While I enjoyed BG3, I really enjoyed the story from the original games first. This might be a controversial opinion, but I don't think they should have called it Baldur's Gate 3 because it doesn't continue the story of Gorion's Ward. I know there are game series that don't follow the same protagonist from game to game, but that's usually something set from the beginning like with Fable or Dragon Age. Just my opinion, though.
The track record for WOTC games has been to name the location its set at, even if continuing away from that spot in expansions. Its just a marketing thing, but the allusions to Gorion's Ward are scattered about in Act 2 and 3
Thank you for commenting and your point of view isn't as wild as you might think. Myself and a few others often said that the game might have been better served when we were playing in early access by calling it a "Baldur's Gate Story" rather than BG3, but now that i've played so much of it I can honestly see all the connections that Larian tried to do and if you look close enough you might see them too. Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 wasn't just about Gorian's ward, but if you dive into each companion you'll see that they have their own lives and adventures that simply see you as a part of that puzzle. Granted... you might be vital to the ultimate preservation of everyone's future, but no one knows that when you first encounter them. Nalia, Edwin, Minsc, etc. don't have huge arcs but have very specific quests that require your assistance to incorporate them into your future adventures. The chapters in BG3 mirrors BG1 very closely. I won't give any spoilers here, but there are other vital characters you'll meet in BG3 that tie in very closely to the original series even if you never meet them directly in BG1 or 2. I can't give a long discussion about my lore position of Jergal here... I will say that playing as Dark Urge may coincide with the plans of Jergal and why we even have Bhaal and thus, a Bhaal spawn. I guess what I'm saying is that within DnD and the Forgotten Realms there is a bigger story than the one we started with in BG1 and 2 that BG3 is ready to explore while using the foundations of lore that the original series started. Once again, thank you for your comments!
@@LegionGrey Don't worry about spoiling anything on my behalf, I have finished all three games at least twice each 😂even Siege of Dragonspear. Even did my first BG3 playthrough as Durge. I do agree that the BG1/2 companions don't have huge arcs because there are so many of them, although the romance mod for Edwin at least uses his quest (and it's /consequences/ ) in the romance. Like, you can't go get the Nether Scroll until he tells you to and what's-his-face doesn't come back until a specific point in the romance track (I love that mod) I don't have a problem with them telling a different story, I just think it might've been better to give it a better subtitle; "Baldur's Gate: The Grand Design" might've been better in my opinion; it doesn't feel like it's trying to carry on the story from the first two games. I feel like the connections feel more like easter eggs. Jaheira, Minsc, and Viconia at best only allude to Gorion's Ward in vague terms. And even then, I think that's only if you play as Durge. Following the same story structure doesn't count, though 😅 I would argue that the main story of the first two games are entirely about the Bhaalspawn. You don't need to play Dark Urge to play BG3. You'll miss some unique interactions, but the story will not change. The story in BG2 and ToB cannot occur if your character is some average joe from the streets of Athkatla. You could argue BG1 doesn't entirely require your character to be a bhaalspawn, except Sarevok only goes after you *because* you're one. But this is all my opinion, I thank you for respecting it and I certainly am not saying you have to change yours :)
@NinjaFlibble I would never be so bold to dispute an opinion lol. I have gone on record to support a lesser known portion of Jergal’s lore that clearly shows that he was an extremely powerful god that had a ton of ambition. In the alternate lore he was prevented from doing more than lording over death and destruction. It’s a similar story to Hades and his brothers. However, Jergal had the insight to foresee that Ao would execute a decision to moralize the gods and tricked the dead three into taking over his station. Jergal formatted his plan and separated the knowledge of it throughout the realms in the form of worms (if i remember correctly). He had no genuine knowledge of his intentions and was not subject to the mortality that the other gods had to since he no longer carried the station as the Lord of the End of Everything. The separation of knowledge through worm like creatures and ascension of godhood seems to be a running theme that BG could capitalize on and only seems to be more possible when we speak to Withers as a dark urge. Baldur’s Gate… Baduran himself is in BG3 (or a form of him) and we may only be seeing the setting of a story for something much larger that bg1 and 2 may be reflected on as the beginning and not necessarily the focus of this era in the Sword Coast. We’ll see. I appreciate you taking the time to banter about it!
