BG3

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

54 minutes ago, Bartimaeus said:

Heck, look at what KP is saying regarding failing his rolls and just rolling with them: failures in a game system like D&D can and should be used as an opportunity in of themselves to create interesting and different content/situations

For me it's like.....imagine a heist film where the crew was 100% successful instead of one where an alarm gets tripped or there is an investigator on their tail. Wouldn't that be a lot less interesting? Larian has done well is make it so a failure at a check doesn't necessarily doom the party and require a rreload. You'll probably miss out on something....but I thought that's what people wanted.

1 hour ago, Bartimaeus said:

Everyone's stats having odd numbers when odd numbers contribute absolutely nothing to their effectiveness is basically hard encouraging you to respec everyone, which I think is kind of stupid. But the way stat distribution in 5E is handled appears to be rather lousy in general, so I guess it's whatever.

5e in general is lousy tbh.

Yeah, there's very little benefit to having multiple odd numbers. Two 16s vs 17 and 15 for your main stats just means that in the secondary one (like Con for Karlach) is going to be 1 less for the first three levels, which can be some of the harder levels to survive in. To boot, the feats are often less desirable than a pure stat boost (which they compete with for resources) so the appeal of an odd stat to pick up with a feat just can't compete.

The exception of course is Fighter, who gets more attribute increases than other classes and can swing a few more feats, so half loading dex or something with the intention to grab a feat that makes you proficient in those saves is an option.

[Bartimaeus]

1 hour ago, PK htiw klaw eriF said:

For me it's like.....imagine a heist film where the crew was 100% successful instead of one where an alarm gets tripped or there is an investigator on their tail. Wouldn't that be a lot less interesting? Larian has done well is make it so a failure at a check doesn't necessarily doom the party and require a rreload. You'll probably miss out on something....but I thought that's what people wanted.

I've been so trained by most other poorly designed games to think that failing something, even something completely out of my control such as a literal dice roll, always makes me feel like I need to go back and fix it. It's difficult to break out of that programming, but you're absolutely correct: succeeding at everything all the time because you made all the correct decisions is just...kind of boring and dissatisfying. If we lived in an ideal world, we'd have more video games that do a better job with this sort of thing, but we don't. I think this is some part of why my interest in a lot of 'traditional' video game gameplay has really waned over the years: I'm tired of learning systems that ultimately just come down to making 'correct' decisions, finding out what works isn't fun and what's fun doesn't work, and endless min-maxing to make the gameplay as painless as possible - while most everything else is background noise at best. It's old, it's stale, I don't care or want to engage with it anymore. Just want games that attempt novel experiences, games with compelling worlds, stories, and characters, and maybe possibly even be able to make choices without nearly so much objective value tied to each choice making me feel like the vast majority of possible choices are stupid/wrong...

BG3 is by no means perfect for any of that, not even close, and I think it's pretty wild that it's currently sitting at #1 all time for PC games on Metacritic, but I can say that it seems like it at least tried, and that it does actually feel like a proper attempt at a game instead of some kind of money-making lab rat simulator, and that's better than what I can say for almost every other AAA game I see these days. Hell, the game was even released on GOG right off the bat...

Edited August 15, 2023 by Bartimaeus

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

4 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

I've been so trained by most other poorly designed games to think that failing something, even something completely out of my control such as a literal dice roll, always makes me feel like I need to go back and fix it. It's difficult to break out of that programming, but you're absolutely correct: succeeding at everything all the time because you made all the correct decisions is just...kind of boring and dissatisfying.

So one of the series I've been playing since I was a kid is Fire Emblem, which I picked up because Nintendo's big marketing scheme multiversal fighting game, Super Smash Bros. Melee. Quick rundown, Fire Emblem is a tactical jrpg that implements permadeath by default, has no ingame resurrections in most titles, has generally shoddy "pre-promotes" that would suck up xp along with the way, and substantial benefits for delaying promotion until max level. The first time I played I did not know this, lost several units who got a "you died" ending slide, and had a slew of lousy units that just got completely stomped late game. I'll never forget that playthrough, and it instilled in me a habit of ALWAYS restarting if I lost a unit (or similar) and ALWAYS promoting at 20 and a suspicion that the RNG did indeed sometimes want to make us suffer. Because of this I'm better at the games...but it'll never be as memorable as the first playthrough.

