Baldur’s Gate 3 early access—mediocre RPG, amazing rendering engine

Answering the question nobody asked: “What if Michael Bay made a D&D 5e game?”

Read the whole story

 

[jbee]

When I think of what I'd like to see in a Baldurs Gate 3. I think of a more retro style top-down isometric third person view with a lot of depth and story.

Rather it sounds like what they're making is what I'm thinking of... entirely inverted.

I have to wonder, are old Baldur’s Gate fans like me who played the original desperate for a 3D flashy looks game? And are fans who haven't played it ... even looking for Baldur’s Gate?

I agree with you - I never asked for a 3D Baldur's Gate, I just wanted more of the old, beautifully hand-drawn isometric games, with emphasis on a good story instead of flashy graphics effects. Also, the old pixelated look hid a lot of the less pleasant things. For example, I never wanted high detail Githyanki characters on my screen, they are just not what I enjoy looking at, even if they happen to be important characters in the game.

I'd rather get BG2 enhanced edition and replay that instead of buying this new BG3.

 

[daemer]

It does sound to me like this same reviewer would give a poor review of Baldur's Gate 2, which starts in a high-level wizard's torture dungeon surrounded by the corpses of your former companions and where building a party that wasn't like-minded would often result in them dueling to the death in front of you, by using this same review structure.

That having been said, the previous Baldur's Gate games frequently dealt with dark themes (illithid mind-slaves included) but were made by having a large cast of likeable companions to add to your party. If this game doesn't have that, it's going to suffer a lot from it.

 

[Jim Salter]

That having been said, the previous Baldur's Gate games frequently dealt with dark themes (illithid mind-slaves included) but were made by having a large cast of likeable companions to add to your party. If this game doesn't have that, it's going to suffer a lot from it.

The game does not have that now, but may get it in the future. I've seen Reddit threads today saying that Larian has told people they deliberately only included evil—pardon me, "non-good"—companions in Early Access, and wanted to encourage people to do evil playthroughs specifically.

Which explains a hell of a lot, if it's true. If you want to do an evil playthrough, you'll almost certainly have a better time than I did. That said... spoiler for an encounter about seven hours in:

Spoiler

I don't give a damn if I'm doing an "evil playthrough" I do not want it to rest on my head and on the results of a save scum-able dialogue feat roll whether an approximately eight year old crying child is murdered in front of me, immediately after I've met her distraught parents, by an authority figure who I cannot challenge and at least theoretically am supposed to align with.

Too. Damn. Far.

 

[Kyuu]

Man I just don't get the hate Jim is getting in these comments for his opinion. If you don't like his opinion then go read a different review for fucks sake and make comments there. Grow up, understand people can have their own thoughts, likes, and dislikes. He's not an automaton. He didn't like it and he wrote his damn opinions on it.

Yeah, okay... so what's your point? That people can't disagree with his opinions?

No, that if you're going to disagree with his opinions, maybe try being a grownup about it instead of disingenuous nonsense like saying a reviewer who didn't like the game in its current form is "obviously biased" and using lazy, cliche strawmen like "So what's your point? That people can't disagree with his opinions?"

There are some perfectly fine criticisms of the review in the comments here. There are also quite a number of childish rants from people with single-digit postcounts. And a few from people with 4-digit ones.

Well, you cast a blanket statement, making it hard to know which complaints you actually have a problem with. So, I read it as you having a problem with anyone disagreeing with the author's opinion. But, fair enough.

 

[daemer]

That having been said, the previous Baldur's Gate games frequently dealt with dark themes (illithid mind-slaves included) but were made by having a large cast of likeable companions to add to your party. If this game doesn't have that, it's going to suffer a lot from it.

The game does not have that now, but may get it in the future. I've seen Reddit threads today saying that Larian has told people they deliberately only included evil—pardon me, "non-good"—companions in Early Access, and wanted to encourage people to do evil playthroughs specifically.

Which explains a hell of a lot, if it's true. If you want to do an evil playthrough, you'll almost certainly have a better time than I did. That said... spoiler for an encounter about seven hours in:

Too. Damn. Far.[/spoiler]

That does worry me. Divinity 2 did a notably poor job of managing its more mature themes and frequently strayed into high-school grade edginess. You could commit plenty of atrocities in BG1&2, and they weren't always handled well, but you were usually given some agency.

I was also hoping that they'd move away from the practical requirement of save-scumming that was in BG 1 & 2 by making failure states more interesting. That was always a major design flaw in the series.

 

[Fred Duck]

EDIT: Oh, and there's also an option to "knock unconscious" during battle. You could probably have done that during the fisherpeople battle. I think these things will be more apparent in the future when they have a proper tutorial built in.

