Support NeoGAF

[The Cockatrice]

???
You literally bring up quantity though, you said you can do more with environment in DOS2 than BG3 and i showed you examples of the player interacting and using the environment in the game and in its combat, but now you tell me more doesnt equal better? then why did you bring that up to begin with?
How am i wrong? i talked about every single thing you mentioned, i also praised Bless despite and lets be honest here that Bless is trash during the actual fight, because any Voidwoken that bleeds turns it back into curse so you lose a source point for something that barely last one turn. This is why Necrofire meme was a thing.
I wasn't talking about "wow fun" though, i was talking with actual material, giving you ways that you can interact with the combat and using your surroundings in the environment to add more depth to it. Again you are free to find anything you prefer more fun, that is not my point, shoving something or using jump or dipping a surface are all ways you get to use the environment to your advantage, that was the main point we were talking about.

What I said about quantity applies to both your and my post as well. Wasnt a jab. Was just stating something. Also, you praised level design a bit in BG3 and while it certainly has a more verticality to it, I think it does more harm than good as the AI and overall combat does not really click well with it. Perfect example is below Baldurs Gate when you go for Erin(tho I think they fixed this), when I played it a launch, there were enemies behind open windows on a building far away, meant as an ambush, however none of them could actually hit through the window or have enough range for it. There are a lot of scenarios like this where verticality just ruins all the fun from the encounter. I didnt find BG3 fun at all, not when I played alone nor when I replayed with a friend, combat wise ofc. DOS2 on the other hand made us wow and laugh at loud at some of the crazy shit we used to do in combat. Anyway, no point going back and forth with this. Like I said, agree to disagree, you like BG3, I like DOS2, we can move on.

 

[Mozzarella]

What I said about quantity applies to both your and my post as well. Wasnt a jab. Was just stating something. Also, you praised level design a bit in BG3 and while it certainly has a more verticality to it, I think it does more harm than good as the AI and overall combat does not really click well with it. Perfect example is below Baldurs Gate when you go for Erin(tho I think they fixed this), when I played it a launch, there were enemies behind open windows on a building far away, meant as an ambush, however none of them could actually hit through the window or have enough range for it. There are a lot of scenarios like this where verticality just ruins all the fun from the encounter. I didnt find BG3 fun at all, not when I played alone nor when I replayed with a friend, combat wise ofc. DOS2 on the other hand made us wow and laugh at loud at some of the crazy shit we used to do in combat. Anyway, no point going back and forth with this. Like I said, agree to disagree, you like BG3, I like DOS2, we can move on.

I praised the level design because its deep, not just because it has verticality in it, take the Underdark, its not a level there, but near the shore you get a combat encounter that plays around verticality, there is a difference here.
Verticality adds more to combat depth, its not really related to level design. The level design is deep because in a dungeon like Goblin Camp or Moonrise Towers you get a multilayered level with multipaths, unique encounters, meaningful rewards, hidden secrets and tons of way to bend the level to your exploration, progression and combat, furthermore you have dungeons like the Gauntlet which is a great dungeon to conquer, you get a unique trials, unique encounters like the one where you fight a shadow of your party, stealth puzzles, another encounter with a silence gimmick, one major side quests with lasting consequences, 2 unique boss fights, 2 unique legendary items, 1 epic unique set that gives shar powers, great music, great art style, shortcuts, one more puzzle and one story choice in the end that shapes the fate of the region, all of this in one dungeon, if this is not good level design in a rpg then i dont know what is.

Went a bit offtopic there but verticality isn't a factor to level design praise, i was using it to praise combat and encounter design, you are right that in act 3 it can lead to problems with AI pathing and make them stuck, that happened to me once in the fortress, but i dont know if they fixed this, even with its technical shortcoming it adds more layer to the combat than shallow encounters where 4 guys stand against 4 guys and you spam weak magic and heal occasionally to victory. DOS2 also has good verticality its just a different system, its diceroll vs calculated damage: So advantage vs damage increase.