This is a very specific example of that training, that you've been trained that certain failures mean you need to restart the game, because losing a character or an item or whatever will ruin your playthrough. That mode of constant triumph isn't a wrong way to play, and I want people to play games the way they enjoy them, but as of late it's not something I want to experience in a game. I'm more interested in failing sometimes, whether that be because I made a bad choice or because the ring told me to go **** myself, and seeing what the game does. It's kind of an outgrowth in my refusal to bother with something that I find tedious or uninteresting in my free time, and I definitely find reloading to get things just right tedious.

I'm pretty tired right now so I'll just agree that I'm not interested in playing many videogames these days. The AAA games are definitely the worst at this and I don't really play many of those at all.

4 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

I think it's pretty wild that it's currently sitting at #1 all time for PC games on Metacritic

I'm not surprised, not in that I think it's the GOAT (I'm not even done with act 1 yet), but because I think most rating sites are heavily weighted towards recent games. It is funny that there are two BGs in the top 10 though, and I am absolutely not surprised to see Disco Elysium in the top 10.

[Humanoid]

4 hours ago, PK htiw klaw eriF said:

ALWAYS promoting at 20

Ironically this burned me in the latest title, because it is now optimal to promote ASAP.

[Hawke64]

On 8/14/2023 at 3:49 PM, Wormerine said:

I finally ventured outside Early Access are, met one of the legacy characters. Nothing to blow my socks off. I feel like Larian is struggling to write compelling characters, who aren't over the top like Astarion. Karlach, who seems to be the only semi normal in the party, is also a total bore. It's probably due to characters being as deep as a puddle. They still didn't evolve beyond a one minute intro that game gives you during the character creation. So far, even Minsc in BG2 had more going for him than any of this lot (not in terms of content, but in terms of narrative potential).

I have been cooling off on the game. In my time with early access I generally enjoyed opening=>grove=>goblin camp, and after that my attention have been waning. Same is happening in this playthrough - I hoped things will picks up once I reach act2 but it still hasn't happened yet. I think lack of narrative drive is to blame. I am pursuing the same objective for about 20h. Narratively, nothing of note has happened in quite a while.

I was wondering if writing got better in BG3 or I got desensitized to it- I think a little bit of both. I was getting along with act1 just fine, but act2 really feels off to me so far - like as if Larian have done act1 for Early Access, and now they are just making stuff up as they go along. It feels like the game is not going anywhere - just another chunk of content to go through.

I am running into more and more issues with reactivity. Mostly small stuff, but some really odd ones, considering I feel like I am good boy and following paths set out by devs. The most recent example, is Gale crit. NPCs (oh gosh, Gales story somehow became even more idiotic) whom we met on a road, and sent him out to camp to chat with him later. Instead of being there, he appeared a new after I woke up, and the encounter played out as if we never met before, covering the same lines as before. Just... very weird, as in the first conversation "go to the camp and we will chat there" is an option, that the game gives you.

People harp on how much choice the game gives you - and I am just not feeling it. I can't recall when was the last choice I made - outside the big good/bad path. Sure, I get a choice to murder everyone I meet, but that's not a real choice, is it. I also don't like that the game lacks guts to restrict content. I already traded off "speaking with animals" from my PC. It's a worthless skill to own, considering how easily it is acquired from other sources. It' a real shame, speak with dead/animals etc. could provide nice spins to individual playthroughts, but the game is incapable of rewarding those choices - instead it's choose to make everything available to everyone, making everything feel rather bland.

There are 2 more narrative pushes - (a significant) one at the end of Act 2/beginning of Act 3 (you get your objective for the rest of the game), another 

Spoiler

during the end-game.

