I'm not enjoying this game

[Daemonjax]

Yeah, i don't like the game too:

 

 

-2d over 3d is bad. 2d is crappy, you can't even rotate the camera. Neverwinter nights 1 was beautiful cause of 3D, so ispired art and wonderful environments.

 

-Endless path of Nua bad. Only 2 levels, i thought they were 15. It finishes on the black sacrifice hole.

 

 

 

There are 15 levels, but I'm not sure you're being serious based on the other comment.

[MillionaireShaman]

I'm about 5 hours in.

Just got my ass kicked by 3 boars in that one forest area near the beginning. 

I admit, I have yet to learn the battle mechanics of this game, but getting beat by 3 boars feels a bit silly.

[Nanakamado]

Well Wl2 turned up to be not so good game.

PoE is good game, but expectations were much bigger, some people expected ultimate cRPG, which PoE is not. As I said erlier PoE is something between all IE games and fans of each could be slighty (or more) disapointed.

I'm slighty disapointed but anyway PoE is biggest deal in cRPG since Witcher 1. I appreciate that.

[RottenBrain]

In this thread: people having a skewed perception of Baldur's Gate 1 (and to a certain extent 2) and the fact that it was actually full of repetitive combat, questionable mechanics and bland characters.

[Quantics]

Everywhere on the internet: people having a skewed perception of Baldur's Gate 1 (and to a certain extent 2) and the fact that it was actually full of repetitive combat, questionable mechanics and bland characters.

 

Corrected this for you.

[ProjectBG2Respawn]

This game is a better, modern baldur's gate, did you play and like those games? 

 

Not sure what you were expecting here, think the devs were clear about what kind of game they are making. I feel like they delivered just what they promised and then some. I don't agree to combat being secondary either, that's pretty much the main meat of the game so if you don't enjoy that I see why you'd be disapointed, but then again combat in the IE games was just like this but worse.

 

I wont say "better" i'd rather say "different".

 

Both are good and both have their issues but not the sames.

[ProjectBG2Respawn]

 

Everywhere on the internet: people having a skewed perception of Baldur's Gate 1 (and to a certain extent 2) and the fact that it was actually full of repetitive combat, questionable mechanics and bland characters.

 

Corrected this for you.

 

 

Well i don't know why did you buy PoE since it's a game that claims to be the Baldur's Gate 3...

 

If you didn't like the BG series i really can't see why did you buy PoE and also why do you waste your time on this forum.

[RottenBrain]

 

 

Everywhere on the internet: people having a skewed perception of Baldur's Gate 1 (and to a certain extent 2) and the fact that it was actually full of repetitive combat, questionable mechanics and bland characters.

 

Corrected this for you.

 

 

Well i don't know why did you buy PoE since it's a game that claims to be the Baldur's Gate 3...

 

If you didn't like the BG series i really can't see why did you buy PoE and also why do you waste your time on this forum.

 

I never said I didn't like BG. I actually loved it, as well as all other Infinity engine games, however, this doesn't stop me from seeing the flaws it/they had. I also generally try not to let rose-tinted nostalgia dictate my opinion of things.

[ProjectBG2Respawn]

 

 

 

Everywhere on the internet: people having a skewed perception of Baldur's Gate 1 (and to a certain extent 2) and the fact that it was actually full of repetitive combat, questionable mechanics and bland characters.

 

Corrected this for you.

 

 

Well i don't know why did you buy PoE since it's a game that claims to be the Baldur's Gate 3...

 

If you didn't like the BG series i really can't see why did you buy PoE and also why do you waste your time on this forum.

 

I never said I didn't like BG. I actually loved it, as well as all other Infinity engine games, however, this doesn't stop me from seeing the flaws it/they had. I also generally try not to let rose-tinted nostalgia dictate my opinion of things.

 

 

I was talking to Quantics. I agree BG have issues, but Quantics said "everywhere on the internet", saying that it's unanimous to claim that combats were repetitive and lore, story and characters were uninteresting.

 

I just don't agree with all that critics, so it's not "everywhere on the internet"

[Quantics]

"Everywhere on the internet" because the obsidian forums are not the only place where this 'debate' is constantly revived. Look at the Codex, Steam boards, or SA forums, there are tons of messages ranting about how **** the writing in PoE is compared to the BG series. 

 

I find this a bit harsh tbh. 

[Sanquiz]

It's really sad... for you

[nipsen]

 

I find this a bit harsh tbh. 