To me aside from graphics, all the things it does better are the "Divinity Original Sin" stuff, like the interactivity with items and the environment. But I personally prefer BG2's story and specially the villain, I prefer real time with pause combat (trust me, I was one of those that HATED it but after playing BG1 and 2, Tyranny and Pillars of Eternity, it clicked hard for me), I like how they managed to implement higher level spells like Wish and Time Stop, something modern games can't or are too afraid to try. I like how CRPGs all have a "family tree" that goes back to the original developers and the games that came before. I say this because I always felt BG3 was more like a spiritual successor to the modern Bioware "branch" that had games like Knights of the Old Republic and Dragon Age while games like Pillars of Eternity and Pathfinder really continued the OG Baldur's Gate genealogy. Something that a lot of people overlook is how the recent Bioware games and BG3 have a very different style of storytelling, dialog and narration compared to the OG BG style. It's a lot more condensed and simplistic. I like to make the comparison that playing Baldur's Gate 3 feels like watching The Lord of the Rings but playing BG2 or Pillars of Eternity feels like reading The Lord of the Rings. As much as I like BG3, I absolutely adore how the dialog boxes in those games had detailed descriptions of the environment, lore, main character's thoughts etc. I absolutely adore the "text adventure" moments with skill checks in PoE and Pathfinder. I don't mean it in a negative way, like.. BG3 is like watching Dune 2 (freaking amazing) and Pillars of Eternity is like reading The Stormlight Archive. Both are amazing experiences but even those that love both might end up preferring one over the other. I definitely don't agree that BG3 is an evolution of the old Baldur's Gate games. It's kinda like saying Titanfall is an evolution of the original Doom. While Titanfall learned from every game that learned with Doom they are so different that aside from perspective they are completely different. So my "ultimatum" on this would be that Dragon Age -> Baldur's Gate 3 and Baldur's Gate 1&2 -> Pillars of Eternity/Pathfinder. I think that makes a lot more sense.
I appreciate the well thought out comments! I don't know what it is, but I tend to attract a crowd that has a lot to say and have thought a lot about how to say it. The history of RPG's isn't my specialty and I can only comment on the things I have a working knowledge about. I like how you sorted out the evolution of BG games, but I was sticking closer to the existing lore and mechanics that have had a long lasting impact and how it may do so in the future as well as how they are fundamentally different. Of course we know DA is a spiritual successor to BG for Bioware, but the DA series are wildly apart from each other and the lore binding them has had several retroactive changes which makes it hard to say where any direction should go in future editions. The DA series definitely sees the merger of many of the mechanics between origins and DA2 in the form of Inquisition, but it didn't enhance them. The tactical camera of origins was better in orgins than Inquisition, but I don't think it's better than BG3 and the fast paced combat of DA2 was similarly approached in Inquisition, but I couldn't say that it's more engaging than the real time with pause or even BG3's more cinematic approach. All this being said... I am very much looking forward to Dreadwolf and fully expect it to be a hybrid of GoW and the squad mechanics of Inquisition. The lore of DA is extremely deep and it will be interesting to see how much thought and effort will go into that evolving into playable content. Once again, thank you for your detailed comments and consideration!!
I think the DND inspired RPGS are the one exception where I don''t want them to "improve" graphically by jumping to full 3D. I never once wished while playing BG2 that I could get a close up to a character's face or wish for cinematic dialogue. I do appreciate the EEs though for the extra features, and smoothness or sharpness they added. If i were to compare, I would think about BG3 and Pillars of Eternity. Modern 3d vs modern 2d?2.5d? Well, anyway I think Picasso detailed 2d backgrounds like Pillars can often be prettier than full 3d games. Good 3d is hard to pull off. There's something really cool and classy about the 2D in these games. Still, the customization options in BG3 are impressive. About the combat I have tried BG2 multiplayer. Texting the other player is a bit wonky, sometimes i wanted to open the map, but I typed in the chatbox instead. Aside that it wasn't hampering in any way to coordinate "verbally" during a pause, then unpause when we were both ready, but yes it is easier in turn based since it's static gameplay - whereas in BG2 you can, and might have to, quickly use the terrain by positioning to body block enemies from reaching your vulnerable party members, and you can also manipulate the proximity based aggro system. I enjoy the stress of a tough fight, can make it very rewarding when you win, somewhat similar to fighting a tough boss in WoW for the first time, or if something goes wrong. I'm not sure if turnbased can offer that adrenaline.