The companions have some development in Act 2-3, though I liked my party in Solasta more. I cannot find explicit faults with Larian's D&D game's narrative structure (the PC is interested in the main plot, the plot goes from personal to spoiler, there are twists, the side quests are related to the main objective, etc.) but it was as engaging as Solasta. I suppose, my specific play style (stealth, persuasion) does not align well with what the developer was going for, but I do appreciate that they at least tried to support it. There is no XP for picking locks or completely avoiding encounters or finding side paths, though all of them are present. There is reactivity in the immersive sim-like design approach, but to some extent it could have been done as dialogue options in choose-your-own-adventure games (it also falls apart in Act 3 with the boss you threw off the arena, climbing back up for the post-battle cut-scene*). Additionally, I agree that classes should have been more distinct with more unique interactions (e.g. some investment in Sleight of Hand was required to pick locks).

On 8/14/2023 at 5:01 PM, lobotomy42 said:

"Everything available to everyone" is definitely the ethos of the game, from romances, to quests, to skills, to tactics, to dice rolls.  It's similar to Bethesda games in that way -- no real limits on anything, so you can pretty much experience all there is to offer on one playthrough. The only limits are the ones you impose on yourself for role-playing purposes. The game certainly isn't going to force you to role-play.

From a sales perspective, this seems like a good strategy. Everyone who plays finds that they are good at whatever they try to do, and have success at everything. What a great time! No one ever has to feel like they are failing.

I suppose, though there is no day/night cycle (NPC schedules) or more destructible environment. On the other hand, I like that it is possible to ignore quite a lot of content.

15 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

I feel having content you don't want to engage with is or at least can be a positive, not a negative. I do not want a sixty hour long game full of repetitive and homogeneous content that everyone who plays will rotely go through because making anything but the obviously correct choices is just plain stupid (if there even are any real 'choices' to be had in the first place, seeing as games almost never have any real choices beyond some mild window dressing before the game railroads you right back down the same path everyone else has to go). That kind of thinking flies pretty hard in the face of the literal meaning and spirit of "role playing game", and I'd rather have a 30 hour game full of variability and interesting content and options that makes second playthroughs actually worth bothering with in the event of not wanting to make the same exact choices that you did during the previous playthrough. Heck, look at what KP is saying regarding failing his rolls and just rolling with them: failures in a game system like D&D can and should be used as an opportunity in of themselves to create interesting and different content/situations. This complaint is also kind of hilarious given that BG3 is pretty darned inclusive in terms of making sure that certain character types and builds do not ever miss out on much content - so long as you explore, talk, and engage with the game enough to find alternatives. Like, there were literally just multiple posts complaining about how way too much is available to everyone!

Then again, I prefer my games to be on the short and sweet side, and I don't mind making hard choices so long as I feel like I understand those choices. The latter can be frustrating when not handled properly/clearly, I will grant, but otherwise...

(Also, see Undertale for a great game with radically different situations, content, and writing depending on how you play it, and which I would contend did the most interesting thing that I've ever in any game ever in terms of handling this idea with its alternative route - even if there was relatively limited variability within each of the two main routes due to the indie scope of the game.)

Everyone's stats having odd numbers when odd numbers contribute absolutely nothing to their effectiveness is basically hard encouraging you to respec everyone, which I think is kind of stupid. But the way stat distribution in 5E is handled appears to be rather lousy in general, so I guess it's whatever.

Agreed, my RP is defined by the choices I make as much as the options I skip, which I cannot do if there are no such options.
Regarding the stat distribution, I had thought that I would be able to fix them by level 3-4. I was mistaken and the lack of the level progression screen was most unpleasant at that point.

14 hours ago, PK htiw klaw eriF said:

For me it's like.....imagine a heist film where the crew was 100% successful instead of one where an alarm gets tripped or there is an investigator on their tail. Wouldn't that be a lot less interesting? Larian has done well is make it so a failure at a check doesn't necessarily doom the party and require a rreload. You'll probably miss out on something....but I thought that's what people wanted.