This is why I think EA is neither good nor useful. Ever heard the expression, "You only have one chance to make a good first impression?" Well, EA games are the worst sorts of games. They're incredibly unpolished and generally unfinished, which doesn't sound like the best time to make an introduction for any creative work. I always liken it to baking.

'I'm making a pie. Fancy trying a bit? Hold on, let me pop the oven open.'

We can't really expect anything out of EA. Perhaps they do fully intend to include a tutorial. Maybe the sequence as-is was slated for overhauling. We never know what of the flow or mechanics are indicative of the actual final product.

I've worked on plenty of projects where things didn't come together until the eleventh hour and I'm sure it's the same for many of you. The best you can realistically hope for with EA is that they don't destroy your enthusiasm for the title in question.

This comment section demonstrates just how unhelpful EA are. Many people are now extremely disappointed in something that hasn't even been released, based on details that may or may not be changed in future!

 

[purposelycryptic]

This is exactly what I was afraid of... I really like Larian, and I like the games they make (well, OS 2 not nearly as much as the rest, but)...

But

Baldur's Gate is just a terrible match for them. Icewind Dale, sure, but not BG. Their weak points have always been character development and dialogue-heavy story-telling. Combat-heavy with a big, epic story full of interesting fights and big twists is much more their speed. They have some cool story concepts, too. But when it comes to actual conversation and characterization, that's just not how their skill points are allocated.

Why, oh why couldn't Obsidian have gotten this project? NWN2 was great...

 

[ismaris]

The author seems to have strong feelings against the game, but I didn't really connect with the reasons here. A lot of what is described sounds standard for Larian. Perhaps you just don't like their style of game, but surely that style shouldn't be a surprise?

 

[Kyuu]

I don't get how completely appropriate consequences for decisions can be either capricious or arbitrary. But if consequence-free gameplay is your thing, that's fine.

Let's play D&D.

DM: You awake to a noise outside your door, a rumbling.

Player: "I open the door..."

DM: Rocks fall on your head, you are dead.

THAT WAS FUN

It isn't about "consequence free" and you are a jerk to suggest such.

It's about *player agency* and having *something* you can do to save yourself, to respond to said consequence.

Gary Gygax dungeons literally had "Death, no save" results from things as simple as "looking into the mouth of the gargoyle" in a puzzle room.

Fuck that shit.

That's uh... not analogous to the situation in the game at all. You don't die from opening a door or looking at something while doing a puzzle. You die from attempting to beat a mind flayer in a contest of minds. Not being able to win in that situation as a complete neophyte is completely sensible and the illithid taking over your mind and you subsequently dying is a completely straightforward and logical consequence. I just really don't see where you're coming from.

 

[codes_dnc]

Am also playing the early access, and so far I'm enjoying it. But then, the gith didn't immediately hate my toon (high Charisma? Female? Dunno why), and I've played D&D long enough to know that a DM asking for a roll is always inherently dangerous ("I'm rolling athletics to walk up the stairs? ... it's a mimic, isn't it."). The movement meter is faithful to the game, just now that you see it, you see how often you aren't using it in a given round.

So far, my annoyance has been the UI not being self-descriptive enough: I got myself downed in the first encounter, and it took far, far too long to see how to assist myself (via the Gith). Then, my toon got bugged & couldn't actually take any actions, until combat ended (was no longer making death saves, health was > 0, and all that good stuff). Maybe I missed that I needed to actively heal her? If so, no idea how that was supposed to happen.

 

[jbee]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the entire basis of D&D? Roll for hit, roll for effect, crit fail, roll for whether or not your sword just impaled you, look up the rules again, argue for five minutes, then the next party member rolls. An hour later, you advance to the next step, rolling for looking around and looting, which takes another hour as you somehow manage to find a bag full of poisonous vipers instead of gold.

That sounds less like AD&D and more like Hackmaster.

Rolemaster: The game where you can, and most likely WILL, die during character generation.

No, that was Traveller.

RoleMaster had no lifepath system that killed you in chargen. Now, that said, you very likely WOULD die in your first encounter.

From what I remember of my Rolemaster days, there is a good chance of the player dying before character generation is completed, with all those extra rules/extra companion books/skill lists etc.

 

[Thad Boyd]

Man I just don't get the hate Jim is getting in these comments for his opinion. If you don't like his opinion then go read a different review for fucks sake and make comments there. Grow up, understand people can have their own thoughts, likes, and dislikes. He's not an automaton. He didn't like it and he wrote his damn opinions on it.

Yeah, okay... so what's your point? That people can't disagree with his opinions?