@@bulanet271 Multiple excellent points! I appreciate the fact we even have these games to have the discussion. Some are hits and some are misses (Temple of Elemental Evil). Thank you for commenting!
@@LegionGrey hmm. I tried Temple with the fan patches, or whatever but I only played maybe 5 hours then eventually something else took me away and ended up installing it, this was many years ago. It felt pretty tedious but idk if I played enough to judge it properly
@@bulanet271 I never got it to work past first 5 minutes. It shouldn’t need all the support it received outside of the developers in first two years. I got it first week of release. It’s a great example of what not to do.
I enjoyed the video. I never got far in the originals. The quippy late 90's early 2000's dialogue was tough to get through at times and the combat was such a mess to try and keep track of. Also RIP Emily! 😢
That's perfectly fine! I do say in the video before this one that there are several who never played the originals and it is perfectly fine to say as much. There are several fundamental differences between all of them and talking about them is fun! I will never say one is absolutely better pound for pound than the other, but there are aspects where some games excelled over the others. I came from a big RTS background and a real time with pause was never difficult for me to grasp but I completely understand where it can be difficult to understand or appreciate. Thank you for your comments!!
@@LegionGrey it was also easy for me to understand having played years of 5e now. The turn based system felt more natural as things in actual D&D aren't happening simultaneously. But I can see how playing real time strategy games would make the originals easier to grasp.
@@MissGenkiArt I thought about this before, I'd be curious to see somebody do a no pause run. But you would need a starcraft or warcraft 300 APM player to do this. And some things cannot be done without pause, at some point, you will have to go through the inventory for potions etc. and selecting a spell is simply not made for real time. You can only have up to 3 quick slot spells and items, scrolling through the spells will not go well in real time. Still it would be interesting to see. At the very least u can press 1-6 to select characters and F1-F# for some abilities.
Hahaha I appreciate your honesty! There are several things Larian did well, but it is important to keep a critical eye on these topics both for conversation and agency. Thank you for commenting!!
@@LegionGrey I watched your other video and played original BG games myself and even though I understand the effect they had on RPG industry, I didn't like many things and all of them Larian did better in my opinion. I always enjoyed great freedom of choice and grey morality that fallout 2 or arcanum gave for example and in my opinion BG3 improved in that field from its predecessors. The fact that you can side with Gortash or the removal of equipment restrictions and alignment system are some of such improvements. The companions are also more nuanced in my opinion. The other thing I really liked is that many fighting encounters can be skipped and encounters that can't be skipped make sense. You can bribe goblins or calm down an owl bear with animal handling but gnolls only want your blood. No random wolfs or bandits attacking you without a way out of it. I also prefer turn based to real time because it's easier to manage and don't have to constantly press pause so that every companion does what he has to.
Well said! There's not much doubt that Larian has created a game that future games hope will capture the spirit and depth of BG3. The worst thing that can happen is pressure to recreate that spirit and then fall to pressure of release (Temple of Elemental Evil). It is appropriate that a Baldur's Gate title leads the future of CRPG's!