I generally don't like to fail because of RNG instead of my (poor or not) choices and I would strongly prefer static skill checks or the Take20 option. There is a difference between failing because of conscious roleplay decisions (none of the party members can do X) and rolling a 1. The former is an interesting story point, the latter is reloading.
For me, watching a reliable and well-researched plan with transparent logic and its implementation is more interesting than dumb luck.
----

Finished the game. In the final parts, combat becomes more integral for the good-aligned characters, which was a problem (solved by dropping the difficulty). Also, the game failed to recognise several "creative" solutions to boss battles. Though, it was most satisfying to skip the boss' monologue (with its fancy mo-capped cut-scenes and VA) and just throw the b... oss of the platform with telekinesis (I tried the explosives first, but the corpse-to-become had Uncanny Dodge). Also, getting a closed helmet or a masked hood resolved the weird facial expressions in the "field" cut-scenes (the ones in the camp still had it).
Overall, the game often felt like fighting questionable design decisions, despite the generally high reactivity, interactivity, and being able to ignore a lot of the content. It was nowhere close to Pillars of Eternity or Tyranny and somehow worse than Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous (despite the long and slow dungeon crawls; on a positive note Larian's D&D game was shorter, ~40 hours vs ~120**) or Encased. I will try to replay it at some point, but probably just to check how far I will be able to get with some specific builds.

Also, one screenshot for the final cut-scene (an HDD-related bug, no spoilers):

Spoiler

*I would post screenshots, but not sure that I should, considering the spoilers. Though, the foe in question was shown in several trailers.

**On the other hand, I never wanted to complete all quests and was trying to stick to the critical path and RP, while in PF I wanted to see and do everything (and the RP supported it).

[Hawke64]

To elaborate the previous point (the questionable design decisions), in several cases, the NPCs told me to find them Baldur's Gate without telling where exactly ("the house on the left from the bridge") and without any quest markers. In Act 3, a boss

Spoiler

told me to "find her in her temple" (it's a quote - there were no other directions). I assumed that firstly, the location was obvious but there would be an ambush or a trap, secondly, that it would be open me for to walk into that ambush. Turned out, I was wrong in both cases - the door required an amulet from another NPC which I could not pickpocket (I had tried before surrounding the NPC with explosives and detonating them), while the door to that NPC required a password - it could not be destroyed or the lock picked (I will check the other options in the dialogue with the door later, but I doubt that they would allow to open it). In the temple itself I was able to walk in, find a safe spot by killing 2 NPCs and without triggering an area-wide alarm, and throw the boss into the nearest chasm. Granted, I would have been more annoyed if I had to sit through the loot bag talking. The quest items I needed from the body somehow ended up on the platform after the battle.

And the end-game made me appreciate Ukaizo with its 2 optional combat encounters even more:

Spoiler

3 large battles in a row with timers and no story. Just go forth and fight 12+ opponents while AoE are raining from the sky. It was possible to use the Invisibility spell and run to the next objective (the party teleported upon interacting with the area-transition thing) in the first 2, but it was not an intended option.

About the combat becoming more integral for the good-aligned characters:

Spoiler

I think, the above-mentioned amulet could be obtained by bluffing and killing a random NPC in a dialogue. There were similar moments in all acts - giving out the location of the grove, instead of assassinating the goblin leaders, capturing the spoiler for Ketheric in Act 2, instead of assaulting the tower (haven't checked thoroughly), and allying with one of the main bosses in Act 3.

Additionally, the time limits were not clear, while the semi-open world structure did not work well with locations being in "temporal bubbles" with limited number of possible entrances and the camera being tethered to the active party member.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

6 hours ago, Humanoid said:

Ironically this burned me in the latest title, because it is now optimal to promote ASAP.

Engage? Yeah, the internal level threw me off too. I prefer what Three Houses did by not capping the level by class.

1 hour ago, Hawke64 said:

I generally don't like to fail because of RNG instead of my (poor or not) choices and I would strongly prefer static skill checks or the Take20 option. There is a difference between failing because of conscious roleplay decisions (none of the party members can do X) and rolling a 1. The former is an interesting story point, the latter is reloading.
For me, watching a reliable and well-researched plan with transparent logic and its implementation is more interesting than dumb luck.

I wouldn't mind static skill checks for some situations (anything related to knowledge for example), but I think rolling the d20 is good for anything active, like picking a lock or intimidating an owlbear. Dumb luck and fumbles have a place imo, I'm enjoying them.

I started investigating Khaga, ran into a hag, and got killed by some trees and mud mephits (who did the most damage by exploding on death). I haven't done another long rest since Karlachs fight and Shadowheart burned through her spells in Karlachs story fight (enemies were 1 and 2 levels ahead of the party and the Paladin dude hits hard). Unfortunately I went back to camp for something and it seems to cancel every one but the PCs buffs when you do that, so Karlach lost her +2 to AC.