No, that if you're going to disagree with his opinions, maybe try being a grownup about it instead of disingenuous nonsense like saying a reviewer who didn't like the game in its current form is "obviously biased" and using lazy, cliche strawmen like "So what's your point? That people can't disagree with his opinions?"

There are some perfectly fine criticisms of the review in the comments here. There are also quite a number of childish rants from people with single-digit postcounts. And a few from people with 4-digit ones.

Well, you cast a blanket statement, making it hard to know which complaints you actually have a problem with. So, I read it as you having a problem with anyone disagreeing with the author's opinion. But, fair enough.

I'm not actually the guy who you posed that question to, but seeing as I'm the one who answered a question you directed at him, you mistaking me for him is kind of on me.

 

[harmless]

You tried to concentrate in a Mind Flayer thoughts? At lvl 1? Yeah, death looks like the normal outcome.

This sounds like an excuse for bad DMing. It's not at all obvious, even for players with a bit of pencil & paper experience, what the game means by "concentrate on a mind flayer's thoughts", and it's BS to punish players for not reading the DM's mind. Part of good DMing is the art of subtly cluing players into what parts of your fantasy world are or are not dangerous. Players can choose to take risks, of course. But the players need to be able to discern some logic behind any negative consequences of their choices.

I haven't played the game, but just by reading this note at least the player knows that the Mind Flayer is trying to control the player, and that the Mind Flayer controlled at least 3 other creatures into fighting to their death. So it appears that the mental powers of the Mind Flayer were already proven to the player.

Actually, watching the intro on Steam, the mental powers of mind flayers was abundantly clear after said intro. Entering into a battle of mind with such a creature when you are still complaining that your character feels weak in battle seems foolish.

 

[DaveSimmons]

If that style of story and gameplay appeals to you, then that's good for you.

It seems capricious and arbitrary to me.

I don't get how completely appropriate consequences for decisions can be either capricious or arbitrary. But if consequence-free gameplay is your thing, that's fine.

He passed the INT check then for sadistic bad DM reasons also was supposed to pass a second WIS check.

That's "trick the player ha ha sucker!" game design, not "bad decisions have consequences" game design.

 

[harmless]

You also have no idea how you got on board the Nautiloid in the first place. Just, poof, there you are.[/spoiler]

Yeah, well, the game has to start somewhere. And starting in a tavern, while a loved trope, is not exactly the most exciting way to do it.

I'm fine with throwing the player in the middle of it and have him figure out what's going on.

 

[Nekojin]

You tried to concentrate in a Mind Flayer thoughts? At lvl 1? Yeah, death looks like the normal outcome.

This sounds like an excuse for bad DMing. It's not at all obvious, even for players with a bit of pencil & paper experience, what the game means by "concentrate on a mind flayer's thoughts", and it's BS to punish players for not reading the DM's mind. Part of good DMing is the art of subtly cluing players into what parts of your fantasy world are or are not dangerous. Players can choose to take risks, of course. But the players need to be able to discern some logic behind any negative consequences of their choices.

I haven't played the game, but just by reading this note at least the player knows that the Mind Flayer is trying to control the player, and that the Mind Flayer controlled at least 3 other creatures into fighting to their death. So it appears that the mental powers of the Mind Flayer were already proven to the player.

Actually, watching the intro on Steam, the mental powers of mind flayers was abundantly clear after said intro. Entering into a battle of mind with such a creature when you are still complaining that your character feels weak in battle seems foolish.

That's a valid critique of entering into that mental duel is a choice that the player might make. It sounds more like that's the situation he was railroaded into, not an optional approach that he found.

If my reading of it is correct, then blaming the player for this is just plain shitty, as it's the devs who created the situation and railroaded a new player into it.

 

[Jim Salter]

You tried to concentrate in a Mind Flayer thoughts? At lvl 1? Yeah, death looks like the normal outcome.

This sounds like an excuse for bad DMing. It's not at all obvious, even for players with a bit of pencil & paper experience, what the game means by "concentrate on a mind flayer's thoughts", and it's BS to punish players for not reading the DM's mind. Part of good DMing is the art of subtly cluing players into what parts of your fantasy world are or are not dangerous. Players can choose to take risks, of course. But the players need to be able to discern some logic behind any negative consequences of their choices.

I haven't played the game, but just by reading this note at least the player knows that the Mind Flayer is trying to control the player, and that the Mind Flayer controlled at least 3 other creatures into fighting to their death. So it appears that the mental powers of the Mind Flayer were already proven to the player.

Actually, watching the intro on Steam, the mental powers of mind flayers was abundantly clear after said intro. Entering into a battle of mind with such a creature when you are still complaining that your character feels weak in battle seems foolish.