Everything except continuity and occasional balancing issues. Some of the characters returning from previous games (namely Sarevok and Viconia) don't really match from their counterparts at the end of ToB. Additionally, act 3 honour mode struggles with a bit of improper balancing due to a lot major enemies being given Evasion for little reason, which is a shame because acts 1 and 2 are balanced quite well in honour mode. However, these are minor complaints, and the game on its own is still amazing
After BG3 I went back and tried playing 1. I like the story, but real time combat ruins the whole game for me. Technically it's not any more micromanagement than turn-based, but the fact that you have to stop the game long enough to give commands to everyone at once, interspersed with having 5-6 seconds where you have no control and just have to wait to see if you died is just the worst parts of everything combined into one. It's all the micromanagement of an RPG *AND* all the stress of an action game put together in the worst possible way. It feels like the main reason I never liked going to play Street Fighter with the friend who owns the game - you have time to learn like ONE thing before you get killed and have to start over. I end up turning on Story Mode just to try and figure out how the game works, and that makes it boring.
Thank you for your comments! I don't disagree... real time with pause can really keep people away from the original series for several reasons, but, for me... the worst is the way it removes you from immersion if you aren't used to the pause and play style that is necessary once you know how the mechanic works. I came from a strong RTS background so simply being able to pause was almost like a cheat code. However, I completely understand why the original series creates a combat system that can be frustrating and unnecessarily complex.
@@LegionGrey The problem for me is that you can EITHER call a game "real time" OR you can be pausing it every few seconds to give commands to an entire team of people that cannot realistically know what you want them to do. You can't do both of those things. That's not what "real time" is like. I'm not six people, so giving all those commands is as far removed from anything real as you could possibly get.
@@jameshill2450 Well, most games need u to get experienced at being able to read the battlefield. I was never great at RTS games so like I am not able to tell if I am losing a fight or not. The first time I played BG2 in 2000, it was the first game of this genre I ever played and I had no idea what DND rules are. I only understood that there's a hit chance, and was kinda pissed I was missing all the time, tho that is because I didn't know the cause, which was bad thac0 like 17 + 5 penalty because I was using a weapon I didn't have points in. I just initially thought more damage on a weapon must mean better. It took a long time i think, maybe even well after the first playthrough for me to fully grasp the system, but once I did i thought it was brilliant. There are a few gaps in feedback offered to the player, which are probably because the game's old, like no recovery timer being shown and no AOE range being shown, tho more modern DND games fixed this. I also saw a newer mod for BG2 which does this, but didn't get to play it myself.
I don't agree that BG1&2 had better tactical combat encounters, imo with the verticality and very varied, intricately designed arenas, status conditions and environmental effects, jumping, flying, repositioning enemies, special abilities that some enemies have, concealment, the ability to use reactions, etc. it all makes for way more interesting and varied encounters.
Thank you for commenting! You are absolutely correct in saying that BG3 did an excellent job in providing versatility to tactics in combat. Being able to sneak up on archers and toss them or dispatch them silently before the rest of the group can react is awesome. However, where I think I am focused on is the difficulty spike of no assigned turns in any given round. If you stumble upon 10 archers you could handle them at once, but they could equally get 10 arrows sent to your party at same time. That is where I was saying that the intricacies of combat in the original series created its own difficulty spike. If we can secure initiation and positioning in BG3 we can mitigate even larger numbers, but that's not always how combat works, but I do believe that BG3 is more faithful to the combat in the DnD tabletop experience so that goes a very long way in making its case. Once again, thank you very much for commenting!!
@@LegionGrey Yeah, makes sense, you don't have that aspect in BG3 and if someone were to argue that it's too easy, I'd be inclined to agree. Some mechanics like alert feat or 1-shot setups from stealth are too powerful, so I usually balance that with self imposed limitations. I know there's a lot of people who prefer RTWP and that's fair. I don't even care how faithful it is to D&D tbh, I'm not a tabletop player, I just prefer turn based these days :D
@@stephan4921 Hah same here, I'm not a tabletop player either. Don't care how faithful it is, to me BG is it's own thing: a good videogame. I do prefer it RTWP tho since that's what I played BG as. Similar to how I kinda prefer if future fallout was turn based coz thats what the originals were and I liked it as it was.
I think the masive upgrade to graphics in combination with character customization was a large improvement imo.
Thank you for commenting! Yes. Each game has some different elements that contribute to making its own case.