[Sarex]

For me failing in games is interesting when you fail forward (but even there it's hard to let go), but I don't think BG3 is one of those games. To me it doesn't feel good to miss content because of a failed check.

[kanisatha]

23 hours ago, Humanoid said:

The "system" involved here being the dialogue system.

No, that's not the system involved at all.

[kanisatha]

22 hours ago, PK htiw klaw eriF said:

You should avoid Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous like a plague then, because the Lich, Demon, Devil, and Swarm are evil enough to make the worst Dark Urge look like Mr. Rogers. Not to mention Camellia.

Not at all, because in WotR all of this is offset by a huge amount of content on the other side, more than enough to keep someone like me happy.

[kanisatha]

18 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

I feel having content you don't want to engage with is or at least can be a positive, not a negative. I do not want a sixty hour long game full of repetitive and homogeneous content that everyone who plays will rotely go through because making anything but the obviously correct choices is just plain stupid (if there even are any real 'choices' to be had in the first place, seeing as games almost never have any real choices beyond some mild window dressing before the game railroads you right back down the same path everyone else has to go).

And I would agree with all this ... except in that BG3 does none of this. Yes, only having all the "correct" choices available to you is poor game design. But in BG3 you only have all the "incorrect" choices available and (for me) no correct choices. So it is exactly the issue you identify, just flipped. Several posters on the Larian forum have said that playing the super-good heroic character who wants only to do good and heroic things, *and* where the game recognizes and acknowledges and rewards the player for taking this path, is at best extremely difficult and convoluted to pull off (and perhaps not possible at all). I have looked at youtube videos showing all the major game endings, and not one of them is one I would consider to be a truly "good" ending. For example, whereas there are huge rewards for using the tadpoles, there are no rewards whatsoever for not using them. Even worse, in several dialogue instances, the game doesn't even recognize that you have chosen to not use the tadpoles and simply assumes that you have. This also happens for many other choices one makes on the "good" side, where the game does not acknowledge them in subsequent dialogues or choices or outcomes. Again, I'm basing all of this on feedback in the Larian forum from people playing the game (and who are huge fans of the game). So railroading looks to be a huge part of how BG3 is set up, just railroading us always toward the bad/evil side.

[kanisatha]

I'd also point out that when I said things I don't like/I'm not interested in engaging with, I included systems and not just content. For me, all of the following in BG3 are either awful or a waste of resources that could've been spent on things I consider to be central to a good cRPG: all of the cinematics; full voice acting; the origin PC system; the Dark Urge PC system; all of the romances; the entire combat system; the entire tadpole system (not an exhaustive list; I may have missed a few more things). All of that taken together surely makes up a HUGE part of the game.

[Hawke64]

23 minutes ago, kanisatha said:

And I would agree with all this ... except in that BG3 does none of this. Yes, only having all the "correct" choices available to you is poor game design. But in BG3 you only have all the "incorrect" choices available and (for me) no correct choices. So it is exactly the issue you identify, just flipped. Several posters on the Larian forum have said that playing the super-good heroic character who wants only to do good and heroic things, *and* where the game recognizes and acknowledges and rewards the player for taking this path, is at best extremely difficult and convoluted to pull off (and perhaps not possible at all). I have looked at youtube videos showing all the major game endings, and not one of them is one I would consider to be a truly "good" ending. For example, whereas there are huge rewards for using the tadpoles, there are no rewards whatsoever for not using them. Even worse, in several dialogue instances, the game doesn't even recognize that you have chosen to not use the tadpoles and simply assumes that you have. This also happens for many other choices one makes on the "good" side, where the game does not acknowledge them in subsequent dialogues or choices or outcomes. Again, I'm basing all of this on feedback in the Larian forum from people playing the game (and who are huge fans of the game). So railroading looks to be a huge part of how BG3 is set up, just railroading us always toward the bad/evil side.