That's a valid critique of entering into that mental duel is a choice that the player might make. It sounds more like that's the situation he was railroaded into, not an optional approach that he found.

If my reading of it is correct, then blaming the player for this is just plain shitty, as it's the devs who created the situation and railroaded a new player into it.

It's the difference between getting arrested for committing a crime on your own recognizance, vs getting entrapped into it. It would never have occurred to me on my own to try to psionically duel an Illithid—but when the game is like "hey, here's one that's literally down to one hit point, trapped under a ton of rubble, and it's already failed to mind control you when you WEREN'T expecting it, it also failed to control your party members, it only controlled these civilians. Want to roll an INT check to mind-fuck it right the hell back?"

... if you don't explore options like that, you don't know what's possible in the game universe. You especially can't just assume Larian got Illithids right, given that they're exposing level 1 players flying solo to Nautiloids packed full of Illithids and Intellect Devourers in the first place, with red dragons and Githyanki knights whizzing by.

I wouldn't have been mad if FAILING the int check got me mind-controlled. But failing it going fine, and PASSING it screwing me over? Yeah, that just feels like the DM being a dick and thinking he's clever.

 

[Kasoroth]

This does not bode well.

One of the charms of the original BG series is how you begin as gnat (made even more prominent by the spartan second edition rules), but your opponents, at least at the start, are tribes of kobold, hobgoblin mercenaries, the odd evil spellcaster, and so on. There is a natural progression. By the time you first encounter an Illithid, CHARNAME is at least a level 10 veteran with plenty of magic and a history of defeated enemies. So when you saw CHARNAME meddling into the affairs of Dragons, Beholders, Illithid and Drow, you felt deserving of the challenge. Messing up the power balance of the Underdark was right up your alley and it felt GOOD.

Neverwinter nights did not have the same charm (at least in my opinion), but it also tried to ease you into the game by withholding the big baddies until after you cut your teeth against goblins, orcs and bandits.

Unless they're trying to pull off a Planescape-type story in BG3 (and Larian shouldn't be trying that), that introduction is a terrible start. Even if the gameplay itself is fantastic, the sense of wonder and advancement that comes from seeing CHARNAME grow is ruined.

BTW, I just now realized that despite paying top-dollar for a Dungeons & Dragons license, Baldurs Gate did not have a single dragon. It had Wyverns, sure, but Dragons? Nope, nothing. THAT is you pace your story. That is why I remember to this day the first time I defeat Firkraag on BG2.

Well, technically BG 1 had you encountering an evil god-spawn who wanted to kill you at the end of the prologue, but they put it in a cut scene so you automatically run away, and you don't really get an interactive encounter where you can choose face down the big boss at level 1 or 2 and get slaughtered instead of running away like a sensible low level noob.

Personally, I like RPGs to give me opportunities to do dumb/suicidal stuff at low level, as long as there are reasonable hints that things are dangerous. I think in some way's it's nice to have some examples like this early on to properly set players' expectations that there's dangerous shit around, and not everything they encounter is going to be neatly scaled to their level, so it's good to use caution and pick your battles.

What concerns me more is the likeability of the NPCs. If all of the NPCs are just unlikable assholes I'll probably be very disappointed in the game, but being forced to deal with (and cooperate with) some assholes in the early game out of mutual necessity could be used as a way of introducing party member rivalry/loyalty mechanics (I'm not sure if this is the case here). If the game opens up a bit in the mid-game, with more choice about your party members, there will hopefully be more variety of likeable companions.

If the game is really just jumping you into major battles against illithids at low level, that doesn't sound good, but if they're just using an intro cinematic of an illithid vs githyanki battle and an early encounter with a badly wounded illithid as a way to introduce the main villains and provide a motivation why your character has to go on this adventure (as the post-prologue encounter with Sarevok did in BG1), I don't see a problem with that.

 

[Ziryo]

That having been said, the previous Baldur's Gate games frequently dealt with dark themes (illithid mind-slaves included) but were made by having a large cast of likeable companions to add to your party. If this game doesn't have that, it's going to suffer a lot from it.

The game does not have that now, but may get it in the future. I've seen Reddit threads today saying that Larian has told people they deliberately only included evil—pardon me, "non-good"—companions in Early Access, and wanted to encourage people to do evil playthroughs specifically.

Which explains a hell of a lot, if it's true. If you want to do an evil playthrough, you'll almost certainly have a better time than I did. That said... spoiler for an encounter about seven hours in:

I'd like to see sources for those claims, but to me if that's true, that's complete garbage. I just double-checked the store page and there is no mention of that at all in the Early Access section, which seems like something pretty important to let customers know, especially if they're trying to railroad (excuse me, "encourage") players into a certain path.

