive the most optimal/good. At best with a guide by their side so that nothing could go "wrong". Even if they pretend they'd love to immerse themselves into fictional worlds as characters proper.

 

[Dishonoredbr]

They're about how you progress through the game, including individual quest resolutions.

I thought was pretty cool that you had like 3-4 way to enter the Underdark or how you could solves The Tower and Goblin camp in so many variations.. I think this sorta option are the best ones in the game. It increase the replayability it because thought the narrative choices were much much worse in comparasion and don't give much incentive to replay.. There's no reason to play ''Evil'' character because Good path with slighty variations is the intended way to play. I just don't see myself having any reason to kill the Groove, destroy the Inn or side with the absolute.

It doesn't make the game any less good , but after playing other games (Wotr), i find myself struggling on reason why i should replay it.

lich spoiler

From what i saw, there's nothing as good as playing Lich , having to sacrifice a companion and then throwing hands with the Avatar of the Godness of Death.

Edit: For one , i killed Barcus in my second atempt with this game as a Durge Monk, but i knew how his story play out for most part up to early Act 3. And to me it just was a loss of content. Because i killed him, i didn't see his interactions with Wulbren , so Wulbren's quest was just me dealing with a bitching gnome. I guess got a new perspective of Wulbren, but honestly.. Playing evil is simply.. Less content. I gained very little for killing Barcus. It's a cool option to have tho

 

[The Bishop]

My character certainly wasn't "good" in a traditional sense. He was a drow with a knack for knowledge and power. By lucky chance though, the game involved a questline running through all chapters, which was tight to his main interest: Necromancy.

However, the wasted opportunity here is what they actually still teased shortly prior to release: The abuse of power actually having repercussions proper. Like the tadpole powers having severe consequences down the line (it's mostly cosmetical). It seems people didn't like that though, and would rather just be able to "maximize their gains". See also Dishonored. Despite the game being as blunt as a kick to the head about that it was a story about (abuse of) power and corruption -- people still feel punished to this day for going on murder hobo sprees with the tools gifted to them. Curiously, the game actually does the opposite if you do, as it gifts you with more stuff to kill (game's easy as is) and a more dramatic ending fitting to your playstyle to boot...


Bottom line: Most people are min-maxers and completionists accepting and finishing every quest in the way they perceive the most optimal/good. At best with a guide by their side so that nothing could go "wrong". Even if they pretend they'd love to immerse themselves into fictional worlds as characters proper.

I don't see a contradiction here. You can try to immerse yourself while playing a selfish manipulative bastard. Such character is a perfect fit for a fantasy story. The real issue is game not recognizing this as anything negative, since there isn't much space for moral gradation, as all the resources went into providing for psychopathic playthroughs. I'm pretty sure people are perfectly happy with some degree of non-optimal rewards for as long as they can relate to the character they're playing. But most will have trouble relating to psychopaths.

 

[Old Hans]

For one , i killed Barcus in my second atempt with this game as a Durge Monk, but i knew how his story play out for most part up to early Act 3. And to me it just was a lose of content. Because i killed him, i didn't see his interactions with Wulbren , so Wulbre's quest was just me dealing with a bitching gnome. I guess got a new perspective of Wulbren, but honestly.. Playing evil is simply.. Less content. I gained very little for killing Barcus. It's cool option tho

this one bugged me too. They could have at least had a companion make a funny comment.

 

[Larianshill]

Compare that to BG3 where all the choices outside of "good" are just pure psychopathy. It's a tragedy that so many resources were spent on being able to make such an unappealing choice: either do things that obviously benefit you, or keep shooting yourself in the foot.

Reminder that the plot of evil act 2 is "Work with the people who want you dead, for no benefit to yourself, then get caught like an idiot". That's also the plot of act 1, actually.