While I enjoyed BG3, I really enjoyed the story from the original games first. This might be a controversial opinion, but I don't think they should have called it Baldur's Gate 3 because it doesn't continue the story of Gorion's Ward. I know there are game series that don't follow the same protagonist from game to game, but that's usually something set from the beginning like with Fable or Dragon Age. Just my opinion, though.
The track record for WOTC games has been to name the location its set at, even if continuing away from that spot in expansions. Its just a marketing thing, but the allusions to Gorion's Ward are scattered about in Act 2 and 3
@@nuclearchezburgr3857
They coulda done the same thing that did for Dark Alliance and just give it the BG name, but not a "3" after it 🤷♀️
Thank you for commenting and your point of view isn't as wild as you might think. Myself and a few others often said that the game might have been better served when we were playing in early access by calling it a "Baldur's Gate Story" rather than BG3, but now that i've played so much of it I can honestly see all the connections that Larian tried to do and if you look close enough you might see them too. Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 wasn't just about Gorian's ward, but if you dive into each companion you'll see that they have their own lives and adventures that simply see you as a part of that puzzle. Granted... you might be vital to the ultimate preservation of everyone's future, but no one knows that when you first encounter them. Nalia, Edwin, Minsc, etc. don't have huge arcs but have very specific quests that require your assistance to incorporate them into your future adventures. The chapters in BG3 mirrors BG1 very closely. I won't give any spoilers here, but there are other vital characters you'll meet in BG3 that tie in very closely to the original series even if you never meet them directly in BG1 or 2. I can't give a long discussion about my lore position of Jergal here... I will say that playing as Dark Urge may coincide with the plans of Jergal and why we even have Bhaal and thus, a Bhaal spawn. I guess what I'm saying is that within DnD and the Forgotten Realms there is a bigger story than the one we started with in BG1 and 2 that BG3 is ready to explore while using the foundations of lore that the original series started. Once again, thank you for your comments!
@@LegionGrey
Don't worry about spoiling anything on my behalf, I have finished all three games at least twice each 😂even Siege of Dragonspear. Even did my first BG3 playthrough as Durge.
I do agree that the BG1/2 companions don't have huge arcs because there are so many of them, although the romance mod for Edwin at least uses his quest (and it's /consequences/ ) in the romance. Like, you can't go get the Nether Scroll until he tells you to and what's-his-face doesn't come back until a specific point in the romance track (I love that mod)
I don't have a problem with them telling a different story, I just think it might've been better to give it a better subtitle; "Baldur's Gate: The Grand Design" might've been better in my opinion; it doesn't feel like it's trying to carry on the story from the first two games. I feel like the connections feel more like easter eggs. Jaheira, Minsc, and Viconia at best only allude to Gorion's Ward in vague terms. And even then, I think that's only if you play as Durge. Following the same story structure doesn't count, though 😅
I would argue that the main story of the first two games are entirely about the Bhaalspawn. You don't need to play Dark Urge to play BG3. You'll miss some unique interactions, but the story will not change. The story in BG2 and ToB cannot occur if your character is some average joe from the streets of Athkatla. You could argue BG1 doesn't entirely require your character to be a bhaalspawn, except Sarevok only goes after you *because* you're one.
But this is all my opinion, I thank you for respecting it and I certainly am not saying you have to change yours :)
@NinjaFlibble I would never be so bold to dispute an opinion lol. I have gone on record to support a lesser known portion of Jergal’s lore that clearly shows that he was an extremely powerful god that had a ton of ambition. In the alternate lore he was prevented from doing more than lording over death and destruction. It’s a similar story to Hades and his brothers. However, Jergal had the insight to foresee that Ao would execute a decision to moralize the gods and tricked the dead three into taking over his station. Jergal formatted his plan and separated the knowledge of it throughout the realms in the form of worms (if i remember correctly). He had no genuine knowledge of his intentions and was not subject to the mortality that the other gods had to since he no longer carried the station as the Lord of the End of Everything. The separation of knowledge through worm like creatures and ascension of godhood seems to be a running theme that BG could capitalize on and only seems to be more possible when we speak to Withers as a dark urge. Baldur’s Gate… Baduran himself is in BG3 (or a form of him) and we may only be seeing the setting of a story for something much larger that bg1 and 2 may be reflected on as the beginning and not necessarily the focus of this era in the Sword Coast. We’ll see. I appreciate you taking the time to banter about it!