Straight from the Steam store page:

Spoiler

Why Early Access?
“We’ve learned that working directly with our players during development makes our games better. RPGs this large, with so many permutations, thrive from feedback as new features and fixes are incrementally added to the game. Early Access gives players a chance to participate in development and it gives us an opportunity to explore different game ideas with a live community. We want to learn how you play the game and use that to make it a better experience for everyone.

Will I enjoy Early Access?
You should not buy Baldur’s Gate 3 in Early Access if you want a polished experience.

Early Access gives you a chance at an early taste of what the gameplay will be like but we still have a lot of work ahead of us. While we did our best to remove the most annoying bugs and optimize the game as much as we could, there are still plenty of issues and it will take us time to fix them. Only buy the game now if you want an early look or if you want to participate in community feedback. Otherwise, you’re probably best off waiting until version 1.0 releases.”

Approximately how long will this game be in Early Access?
“Though Act 1 (the content for Early Access) is defined, Act’s 2 and 3 are work in progress. It’s therefore difficult to predict when 1.0 will launch. We anticipate Baldur’s Gate 3 being in Early Access for at least one year but we’ll have to see how it goes. It’ll be ready when it’s ready.”
How is the full version planned to differ from the Early Access version?
“Leading up to release you can expect a plethora of incremental improvements and new features to be added to the game, as well as the inclusion of new classes and races. The 1.0 release will include the full game including Acts 2 and 3.”

What is the current state of the Early Access version?
“The Early Access version of Baldur’s Gate 3 includes Act 1 of the game which, in one playthrough, is approximately 25 hours of self-contained content. 6 player classes are supported and 9 races/subraces with more to be added later. There are 5 origin characters which you can recruit (but not play as for now). Most of Baldur’s Gate 3’s advertised features are included though some are still work in progress. Not every language is currently supported, as our writers are still developing the game which makes translation difficult.

We’ve worked hard to release an Early Access version that feels complete, fun to play, and has as little stub (unfinished) content as possible. There are bugs and there will be changes to content (often based on player feedback), but our goal is to already now give you something that’s genuinely fun to play.”

Will the game be priced differently during and after Early Access?
“We are creating our most ambitious RPG yet, and pricing won’t change during development of the game, into release. We hope that by purchasing the game early, you’re on board for the Early Access journey, and we thrive from your feedback, letters, and discussion around our games. Our community is incredibly important to us, and we value each and every one of you who opt into the Early Access journey.”

How are you planning on involving the Community in your development process?
“Since day one of Baldur's Gate 3’s announcement, community discussion, feedback, and organization (thank you) has shaped what we’ve said and done. Though we have a strong vision for the game throughout our team of over 300 people, our goal is to create a game that gets our audience excited, and to maintain a healthy relationship with those who take the time to provide feedback and help us create a better game. We use automatic data collection tools to help us better balance the game but we also listen to forum feedback and use that to drive internal debate. We create massive, sprawling games, and we couldn’t possibly explore every single permutation and combination of skills, choices, reactions and conclusions without our community. Working with your thoughts, feedback, and behaviour helps us to better understand how our ideas are toyed with, and how we can improve things.”

 

[harmless]

You tried to concentrate in a Mind Flayer thoughts? At lvl 1? Yeah, death looks like the normal outcome.

This sounds like an excuse for bad DMing. It's not at all obvious, even for players with a bit of pencil & paper experience, what the game means by "concentrate on a mind flayer's thoughts", and it's BS to punish players for not reading the DM's mind. Part of good DMing is the art of subtly cluing players into what parts of your fantasy world are or are not dangerous. Players can choose to take risks, of course. But the players need to be able to discern some logic behind any negative consequences of their choices.

I haven't played the game, but just by reading this note at least the player knows that the Mind Flayer is trying to control the player, and that the Mind Flayer controlled at least 3 other creatures into fighting to their death. So it appears that the mental powers of the Mind Flayer were already proven to the player.

Save or suck/die for -succeeding- a check isn't very fun.

With the information I currently have, I think the option to mess with the mind flayer's mind shouldn't even be there. But then there's the general rule of D&D that players should be allowed to try pretty much everything they want to.

Usually it's about giving the players enough information so that they can tell when they are making dangerous choices. But if they do so knowingly, them getting killed is a perfectly valid outcome. Play stupid games, win stupid prices ...

 

[DaveSimmons]

Save or suck/die for -succeeding- a check isn't very fun.