 

[Barbarian]

Late game evil choices are actually quite reasonable and seemingly very rewarding... I mean you can literally ally yourself with a green Hag, a Sharran cult and a Bhaal cult. You can also call upon as allies Ethel, Sarevok and Dark Justiciars in your final fight. Doesn't it make sense to ally yourself with such powers if you are evil and self-serving? They are also evidently more powerful summons than the "good" allies you would get otherwise. The "evil" outcome to Astarion companion quest also has him

Spoiler

sacrificing thousands of souls in order to become the most powerful vampire ever

. I also assume having Laezel and Shadowheart become the chosen of Vlaakith and Shar gives them great power.

That said yeah, evil choices in act 1 and 2 are the dumb kind of evil. They are allegedly reworking them a bit in the next patch but I don't think you can polish a turd.

But there are a lot of cool variations in the in-betweens. Like how you can side with the duergar mercenaries against the cultists in grymforge instead of fighting both of them together. Or how you can convince the Gondians to rebel against their captors in the Steel Watch foundry.

 

[Barbarian]

There are some other variations I haven't tried but I'm quite sure are in the game. I know you can trigger a fight between the tieflings and the druids in the grove

Spoiler

possibly involving the shadow druid agents hiding in the grove

 

[Hydro]

I mean you can literally ally yourself with a green Hag, a Sharran cult and a Bhaal cult.

Another reminder that Larian cannot into anything more sophisticated than “collecting allies for the EPIC final battle”. Really it’s late Bethesda tier.
Must admit they tried really hard to shit this out though

 

[dukeofwoodberry]

Branching paths are cool even though the branches mostly come down to this vendor doesn't exist or this NPC quest giver exist. The people arguing in favor of the writing of BG3 fail to address the fact this game's writing and story are mostly boring with some cringe mixed in. Thus the game fails to be immersive. For such a "great" game I shouldn't have so much trouble completing it.

 

[Lemming42]

The people arguing in favor of the writing of BG3 fail to address the fact this game's writing and story are mostly boring with some cringe mixed in.

This generic subjective criticism could apply to literally all the games you listed as examples of "good" writing. I was far more bored with Mass Effect, KOTOR 1, and The Witcher than I ever was with BG3, and these days I'd probably cringe harder playing Fo2.

I don't see anyone arguing that BG3 is some kind of revelation in writing, but it's a basic heroic fantasy adventure story that mostly sustains itself until the third act, when it falls apart, and has some superficially funny and engaging characters (which is more than BioWare have ever managed). For me it's basically on par with BG1 and BG2 in terms of writing, except with significantly more interesting party members and other NPCs. I also thought the hook of having the mindflayer deceive you in dreams was a decent idea even if, like most things, it fizzles in Act 3.

I think the reason you're getting this reaction is because of the games you listed as alternatives - if you'd said "I personally found BG3 boring and think it could have been better written" (or even "BG3's writing is mostly shit") then everyone would probably agree, but if you come in saying "BG3 cannot compare to the objective classics like KOTOR and The Witcher and Mass Effect!" then everyone's going to say "but hang on, they're shit". All those games got torn a new asshole on this site when they were first released.

 

[Dishonoredbr]

when it falls apart, and has some superficially funny and engaging characters

Ngl outside of ME2's cast and few characters like Morrigan and Dorian.. People really overrate how good Bioware writing is for most part. They have really good moments with mediocre stuff in between them.

Even KOTOR1 is super mediocre outside of Revan's reveal.

 

[whydoibother]

Even if BG3's choices are black and white, it doesn't really help Mass Effect 1 or KotOR 1 in any way.

In Mass Effect 1 and KotOR 1 the choices quite literally are black or white: jedi or sith, renegade or paragon. At least in Baldur's Gate 3 you can rationalize in your head how a choice is maybe a bit more nuanced, since it isn't literally giving you +5 Black Choice points on doing it.