To me aside from graphics, all the things it does better are the "Divinity Original Sin" stuff, like the interactivity with items and the environment. But I personally prefer BG2's story and specially the villain, I prefer real time with pause combat (trust me, I was one of those that HATED it but after playing BG1 and 2, Tyranny and Pillars of Eternity, it clicked hard for me), I like how they managed to implement higher level spells like Wish and Time Stop, something modern games can't or are too afraid to try.
I like how CRPGs all have a "family tree" that goes back to the original developers and the games that came before. I say this because I always felt BG3 was more like a spiritual successor to the modern Bioware "branch" that had games like Knights of the Old Republic and Dragon Age while games like Pillars of Eternity and Pathfinder really continued the OG Baldur's Gate genealogy.
Something that a lot of people overlook is how the recent Bioware games and BG3 have a very different style of storytelling, dialog and narration compared to the OG BG style. It's a lot more condensed and simplistic. I like to make the comparison that playing Baldur's Gate 3 feels like watching The Lord of the Rings but playing BG2 or Pillars of Eternity feels like reading The Lord of the Rings. As much as I like BG3, I absolutely adore how the dialog boxes in those games had detailed descriptions of the environment, lore, main character's thoughts etc. I absolutely adore the "text adventure" moments with skill checks in PoE and Pathfinder. I don't mean it in a negative way, like.. BG3 is like watching Dune 2 (freaking amazing) and Pillars of Eternity is like reading The Stormlight Archive. Both are amazing experiences but even those that love both might end up preferring one over the other.
I definitely don't agree that BG3 is an evolution of the old Baldur's Gate games. It's kinda like saying Titanfall is an evolution of the original Doom. While Titanfall learned from every game that learned with Doom they are so different that aside from perspective they are completely different. So my "ultimatum" on this would be that Dragon Age -> Baldur's Gate 3 and Baldur's Gate 1&2 -> Pillars of Eternity/Pathfinder. I think that makes a lot more sense.
I appreciate the well thought out comments! I don't know what it is, but I tend to attract a crowd that has a lot to say and have thought a lot about how to say it. The history of RPG's isn't my specialty and I can only comment on the things I have a working knowledge about. I like how you sorted out the evolution of BG games, but I was sticking closer to the existing lore and mechanics that have had a long lasting impact and how it may do so in the future as well as how they are fundamentally different. Of course we know DA is a spiritual successor to BG for Bioware, but the DA series are wildly apart from each other and the lore binding them has had several retroactive changes which makes it hard to say where any direction should go in future editions. The DA series definitely sees the merger of many of the mechanics between origins and DA2 in the form of Inquisition, but it didn't enhance them. The tactical camera of origins was better in orgins than Inquisition, but I don't think it's better than BG3 and the fast paced combat of DA2 was similarly approached in Inquisition, but I couldn't say that it's more engaging than the real time with pause or even BG3's more cinematic approach. All this being said... I am very much looking forward to Dreadwolf and fully expect it to be a hybrid of GoW and the squad mechanics of Inquisition. The lore of DA is extremely deep and it will be interesting to see how much thought and effort will go into that evolving into playable content. Once again, thank you for your detailed comments and consideration!!
I think the DND inspired RPGS are the one exception where I don''t want them to "improve" graphically by jumping to full 3D. I never once wished while playing BG2 that I could get a close up to a character's face or wish for cinematic dialogue. I do appreciate the EEs though for the extra features, and smoothness or sharpness they added. If i were to compare, I would think about BG3 and Pillars of Eternity. Modern 3d vs modern 2d?2.5d? Well, anyway I think Picasso detailed 2d backgrounds like Pillars can often be prettier than full 3d games. Good 3d is hard to pull off. There's something really cool and classy about the 2D in these games. Still, the customization options in BG3 are impressive.