With the information I currently have, I think the option to mess with the mind flayer's mind shouldn't even be there. But then there's the general rule of D&D that players should be allowed to try pretty much everything they want to.

Usually it's about giving the players enough information so that they can tell when they are making dangerous choices. But if they do so knowingly, them getting killed is a perfectly valid outcome. Play stupid games, win stupid prices ...

Sure that's fine if he failed the INT check, but he succeeded. Then the sadistic DM designer laughed and said "sucker! now pass a WIS check too!"

 

[Kasoroth]

You tried to concentrate in a Mind Flayer thoughts? At lvl 1? Yeah, death looks like the normal outcome.

This sounds like an excuse for bad DMing. It's not at all obvious, even for players with a bit of pencil & paper experience, what the game means by "concentrate on a mind flayer's thoughts", and it's BS to punish players for not reading the DM's mind. Part of good DMing is the art of subtly cluing players into what parts of your fantasy world are or are not dangerous. Players can choose to take risks, of course. But the players need to be able to discern some logic behind any negative consequences of their choices.

I haven't played the game, but just by reading this note at least the player knows that the Mind Flayer is trying to control the player, and that the Mind Flayer controlled at least 3 other creatures into fighting to their death. So it appears that the mental powers of the Mind Flayer were already proven to the player.

Actually, watching the intro on Steam, the mental powers of mind flayers was abundantly clear after said intro. Entering into a battle of mind with such a creature when you are still complaining that your character feels weak in battle seems foolish.

That's a valid critique of entering into that mental duel is a choice that the player might make. It sounds more like that's the situation he was railroaded into, not an optional approach that he found.

If my reading of it is correct, then blaming the player for this is just plain shitty, as it's the devs who created the situation and railroaded a new player into it.

It's the difference between getting arrested for committing a crime on your own recognizance, vs getting entrapped into it. It would never have occurred to me on my own to try to psionically duel an Illithid—but when the game is like "hey, here's one that's literally down to one hit point, trapped under a ton of rubble, and it's already failed to mind control you when you WEREN'T expecting it, it also failed to control your party members, it only controlled these civilians. Want to roll an INT check to mind-fuck it right the hell back?"

... if you don't explore options like that, you don't know what's possible in the game universe. You especially can't just assume Larian got Illithids right, given that they're exposing level 1 players flying solo to Nautiloids packed full of Illithids and Intellect Devourers in the first place, with red dragons and Githyanki knights whizzing by.

I wouldn't have been mad if FAILING the int check got me mind-controlled. But failing it going fine, and PASSING it screwing me over? Yeah, that just feels like the DM being a dick and thinking he's clever.

It seems like the sensible thing would have been for the Int check be for you to realize that mentally dueling the illithid was something that you could try, and then give you an option to nope the hell out of that idea, or go ahead with it, warning you that a Wisdom check would be involved before you actually commit to doing it. Also, it would be nice if ability checks were color coded with an approximate difficulty (not necessarily showing the exact DC) so if something is easy, make it green, really hard or impossible, red, and somewhere in between make it yellow

 

[fluo]

When I think of what I'd like to see in a Baldurs Gate 3. I think of a more retro style top-down isometric third person view with a lot of depth and story.

Rather it sounds like what they're making is what I'm thinking of... entirely inverted.

I have to wonder, are old Baldur’s Gate fans like me who played the original desperate for a 3D flashy looks game? And are fans who haven't played it ... even looking for Baldur’s Gate?

So like Disco Elysium but D&D?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWWA1jnI5N4

 

[daemer]

You tried to concentrate in a Mind Flayer thoughts? At lvl 1? Yeah, death looks like the normal outcome.

This sounds like an excuse for bad DMing. It's not at all obvious, even for players with a bit of pencil & paper experience, what the game means by "concentrate on a mind flayer's thoughts", and it's BS to punish players for not reading the DM's mind. Part of good DMing is the art of subtly cluing players into what parts of your fantasy world are or are not dangerous. Players can choose to take risks, of course. But the players need to be able to discern some logic behind any negative consequences of their choices.

I haven't played the game, but just by reading this note at least the player knows that the Mind Flayer is trying to control the player, and that the Mind Flayer controlled at least 3 other creatures into fighting to their death. So it appears that the mental powers of the Mind Flayer were already proven to the player.

Actually, watching the intro on Steam, the mental powers of mind flayers was abundantly clear after said intro. Entering into a battle of mind with such a creature when you are still complaining that your character feels weak in battle seems foolish.

That's a valid critique of entering into that mental duel is a choice that the player might make. It sounds more like that's the situation he was railroaded into, not an optional approach that he found.