From my experience, playing a "good" character usually leads to various levels of slaughter, which is more noticeable when a random goblin has a name and can be interacted with prior to that. On the other hand, I've got (Act 2 ending spoilers)

Spoiler

an aasimar paladin with her cleric partner in the camp, while they both could die horribly from my choices or failures. Also, there is the part where heal the spirit of the land (by fighting 2 separate battles), who stays in your camp for a while and provides an insignificant bonus in the final battle). So, kind of rewarding.

Also, the tiefling refugees throughout the game.

While I haven't played the Dark Urge Origin specifically, I suspect that most of the unavoidable evil-aligned choices are bound to it. I might try to see whether anything changes from using the tadpoles at the end.

  Edit.

8 minutes ago, kanisatha said:

I'd also point out that when I said things I don't like/I'm not interested in engaging with, I included systems and not just content. For me, all of the following in BG3 are either awful or a waste of resources that could've been spent on things I consider to be central to a good cRPG: all of the cinematics; full voice acting; the origin PC system; the Dark Urge PC system; all of the romances; the entire combat system; the entire tadpole system (not an exhaustive list; I may have missed a few more things). All of that taken together surely makes up a HUGE part of the game.

Agreed, though they are somehow avoidable and it could be worse - there could be survival elements or equipment durability.

Edited August 16, 2023 by Hawke64

[kanisatha]

4 minutes ago, Hawke64 said:

From my experience, playing a "good" character usually leads to various levels of slaughter, which is more noticeable when a random goblin has a name and can be interacted with prior to that. On the other hand, I've got (Act 2 ending spoilers)

  Hide contents

an aasimar paladin with her cleric partner in the camp, while they both could die horribly from my choices or failures. Also, there is the part where heal the spirit of the land (by fighting 2 separate battles), who stays in your camp for a while and provides an insignificant bonus in the final battle). So, kind of rewarding.

Also, the tiefling refugees throughout the game.

While I haven't played the Dark Urge Origin specifically, I suspect that most of the unavoidable evil-aligned choices are bound to it. I might try to see whether anything changes from using the tadpoles at the end.

Thanks! This is why I previously said I want to see what people in this forum eventually provide as feedback on the game, because unlike the Larian forum this forum has many people who I respect as intelligent and thoughtful people who can be counted on to provide honest and objective feedback.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

39 minutes ago, kanisatha said:

Not at all, because in WotR all of this is offset by a huge amount of content on the other side, more than enough to keep someone like me happy.

Dark Urge is one out of 8 origins and all of the of content I've seen so far allows you to resolve it heroically. On the balance of it there's actually less opportunities to be evil, and as evil, than in WotR at a similar point.

[HoonDing]

So is the honeymoon period over

[majestic]

On 8/14/2023 at 5:34 PM, PK htiw klaw eriF said:

-Shadowheart is way too nice to be a Cleric of Shar, something is up with that. She's been very useful though, clerics are always nice to have around even if Trickery isn't a great domain.

Speculation:

Spoiler

Probably cursed by Selune, or a priest of Selune, for being a naughty follower of Shar and defacing something or whatnot, what with her non-reactions to the statue in the Owlbear cave and the pain she felt at seeing the broken statue next to the windmill with the flying gnome.

Makes no sense that Shar would still grant her spells, but it's a cRPG...

 

[kanisatha]

1 hour ago, majestic said:

Speculation:

  Hide contents

Probably cursed by Selune, or a priest of Selune, for being a naughty follower of Shar and defacing something or whatnot, what with her non-reactions to the statue in the Owlbear cave and the pain she felt at seeing the broken statue next to the windmill with the flying gnome.

Makes no sense that Shar would still grant her spells, but it's a cRPG...

Spoiler

Years-long debate on the Larian forum is that she's a Selunite kidnapped and "brainwashed" by Shar's people, and therefore someone to be "redeemed" by the player. And of course I consider that to be the lamest of lame cliches, and also b.s. wrt to FR lore about both Shar and Selune.

[Wormerine]

I backtracked to Mountian Pass area and enjoyed it quite a bit.

Managed to recruit the first non origin companion, but I have some questions about whoever designed stat destributions:

 

The the **** does Helsin have 10 strength only . Not only is he the biggest of the NPCs, also everyone comments how ripped he is. "ahh, he must be of use in combat with his tree tunk arms" Laez said.