About the combat I have tried BG2 multiplayer. Texting the other player is a bit wonky, sometimes i wanted to open the map, but I typed in the chatbox instead. Aside that it wasn't hampering in any way to coordinate "verbally" during a pause, then unpause when we were both ready, but yes it is easier in turn based since it's static gameplay - whereas in BG2 you can, and might have to, quickly use the terrain by positioning to body block enemies from reaching your vulnerable party members, and you can also manipulate the proximity based aggro system. I enjoy the stress of a tough fight, can make it very rewarding when you win, somewhat similar to fighting a tough boss in WoW for the first time, or if something goes wrong. I'm not sure if turnbased can offer that adrenaline.
@@bulanet271 Multiple excellent points! I appreciate the fact we even have these games to have the discussion. Some are hits and some are misses (Temple of Elemental Evil). Thank you for commenting!
@@LegionGrey hmm. I tried Temple with the fan patches, or whatever but I only played maybe 5 hours then eventually something else took me away and ended up installing it, this was many years ago. It felt pretty tedious but idk if I played enough to judge it properly
@@bulanet271 I never got it to work past first 5 minutes. It shouldn’t need all the support it received outside of the developers in first two years. I got it first week of release. It’s a great example of what not to do.
I enjoyed the video. I never got far in the originals. The quippy late 90's early 2000's dialogue was tough to get through at times and the combat was such a mess to try and keep track of.
Also RIP Emily! 😢
That's perfectly fine! I do say in the video before this one that there are several who never played the originals and it is perfectly fine to say as much. There are several fundamental differences between all of them and talking about them is fun! I will never say one is absolutely better pound for pound than the other, but there are aspects where some games excelled over the others. I came from a big RTS background and a real time with pause was never difficult for me to grasp but I completely understand where it can be difficult to understand or appreciate. Thank you for your comments!!
@@LegionGrey it was also easy for me to understand having played years of 5e now. The turn based system felt more natural as things in actual D&D aren't happening simultaneously. But I can see how playing real time strategy games would make the originals easier to grasp.
@@MissGenkiArt I thought about this before, I'd be curious to see somebody do a no pause run. But you would need a starcraft or warcraft 300 APM player to do this. And some things cannot be done without pause, at some point, you will have to go through the inventory for potions etc. and selecting a spell is simply not made for real time. You can only have up to 3 quick slot spells and items, scrolling through the spells will not go well in real time. Still it would be interesting to see. At the very least u can press 1-6 to select characters and F1-F# for some abilities.
BG3 did everything better
Hahaha I appreciate your honesty! There are several things Larian did well, but it is important to keep a critical eye on these topics both for conversation and agency. Thank you for commenting!!
@@LegionGrey I watched your other video and played original BG games myself and even though I understand the effect they had on RPG industry, I didn't like many things and all of them Larian did better in my opinion.
I always enjoyed great freedom of choice and grey morality that fallout 2 or arcanum gave for example and in my opinion BG3 improved in that field from its predecessors. The fact that you can side with Gortash or the removal of equipment restrictions and alignment system are some of such improvements. The companions are also more nuanced in my opinion. The other thing I really liked is that many fighting encounters can be skipped and encounters that can't be skipped make sense. You can bribe goblins or calm down an owl bear with animal handling but gnolls only want your blood. No random wolfs or bandits attacking you without a way out of it.
I also prefer turn based to real time because it's easier to manage and don't have to constantly press pause so that every companion does what he has to.
Well said! There's not much doubt that Larian has created a game that future games hope will capture the spirit and depth of BG3. The worst thing that can happen is pressure to recreate that spirit and then fall to pressure of release (Temple of Elemental Evil). It is appropriate that a Baldur's Gate title leads the future of CRPG's!
Everything except continuity and occasional balancing issues.
Some of the characters returning from previous games (namely Sarevok and Viconia) don't really match from their counterparts at the end of ToB.
Additionally, act 3 honour mode struggles with a bit of improper balancing due to a lot major enemies being given Evasion for little reason, which is a shame because acts 1 and 2 are balanced quite well in honour mode.