If my reading of it is correct, then blaming the player for this is just plain shitty, as it's the devs who created the situation and railroaded a new player into it.

I've seen a video of the interaction in question, and you are absolutely allowed to A) Attack the monster rather than talk to it to begin with or B) pick a dialogue option that *isn't* 'engage in a contest of wills with a mind-flayer'.

There's actually a button on-screen during all dialogue interactions that lets you stop talking and start attacking instead of picking a dialogue option.

 

[redtomato]

I played 10 hours of Baldur’s Gate 3 early access, and I want them back

Well, if that isn't the most honest article title I've ever seen.

The title was in error: I played fifteen hours of BG3, and I want them back. :'(

Y'all, I expected to love this game. I wanted to love this game. But boy oh boy, it did not feel like the game loved me.

Will you get paid for the 10-hours playtime you put in? And did you sneak in an extra 5 hours unpaid? You mad lad, you.

 

[Timmy O'Toole82]

Man I just don't get the hate Jim is getting in these comments for his opinion. If you don't like his opinion then go read a different review for fucks sake and make comments there. Grow up, understand people can have their own thoughts, likes, and dislikes. He's not an automaton. He didn't like it and he wrote his damn opinions on it.

Yeah, okay... so what's your point? That people can't disagree with his opinions?

Disagreement is fine but there are a lot of pricks that just seemed to sign up to be raging assholes. I think differences in opinion are great which is why I plan to read other's opinions on said game. But the attacks on Jim cause for some reason a random assholes epeen is hurt is pretty stupid.

 

[Peevester]

Well this sounds disappointing.

Any reveal on how long rests work?

Long rests work like D&D rests always worked; you get your HP back and re-up on all your spells.

There's a strong implication that time is passing by and this may affect quests, but I'm not sure if I believe it or not; I did not observe day-ending advancing any timelines during my time with the game. It's not uncommon for games to tell you "you have to hurry!" when there's literally no time constraint at all; then again, I didn't play for long enough to be absolutely certain I wouldn't just wake up one morning with my head exploded, IDK.

Short rests were the new mechanic for me; they give you a few hit points back and that's about it. They don't advance time ("end of day") like the long rests do, but you get a limited number of them; seemed like just one short rest per day.

I read another EA review where a house was burning down, but instead of completing the quest (mostly due to bugs), the reviewer camped. When his party awoke, the house had burned down and a party member was upset they hadn't done anything. So it seems at though time doesn't pass UNTIL you sleep.

Also, in regards to the mindflayer taking control of you, were you able to command any other party members while the dialogue was happening? Divinity Original Sin 2 allowed one character to converse while the others could be controlled to run around and pickpocket, cause mayhem, or, as would have been useful here, attack.

Your party members are in charge of their thoughts, but you're in charge of their actions. I wouldn't be surprised if the game wanted you to use a different character to kill the Ilithid while it was taking control of your character.

EDIT: Oh, and there's also an option to "knock unconscious" during battle. You could probably have done that during the fisherpeople battle. I think these things will be more apparent in the future when they have a proper tutorial built in.

Besides that, I'm wondering if the multiple rolls was their (slightly broken) attempt at a skill check challenge, where you're supposed to have every member of the party add their own abilities to the process to get a success. A magic user would use INT to open their mind, a cleric would use their WIS to have a battle of wits, and maybe a rogue would use their DEX to stab it in the face if it misbehaved. That would be the only valid use for multiple conflicting checks like that.

And it just occured to me, with the cleric being a Githyanki, it makes double sense for her to be the one communicating with the Mind Flayer. The two are natural enemies, the gith being formerly a "client" (i.e. slave and food) race to the Illithid in lore.

 

[harmless]

I wouldn't have been mad if FAILING the int check got me mind-controlled. But failing it going fine, and PASSING it screwing me over? Yeah, that just feels like the DM being a dick and thinking he's clever.

While I understand your sentiment, it sounds like you essentially succeeded in waking him up and then things went south.

As I said, I understand the frustration, but I disagree with your apparent expectation that you should be able to try everything possible without having to face deadly consequences.

The inability to control party members at that time is hopefully something that will be fixed later. IIRC it was the same in early versions of DOS - the ability to switch out of dialogue was added with a patch after release.

 

[Peevester]

I wouldn't have been mad if FAILING the int check got me mind-controlled. But failing it going fine, and PASSING it screwing me over? Yeah, that just feels like the DM being a dick and thinking he's clever.

While I understand your sentiment, it sounds like you essentially succeeded in waking him up and then things went south.

As I said, I understand the frustration, but I disagree with your apparent expectation that you should be able to try everything possible without having to face deadly consequences.

