WotC World Reveal of Baldur's Gate 3

At PAX East today, gameplay footage of Baldur's Gate 3 was revealed for the first time by Larian Studios.

According to PC Gamer, the Early Access version of the game will launch this year with five characters:

• Wyll, Human Warlock
• Shadowheart, Half-elf Cleric
• Lae'zel, Githyanki Fighter
• Gale, Human Wizard
• Astarion, Elven Vampire Spawn Rogue

And you'll be able to create characters using these six classes:

• Fighter (Battle Master, Eldritch Knight)
• Wizard (Evocation, Abjuration)
• Rogue (Arcane Trickster, Thief)
• Ranger (Hunter, Beast Master)
• Cleric (Life, Light, Trickery)
• Warlock (Fiend, Great One)

15 races include (amongst others):

• Elves
• Dwarves
• Humans
• Githyanki
• Drow
• Tieflings
• Vampire Spawn

 

[Burnside]

What worries me is that I got bored with Divinity 2 and gave up after maybe 4 hours of total play. The reason was NOT turn-based combat (which was great). It was because the dialogue was pretty badly written and the story didn't really hook me.

I'm worried that I get the same feeling about the writing here. The dialogue seems quite clunky; in particular, God bless the voice actor who plays the wizard, who is doing his level best to deliver those awkward, FR-reference-choked lines. In general there are just a lot of lines that a real person just wouldn't say. "I am hoping that whatever is behind this door holds some answers." Nobody asking each other if anyone knows where they are, etc.

And it does bother me that it starts with a group of characters (pick which one is you) who have all just been in an airship crash. I actually find it kind of alarming that they would re-use that EXACT same idea from their last game.

 

[Ristamar]

I'm genuinely shocked so many people are unflinchingly married and faithful to RTwP. It's a half-in, half-out solution that doesn't provide the best features of the primary alternatives (ARPG or turn-based strategy).

I can somewhat empathize with those that feel the tone of the writing may not align with the old games. The chances of that ever happening were slim to none, even if Bioware or Obsidian were handling the IP.

 

[wicked cool]

wasn't divinity 2 a huge success? This appears to only improve the process.

 

[charlesatan]

I can somewhat empathize with those that feel the tone of the writing may not align with the old games. The chances of that ever happening were slim to none, even if Bioware or Obsidian were handling the IP.

Well, that and maybe that the writing in the first place was horrible. We just got older (and hopefully wiser), so we're able to spot bad writing better, while the past is twinged with notalgia.

 

[Burnside]

This is definitely true. But in the intervening years, we have seen plenty of games with good writing. Standards have changed, and this game should meet them.

 

[Gladius Legis]

I think the RTwP adherents are too attached to their memories of BG 1 and 2, NWN 1 and 2, etc. without thinking at all about the inherent limitations and lack of depth of those combat systems.

Those games' combats all took place on an infinite 2D plane. Terrain was nonexistent. Movement and positioning were irrelevant. Combat was let the two sides run into each other and roll dice in the background. In those games, RTwP made sense.

Based on what we've seen from BG3, where vertical positioning and movement are in fact relevant, terrain is a thing, environments factor into the combat (and exploration), full turn-based is pretty much essential.

 

[slobster]

Also, this thread is making me really want to play the original Divinity games (which I never have before). So that's a plus!

 

[Horwath]

I think the RTwP adherents are too attached to their memories of BG 1 and 2, NWN 1 and 2, etc. without thinking at all about the inherent limitations and lack of depth of those combat systems.

Those games' combats all took place on an infinite 2D plane. Terrain was nonexistent. Movement and positioning were irrelevant. Combat was let the two sides run into each other and roll dice in the background. In those games, RTwP made sense.

Based on what we've seen from BG3, where vertical positioning and movement are in fact relevant, terrain is a thing, environments factor into the combat (and exploration), full turn-based is pretty much essential.

I see many times this "lack of depth" in TRwP, and I do not see why it is mentioned at all.

What depth can you have in TB that you cannot have in RT? Assuming that the game is made to same complexity level.

If you make mechanically simple game, no type of combat system will save it from being easy and simple.

 

[Gladius Legis]

I see many times this "lack of depth" in TRwP, and I do not see why it is mentioned at all.

What depth can you have in TB that you cannot have in RT? Assuming that the game is made to same complexity level.

If you make mechanically simple game, no type of combat system will save it from being easy and simple.

I don't see how you can watch BG3's gameplay demo in action and believe that a real-time system would be feasible for that particular game.

 

[Horwath]

I don't see how you can watch BG3's gameplay demo in action and believe that a real-time system would be feasible for that particular game.

Because it would.