 

[Larianshill]

I also assume having Laezel become the chosen of Vlaakith

Lol. Vlaakith is the definition of a stupid evil choice. You are "chosen" to be eaten by her. There are no benefits to this path - in fact, it's the opposite, you lose out on gaining the silver sword (for some reason, the kith'rak brought his much worse silver sword to the act 2 fight, where you can kill and loot him).

 

[whydoibother]

I also assume having Laezel become the chosen of Vlaakith

Lol. Vlaakith is the definition of a stupid evil choice. You are "chosen" to be eaten by her. There are no benefits to this path - in fact, it's the opposite, you lose out on gaining the silver sword (for some reason, the kith'rak brought his much worse silver sword to the act 2 fight, where you can kill and loot him).

Martyrdom by human (gith) sacrifice to the Gods is a good ending for a jihadist like Lae'zel. But of course a better ending is apostasy.

 

[dukeofwoodberry]

The people arguing in favor of the writing of BG3 fail to address the fact this game's writing and story are mostly boring with some cringe mixed in.

This generic subjective criticism could apply to literally all the games you listed as examples of "good" writing. I was far more bored with Mass Effect, KOTOR 1, and The Witcher than I ever was with BG3, and these days I'd probably cringe harder playing Fo2.

I don't see anyone arguing that BG3 is some kind of revelation in writing, but it's a basic heroic fantasy adventure story that mostly sustains itself until the third act, when it falls apart, and has some superficially funny and engaging characters (which is more than BioWare have ever managed). For me it's basically on par with BG1 and BG2 in terms of writing, except with significantly more interesting party members and other NPCs. I also thought the hook of having the mindflayer deceive you in dreams was a decent idea even if, like most things, it fizzles in Act 3.

I think the reason you're getting this reaction is because of the games you listed as alternatives - if you'd said "I personally found BG3 boring and think it could have been better written" (or even "BG3's writing is mostly shit") then everyone would probably agree, but if you come in saying "BG3 cannot compare to the objective classics like KOTOR and The Witcher and Mass Effect!" then everyone's going to say "but hang on, they're shit". All those games got torn a new asshole on this site when they were first released.

You're drinking the Kool aid. For all Bioware's faults they usually make some really good party companions. Jolee, HK, Canderous, Garrus, Wrex, Mordin and more. I really can't believe you cited the companions as plus of this game's writing. Laezel is probably the best written with best story arc and she's inferior to everyone I listed. SH is inoffensive but generic. Astarion is decently written but annoying. Minthara is good but bare bones. Everyone else is terrible. Bottom of the barrel writing.

The fact that this game doesn't give you a male espirit de corps type of character is pretty fucking gay. Laezel the female frog is the best you get. At least in Bioware games I get Canderous, Wrex and Garrus. Larian prefers to make a bunch of faggot male party members

 

[dukeofwoodberry]

Even if BG3's choices are black and white, it doesn't really help Mass Effect 1 or KotOR 1 in any way.

In Mass Effect 1 and KotOR 1 the choices quite literally are black or white: jedi or sith, renegade or paragon. At least in Baldur's Gate 3 you can rationalize in your head how a choice is maybe a bit more nuanced, since it isn't literally giving you +5 Black Choice points on doing it.

They eliminate the + good/evil points but the system is exactly the same otherwise. It basically is the same as KOTOR with altruistic good choice or crazy evil guy choice. I like in kingmaker how you can play a built more lawful evil/lawful neutral

 

[whydoibother]

Even if BG3's choices are black and white, it doesn't really help Mass Effect 1 or KotOR 1 in any way.

In Mass Effect 1 and KotOR 1 the choices quite literally are black or white: jedi or sith, renegade or paragon. At least in Baldur's Gate 3 you can rationalize in your head how a choice is maybe a bit more nuanced, since it isn't literally giving you +5 Black Choice points on doing it.