It's not harsh at all. People just argue that since the game doesn't instantly dazzle them in the way Baldur's Gate did, in their memory, the writing is "objectively bad". That's kind of endearing - reminds me of grandpa's ranting. But then when you point out something specific about henchmen with hamsters and tattoos, ready for the mental ward, and how 90% of the lines describing him is gibberish, then things start to become difficult. When you highlight how other more conspicuous writing no one specifically remember, such as the lengthy parentheses, was really what set the tone, that's when things start to become problematic.

 

Because now certain people start insisting that it was the gibberish that made the rest of the writing in the game great. They create fairly elaborate rationalisations for it as well - because if the gibberish that stands out in their mind is not objectively amazing, then their memory of the game is failing. And their opinions would not be objective, but be based on very light subjective impressions they can't even describe properly. So clearly, the rationalisations insist, it was the gibberish that was the core of the Baldur's Gate series. Without gibberish, the game would simply be ordinary. After all, to them it was the gibberish that stands out.

 

You have people on the project writing this who were good writers at the time, who are even better now, and have had time to put more thought into the presentation. I mean, try to understand that what Obsidian is doing here is allowing us to play stories from world-class GMs, that they've been able to share with a larger audience through the games. The systems made here are created by people who know GMing well, who understand what the challenges are when conducting a game for players. And these games were a unique stab at that, even if they weren't "ideal". But they did work to tell good immersive stories.

 

But that doesn't matter to these people. Because from their perspective, it's all been written out hastily in the editor as a wrapper for the combat, and it all happens to be incredible by chance. Therefore, there's a simple and easy explanation for why it's impressive. If you've heard of Dunning and Kruger, they have a theory on things like this. It could be summarized as saying that unless you have some level of understanding for the skill involved in performing a task well, you don't actually appreciate how skilled someone are, and see it as some magical talent, or just a cheap trick. Such as that someone doesn't really understand how much effort and technique is involved in running a marathon, until they've actually tried running for a few hours without pause themselves.

 

So we end up with relatively intelligent people making their own translation of what made the game work, and creating a rationalisation for it from a player's point of view. Much like a couch-sitter would comment on what makes an athlete a good one. It's not wrong as such, or not made from observation. It's just not based on knowledge about what it takes to actually train and run yourself. 

 

I mean, this isn't exactly controversial - the way many people seem to be experts on game-development from playing lots of games, or that they are experts on writing fantasy novels after reading lots of books, or believe themselves brilliant directors from watching lots of film on TV -- this isn't an unknown concept.

 

And of course when the result of that is a theory about game-design based on superficial hooks, and you get a game developed only around that -- then you see where it falls apart right away. Someone trying to run a marathon without having trained properly understands the problem, and someone trying to develop a game by tossing on some writing at the end start to see the problem as well. It could be a gateway, obviously, lots of modders for NWN used the tools to write very solid stories. But you have a different understanding of what it takes to create a good narrative once you've tried it yourself.

 

But where things become harsh is when you combine the superficial perspectives on "what works" with actual development background. When you let, say, a community manager with no development background define what the game should be like, and have developers who know how to implement it all create the game. Then you get something like this: a marathon-runner in a fancy outfit completing the 42km run in 6 hours, who is driven in a car on the distances where there's no audience, who stops the timer when he has to take a break. And who has a fake audience to cheer when he passes the finish line in lone majesty.

 

It's a fake run, conducted by people who know what a run should look like, but not how to actually pull it off. With skilled runners adding "advice" along the way, putting all their skill into making the run appear authentic. And actually saying, then, that this is more impressive than a real run, knowing that it's fake, and how much effort it really takes to complete a real run -- that is harsh. It's disrespectful. You end up sitting in a cult dedicated to upholding the illusion that the fake runner actually won the race. As if the whole run was truly made up of only the highlights shown on TV.

 

Because you can hear the argument being made already, right? That if you can fake the experience for a selected audience, and they truly believe it's a record-breaking run -- then it's better than the real thing.

 

Meanwhile, anyone objecting simply are destructive, or they have the wrong idea, or they are too critical, and have too high standards. When pointing out that certain people's understanding of what will impress "a new audience" in the same way they remember themselves being impressed, are simply being very, very, superficial.

 

When what you're pointing out is that their perspective wouldn't have impressed them either at the time. And that thinking it would is simply incredibly arrogant.