The inability to control party members at that time is hopefully something that will be fixed later. IIRC it was the same in early versions of DOS - the ability to switch out of dialogue was added with a patch after release.

Bingo, that actually makes a lot of sense. The same PC probably wasn't meant to do both rolls.

 

[Thad Boyd]

Dear Mr Salter,

I haven't read your initial thoughts on Baldur's Gate 3 early access.

And I haven't read the rest of your comment.

 

[ChrisSD]

Dear Mr Salter...

Dear Mr Overthere.

You might want to actually read beyond the title before writing a lengthy comment on what you imagine the article may or may not be about.

Regards.

 

[Peevester]

Dear Mr Salter...

Dear Mr Overthere.

You might want to actually read beyond the title before writing a lengthy comment on what you imagine the article may or may not be about.

Regards.

I swear, this BS from rabid gaming fanboys is why I refuse to have anything to do with the community anymore. What a bunch of shitposting babies. Edit: I don't mean you, Chris!

 

[Thad Boyd]

Dear Mr Salter...

Dear Mr Overthere.

You might want to actually read beyond the title before writing a lengthy comment on what you imagine the article may or may not be about.

Regards.

I swear, this BS from rabid gaming fanboys is why I refuse to have anything to do with the community anymore. What a bunch of shitposting babies. Edit: I don't mean you, Chris!

TBF, a person using their first post to spout a bunch of ad hominems over a game review isn't so much a member of the community as a gatecrasher.

 

[Peevester]

Dear Mr Salter...

Dear Mr Overthere.

You might want to actually read beyond the title before writing a lengthy comment on what you imagine the article may or may not be about.

Regards.

I swear, this BS from rabid gaming fanboys is why I refuse to have anything to do with the community anymore. What a bunch of shitposting babies. Edit: I don't mean you, Chris!

TBF, a person using their first post to rant about a game review isn't so much a member of the community as a gatecrasher.

The gaming community, not the Ars one. No doubt on some board or another there's a bunch of whinging about how Ars is abusing their beloved property, and a few dipshits brigaded in.

 

[harmless]

Save or suck/die for -succeeding- a check isn't very fun.

With the information I currently have, I think the option to mess with the mind flayer's mind shouldn't even be there. But then there's the general rule of D&D that players should be allowed to try pretty much everything they want to.

Usually it's about giving the players enough information so that they can tell when they are making dangerous choices. But if they do so knowingly, them getting killed is a perfectly valid outcome. Play stupid games, win stupid prices ...

Sure that's fine if he failed the INT check, but he succeeded. Then the sadistic DM designer laughed and said "sucker! now pass a WIS check too!"

From what I understand the check was to make the connection in the first place - which succeeded. It did what the player wanted.

It's like breaking into a lion's cage. Great, I managed to pick the lock and open the gate! Now, what do you expect to happen?

 

[ThatFuzzyTiger]

"* Watching innocent characters get murdered
* Murdering innocent characters yourself"

... so this is D&D's answer to TLOU2?

-prepares for the mass of rotten vegetables-

 

[Reandom99]

Sorry Jim, but I can't agree with your take on much of this.

First, as pointed out already, you probably missed the option to non-lethally deal with the mind-controlled folk. Even if you are forced to kill them, however, that's a perfectly legitimate narrative choice. You're dealing with an illithid, after all, and you aren't going to get to have everything go the way you want. And while I don't think you claimed this (others in this comment thread did however), being put in a bad situation and having to kill some "innocent folk" under the control of an illithid does not mean your character is evil.

Your weird hangup with the unused movement points seems to be a purely personal thing and not really a valid complaint against the game itself.

Being forced to work together with a characters who don't particularly care for you, and may actually wish to do you harm, may not fit into some idea that a D&D party has to be all chummy but that doesn't make it an objectively bad narrative choice. Learning to work together despite initial differences and perhaps even building a rapport over time is plainly the intended arc here. It's certainly in character for a Githyanki, an evil cleric, and a vampire.

Anyways, the point isn't that you're wrong and this is obviously a great game, but it seems to me like you have some really specific expectations of what a D&D game should be that are more personal hangups than something that others can use as a good compass to determine if this is worth playing or not.

I mean, at least they didn't change it into a clone of their existing property that's totally at odds with the first two games (*cough*Fallout*cough*).

You see the issue with justifications like this is that Jim and people like me want Baldur's Gate 3, NOT a Larian game set in the Forgotten Realms as this sounds like. Jim's specific call outs are being debated when he is making the point that this is not a sequel in spirit. Of course this makes your valid Fallout comparison interesting since I preferred the feel and style of 1&2 but did enjoy 3 and loved New Vegas.