Sure we can agree to disagree, as i said I love DOS2 and i agree with you that the combat can get more crazy in it, DnD is a more grounded and intricate system compared to what Larian did with Divinity, nothing wrong with preferring DOS2 its an excellent crpg and one of my favorites as well, i can't deny that BG3 is just better designed overall and made various number of improvements over it, so if someone says this is far worse than that i can't help but challenge them, i would do the same if some said DOS2 is far worse combat than BG3 mind you, people just love to hyperbole and exaggerate and i hate that.

 

[nightmare-slain]

Deleted

 

[vaibhavpisal]

you bring up that BG3 is easy because you played in a certain way and took no damage, new flash the same applies to BG1 and BG2 where a buffed Paladin steamrolls the entire game, or any solo Ranger with a boots of speed can kite enemies to victory with x6 bonus solo xp you literally break the game and it becomes a cakewalk.

I used globe of invulnerability. Its a freaking spell, not a specific playstyle.

Then my rogue Astorian cast silence on Raphael. Again, demon lord and hardest fight in game, by a significant margin.

And I ended up taking literally zero damage. There is no breaking the game with specific builds going on here. This is how game works. I was just at max level with straight forward party.

Can you show me that? because as far as i know if you can teleport an enemy behind those boxes then the enemy can teleport back to you as we all know almost every enemy in DOS2 has one kind of a teleport spell.
Also you can't just dismiss my entire post and come with one example to tell me gotcha, again if you can show me this tactic in a clip i would appreciate it because it sounds cool on paper until you realize enemies can easily escape it.
Do you know how many ways you can infiltrate the goblin camp? how many ways you can enter and exist from it? how many ways you can do to deal with the quests there? its insane, the core immersive-sim mechanics, in DOS2 you also have something like that but its mainly in Fort Joy later into the game it gets more restrictive, how many small holes you can fit into by using spells and then you explore whats inside the room, how you can bend physics to jump to unreachable places, the amount of ways you get during exploration, its far bigger.

I cannot, my play through was some time ago. A few times it happened when fights spilled to much bigger regions and quest givers were in jeopardy so I teleported them inside tent and put a chest at its door.

Goblin camp, I was disappointed that I could not create infighting situation there and let them sort out themselves. It was a ripe situation for that. Instead, most obvious solution game gives you is massacre entire city. Very weird quest solution right there. So i searched and figured out another way. Multiple ways should have been made obvious.

Yeah i was talking about sneaking not using invisible spells which you can use in BG3 anyway, sneaking costs too much and doesn't give good benefits, backstab is only viable with one single weapon type.
So in BG3 you get to sneak and/or use invisibility and you get to do that with bows as well not just daggers, sounds like an upgrade to me.
Verticality gives you advantage on your attack rolls and the one down takes disadvantage so more likely and less likely to land the hit, its a difference of systems, in DOS2 its flat out damage increase/decease
Are you saying that doing a stealth playstyle is better in DOS2?
By the way i haven't touched on items yet, itemization is huge improvement from DOS2, like for example you have a red cape you can get early in the game from a DURGE quest which can make you go invisible if you successfully kill an enemy during combat, this can be very tactical and you can use it to reposition yourself to strike from an advantage in the next turn. There is no such thing like that in DOS2, there you get Diablo loot with level lock, so if you are a level lower you can't wear it, this creates two problems one is you will need to steal blindly from everything that moves to get money to keep your party at check with the level and the loot each time since stats matter more than the actual item, and two is that it reduces item set-up and synergy to basic state check and removes any immersive-sim element from them, a difference where a low tier item can have important significance in a specific item build-up just for the synergy and benefit it can provide to the whole build instead of just tossing it away the moment you level up higher and get a new item with bigger number.

I was talking about Chameleon cloak ability for rogue class. Its not a spell and needs just 1 ap to activate.