They eliminate the + good/evil points but the system is exactly the same otherwise. It basically is the same as KOTOR with altruistic good choice or crazy evil guy choice. I like in kingmaker how you can play a built more lawful evil/lawful neutral

The first choice in the game, regarding the thiefling caravan, has several options:

• straightforward kill baddies save orphans jedi paragon
• straightforward help baddies kill orphans sith renegade
• negotiate with thieflings for rewards
• negotiate with druids for rewards
• help thieflings kill druids
• help druids kill thieflings
• cuhrayzay help baddies but then betray baddies but then betray goodies and kill everyone
• none of my business, buy food and move on

 

[dukeofwoodberry]

Even if BG3's choices are black and white, it doesn't really help Mass Effect 1 or KotOR 1 in any way.

In Mass Effect 1 and KotOR 1 the choices quite literally are black or white: jedi or sith, renegade or paragon. At least in Baldur's Gate 3 you can rationalize in your head how a choice is maybe a bit more nuanced, since it isn't literally giving you +5 Black Choice points on doing it.

They eliminate the + good/evil points but the system is exactly the same otherwise. It basically is the same as KOTOR with altruistic good choice or crazy evil guy choice. I like in kingmaker how you can play a built more lawful evil/lawful neutral

The first choice in the game, regarding the thiefling caravan, has several options:

• straightforward kill baddies save orphans jedi paragon
• straightforward help baddies kill orphans sith renegade
• negotiate with thieflings for rewards
• negotiate with druids for rewards
• help thieflings kill druids
• help druids kill thieflings
• cuhrayzay help baddies but then betray baddies but then betray goodies and kill everyone
• none of my business, buy food and move on

Act 1 is the best of the acts but even so the quest mostly boils down to help goblins, help refugees or skip it

 

[whydoibother]

Act 1 is the best of the acts but even so the quest mostly boils down to help goblins, help refugees or skip it

If that's how you boil eggs, you'd be eating ashes. You can of course reduce everything to some absurd simplicity. However, for Mass Effect or KOTOR, you don't need to. There's no need to "boil it down", it literally is pick between +5 good boy points, +5 bad boy points, or no points. Narratively and mechanically, they are black or white choices.
In BG3, this is significantly less the case. If you didn't have some premade end point you want to move the argument towards, you'd see the obvious.

 

[dukeofwoodberry]

Act 1 is the best of the acts but even so the quest mostly boils down to help goblins, help refugees or skip it

If that's how you boil eggs, you'd be eating ashes. You can of course reduce everything to some absurd simplicity. However, for Mass Effect or KOTOR, you don't need to. There's no need to "boil it down", it literally is pick between +5 good boy points, +5 bad boy points, or no points. Narratively and mechanically, they are black or white choices.
In BG3, this is significantly less the case. If you didn't have some premade end point you want to move the argument towards, you'd see the obvious.

Negotiating with the druids does nothing except give you an extra reward from the tieflings. The quest ultimately ends the same way. The goblins attack and you help the tieflings or you murder them with the goblins. That's why BG3 shows superfluous shit that has no consequences.

I made the point a while back but that quest should have consequences for helping the tieflings, like some of the druids should perish and maybe losing some precious, irreplaceable relics. Then it actually feels consequential. There could be a viable 3rd path of siding with the druids. There should be viable reasons to take the evil or neutral path (there is no neutral path in this game.) Going out of your way to help the tieflings should actually hinder you instead of being purely beneficial. Those kinds of things would actually make this game a 9.5/10. It's barely a step above KOTOR in it's decision making system

 

[Barbarian]

You forgot the best part. You can ignore the grove completely and move on to act 2. Ignore the goblins, druids and tieflings - just move on. True neutrality. The quests involved aren't even mandatory.

I would say that is pretty damn good.

 

[dukeofwoodberry]

You forgot the best part. You can ignore the grove completely and move on to act 2. Ignore the goblins, druids and tieflings - just move on. True neutrality. The quests involved aren't even mandatory.

I would say that is pretty damn good.

So you can get to boring act 3 as fast as possible?