Edited August 16, 2023 by Wormerine

[ShadySands]

6 hours ago, HoonDing said:

So is the honeymoon period over

I feel like I'm playing a different game than most of the others on here. I like it okay, but looking forward to going back to Pathfinder.

Edited August 16, 2023 by ShadySands

[Hawke64]

3 hours ago, majestic said:

Speculation:

  Reveal hidden contents

Probably cursed by Selune, or a priest of Selune, for being a naughty follower of Shar and defacing something or whatnot, what with her non-reactions to the statue in the Owlbear cave and the pain she felt at seeing the broken statue next to the windmill with the flying gnome.

Makes no sense that Shar would still grant her spells, but it's a cRPG...

 

Spoiler

It is addressed in her companion quests. The library puzzle* was not obvious (not sure if it was necessary), but less abstract than the tile ones in WotR.

*in Act 2. Being vague, because spoilers.

 

7 hours ago, HoonDing said:

So is the honeymoon period over

Larian's D&D game still does some things well (non-combat application of spells, traversal abilities, and quest lines going throughout the whole game), fails miserably at others (encounter design post-Act 1, the implementation of multiclassing, the reactivity post-Act 1, the limited support of non-combat non-evil options in late-game, writing, animations and VA**), but certainly does not have MTX and DRM (Steam updates is another thing and I've been playing on Steam through Family Sharing). Though, it will be in a better state after a year or two (using players as testers after EA is a common practice, but not a welcome one). Also, the third act is more stable than the second act in The Waylanders (a game I somehow liked, but it is not a high bar).

**the PC is almost always smiling slightly (helmets solve it outside of the camp), occasionally spouts OOC environmental comments, and there are no voices for older, orcish or dwarven PCs.

---

Ironically, the guardian was my favourite character. (Act 3 spoilers):

Spoiler

Though I am quite certain that he was LE, he was neither genocidal nor mustache-twirlingly evil, while genuinely interested in saving the city and defeating the main antagonist.

 

[MrBrown]

https://www.eurogamer.net/baldurs-gate-3-a-critical-success-with-critical-failures

[Bartimaeus]

From what I've played of the game so far, it's pretty much fine. Which is infinitely better than I expected, and way more than I get out of almost anything AAA-released these days. If I get farther into the game and my mind changes, I'll let you all know. I mean, I always do, don't I?

[Hawke64]

46 minutes ago, MrBrown said:

https://www.eurogamer.net/baldurs-gate-3-a-critical-success-with-critical-failures

The review probably aligns most closely with my experience.

On a related note, the companion arcs in Act 1 go a little weird if one does not rest enough and in Act 3 the final battle(s)

Spoiler

are rather unpleasant for a stealth-focused under-levelled party. Though, that's what the respec is for, and technically it was possible to do with on the Explorer difficulty without changing the builds (to have a character stay alive and conscious for 1 turn with Sanctuary, then drag the party over the battlefield, and deal 210 damage to the final boss within 5 turns).

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

6 hours ago, majestic said:

Speculation:

  Reveal hidden contents

Probably cursed by Selune, or a priest of Selune, for being a naughty follower of Shar and defacing something or whatnot, what with her non-reactions to the statue in the Owlbear cave and the pain she felt at seeing the broken statue next to the windmill with the flying gnome.

Makes no sense that Shar would still grant her spells, but it's a cRPG...

 

I suspect

Spoiler

that she's an asset brainwashed by Shar('s clergy) so the real followers wouldn't have to do a suicide mission. Shadowheart has had large swathes of her memory removed and it's not to much of a step from that to planting fake ones.

At this point I have no idea and am happy to be surprised by the game.

2 hours ago, ShadySands said:

I feel like I'm playing a different game than most of the others on here. I like it okay, but looking forward to going back to Pathfinder.

Maybe you are.

Honestly though....my first thought when playing the game after a few combats was how how well this could work with Pathfinder 2e and how the game would be substantially better for it. As a system 5e is bland and as a setting Forgotten Realms sucks.

2 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

If I get farther into the game and my mind changes, I'll let you all know. I mean, I always do, don't I?

Do you?