I enjoyed playing as Rogue way more in DOS2. In BG3, I multiclassed Astorian to 11 levels of ranger, found rogue to be way lackluster.

 

[Mozzarella]

I used globe of invulnerability. Its a freaking spell, not a specific playstyle.

Then my rogue Astorian cast silence on Raphael. Again, demon lord and hardest fight in game, by a significant margin.

And I ended up taking literally zero damage. There is no breaking the game with specific builds going on here. This is how game works. I was just at max level with straight forward party.

You don't need to break the game to make BG2 easy though, all you need to do is read the spell description and understand how broken and busted it actually is, Breach + Secret Word is all you need for most encounters.
This is why difficulty argument is bad, since the first CRPG is probably going to be harder than later ones, and depending on your knowledge the game will become either a cakewalk or a challenging.
Both BG1 and BG2 were easy, its not like a game where you need skills to win, this isn't Starcraft, as long as you can read and have basic knowledge of the ruleset you are good to go, they were casual mainstream rpgs back in the day just like 3 nowadays.
Instead of passing verdict about combat quality based on difficulty we can instead look at how the game plays out, this is Turn-Based vs RtwP so its tricky, they have different mechanics, but then you look at the encounter design, interactivity and ways to bend the environment and how spell synergies work and you can reach a conclusion. This is why i compared Pillars of Eternity to BG1 and BG2 since its more straight up comparison instead of preference. I'd say even Icewind Dale 2 had better encounter design and combat as well.
Maybe you just enjoy RtwP more than Turn-based thats ok.

I cannot, my play through was some time ago. A few times it happened when fights spilled to much bigger regions and quest givers were in jeopardy so I teleported them inside tent and put a chest at its door.

You can trap enemies in BG3 with Arcane Lock

I was talking about Chameleon cloak ability for rogue class. Its not a spell and needs just 1 ap to activate.

I enjoyed playing as Rogue way more in DOS2. In BG3, I multiclassed Astorian to 11 levels of ranger, found rogue to be way lackluster.

Rogue class doesn't have that , its a Polymorph skill, Rogue in DOS2 is certainly more flashy i will give you that, the Scoundrel tree is built around it, but at its core and despite the different systems Rogue in BG3 can still do most of the stuff you do in DOS.
Rogue can be stealthy, throw stuff, be mobile and teleport with the right set up, in the end you are locked as a Rogue, its a perfect class to do multiclassing as it gives good benefits early on. Ranger is boring though.
I can also cherry pick, lets say Druid, in BG3 you can turn to many different animals and use a wide range of different spells and abilities as a Druid, or you can actually summon a variety of strong units as a Wizard, its lackluster in DOS2 when you compare them.
Classes dont feel like actual classes in DOS2, its more of a fluid system where you can just invest points to deal higher damage and buy books to unlock spells, thats obviously not bad but simply just another design method. Rogue in 5E is more grounded and basic, it can get boring if you dont actually play like a rogue, you need to keep using hide and disengage and attack from advantage and landing crits, if this isn't exciting then its advised you multiclass it with something else like a Monk or Fighter or add some complexity with Arcane Trickster.

i hate to sound basic but BG3. yeah it's an amazing game we all know that but i've tried so many CRPGS and i just can't get into them. i wasn't even interested in BG3 for a long time because i HATED Original Sin 1+2 but i gave it a shot and i loved it. i've since tried others again like the OG baldur's gate, underrail, pillars of eternity, and disco elysium but i just can't do it.

BG3 in a way is like Chrono Trigger where even someone who isn't into the genre will be able to enjoy it.
I think if you tried all those and didn't enjoy them its safe to assume its not a genre for you, it depends on what you like from BG3 though, you may still find something like Might and Magic 6 or Wizardry 7 enjoyable.
Just in case do you happen to enjoy games like Witcher 3, Mass Effect trilogy and Fallout New Vegas?