However, these are minor complaints, and the game on its own is still amazing
@@LegionGrey I also wanted to say thank you for a good video
I think both games have allot to offer, BG3 did somethings better and BG1-2 did somethings better
Absolutely! Each game has its own unique qualities but it is fun to open up the narrative and ask the questions. Thank you for commenting!
lets go Legion
After BG3 I went back and tried playing 1. I like the story, but real time combat ruins the whole game for me. Technically it's not any more micromanagement than turn-based, but the fact that you have to stop the game long enough to give commands to everyone at once, interspersed with having 5-6 seconds where you have no control and just have to wait to see if you died is just the worst parts of everything combined into one. It's all the micromanagement of an RPG *AND* all the stress of an action game put together in the worst possible way.
It feels like the main reason I never liked going to play Street Fighter with the friend who owns the game - you have time to learn like ONE thing before you get killed and have to start over. I end up turning on Story Mode just to try and figure out how the game works, and that makes it boring.
Thank you for your comments! I don't disagree... real time with pause can really keep people away from the original series for several reasons, but, for me... the worst is the way it removes you from immersion if you aren't used to the pause and play style that is necessary once you know how the mechanic works. I came from a strong RTS background so simply being able to pause was almost like a cheat code. However, I completely understand why the original series creates a combat system that can be frustrating and unnecessarily complex.
@@LegionGrey The problem for me is that you can EITHER call a game "real time" OR you can be pausing it every few seconds to give commands to an entire team of people that cannot realistically know what you want them to do. You can't do both of those things. That's not what "real time" is like. I'm not six people, so giving all those commands is as far removed from anything real as you could possibly get.
@@jameshill2450 Well, most games need u to get experienced at being able to read the battlefield. I was never great at RTS games so like I am not able to tell if I am losing a fight or not. The first time I played BG2 in 2000, it was the first game of this genre I ever played and I had no idea what DND rules are. I only understood that there's a hit chance, and was kinda pissed I was missing all the time, tho that is because I didn't know the cause, which was bad thac0 like 17 + 5 penalty because I was using a weapon I didn't have points in. I just initially thought more damage on a weapon must mean better. It took a long time i think, maybe even well after the first playthrough for me to fully grasp the system, but once I did i thought it was brilliant. There are a few gaps in feedback offered to the player, which are probably because the game's old, like no recovery timer being shown and no AOE range being shown, tho more modern DND games fixed this. I also saw a newer mod for BG2 which does this, but didn't get to play it myself.
I don't agree that BG1&2 had better tactical combat encounters, imo with the verticality and very varied, intricately designed arenas, status conditions and environmental effects, jumping, flying, repositioning enemies, special abilities that some enemies have, concealment, the ability to use reactions, etc. it all makes for way more interesting and varied encounters.
Thank you for commenting! You are absolutely correct in saying that BG3 did an excellent job in providing versatility to tactics in combat. Being able to sneak up on archers and toss them or dispatch them silently before the rest of the group can react is awesome. However, where I think I am focused on is the difficulty spike of no assigned turns in any given round. If you stumble upon 10 archers you could handle them at once, but they could equally get 10 arrows sent to your party at same time. That is where I was saying that the intricacies of combat in the original series created its own difficulty spike. If we can secure initiation and positioning in BG3 we can mitigate even larger numbers, but that's not always how combat works, but I do believe that BG3 is more faithful to the combat in the DnD tabletop experience so that goes a very long way in making its case. Once again, thank you very much for commenting!!
@@LegionGrey Yeah, makes sense, you don't have that aspect in BG3 and if someone were to argue that it's too easy, I'd be inclined to agree. Some mechanics like alert feat or 1-shot setups from stealth are too powerful, so I usually balance that with self imposed limitations.
I know there's a lot of people who prefer RTWP and that's fair. I don't even care how faithful it is to D&D tbh, I'm not a tabletop player, I just prefer turn based these days :D
@@stephan4921 Hah same here, I'm not a tabletop player either. Don't care how faithful it is, to me BG is it's own thing: a good videogame. I do prefer it RTWP tho since that's what I played BG as. Similar to how I kinda prefer if future fallout was turn based coz thats what the originals were and I liked it as it was.