• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

How similar is Baldur's Gate 3's gameplay to Divinity 2 Original Sin's?

Divinity 2's combat was perfection in my opinion, the difficulty was 10/10.

Combat is shorter in BG3 the higher level you are since you can make more moves per turn and at mid-late game even on the highest difficulty it's not weird to be able to one shot a boss with a single character in a turn, but i feel enemies' turn is slower too, and sometimes it gets bugged and they take more seconds to move, but still i'd say it's shorter.

It's also more simple and less tactic, just put a couple buffs before the fight starts and then attack and it's easy
 
Well i didn't like the way they handled the physical and magical armour which kinda forced you to build one way or another that's true, i was refering to difficulty (on the highest mode at least) and the resources they gave you in the game compared to BG3 where you end with 800 arrows and 500 scrolls.

Still better handled than in BG3 where burning deals like 2 dmg per turn, absurd when combats last like 2-3 turns and enemies have 100-150 hp, or you can't freeze enemies, same for lightning status you can put on enemies, useless too
 

Hudo

Member
I absolutely hated Divinity 2 Original Sin as the battles lasted ages and the difficulty gradient was ridiculously steep.

I'm not saying Divinity 2 is a bad game, it just wasn't for me.

My question is, is Baldur's Gate 3'd gameplay is similar to this?
They are similar in the sense that both are turn-based. But that's about it. Baldur's Gate 3 uses DND 5E as a ruleset. DS2 uses something Larian came up with themselves (with a horrible armor system, imho). I think the encounters in BG3 are better paced than in DS2.
 

Jigsaah

Gold Member
I beat DOS2, I would say Baldur's gate is a bit different as it's based mainly on DnD 5e. However the main parts of the gameplay are the same. There gonna be a bit of a learning curve. I kinda prefer the DOS2's formula because with Action points you could mix and match to come up with a string of moves on one turn. Some classes in Baldur's Gate 3 You basically get that one action, bonus action and movement. I feel like the spell slots kinda constrict battles a bit as well. I've gotten used to it now and the contextual reactions do help spice things up a bit. Giving spellbooks to certain folks who don't usually use magic kinda helps a bit too.

FYI, I'm playing as Wyll (Warlock) in my playthrough. He's decently powerful, but I really picked him for the Charisma stat. Really helps make conversations go your way. Having only two spell slots seems pointless though. Granted he can regain those spell slots on short rest, which is something I don't think any other magic class does, but having to add spell slot via gear just kinda sucks. I let him hold some spell books as well and it kinda helps.
 

AV

We ain't outta here in ten minutes, we won't need no rocket to fly through space
It's VERY similar, ignore anyone telling you otherwise. Some things have changed because it's D&D 5E but it's still tactical turn based combat with limited moves and orders based on initiative, range and height giving range advantage, AOE based effects like puddles and fire, etc.
 

Physiocrat

Member
It's VERY similar, ignore anyone telling you otherwise. Some things have changed because it's D&D 5E but it's still tactical turn based combat with limited moves and orders based on initiative, range and height giving range advantage, AOE based effects like puddles and fire, etc.
How long do the battles take and is the difficulty gradient steep?
 

AV

We ain't outta here in ten minutes, we won't need no rocket to fly through space
How long do the battles take and is the difficulty gradient steep?

Some are much longer than others depending how many people are involved. By endgame you could have 4 party members and 7 summoned creatures against 20 foes and a battle will last a long ass time, other times you might only fight a small pack of bandits. Some people also spend FAR longer than others on positioning and tactics including getting people into certain spots for advantage before the fight starts. On normal difficulty you can absolutely just waltz into 99% of the fights and start whacking, though.

Too many variables to say, but it's a big, long game that requires some degree of patience. Luckily it's all worth it. Difficulty is also a weird one because of the rest system, you're encouraged to "long rest" a lot and restore your spell slots to go into battles refreshed. Some people don't do that so fights take longer and are harder because they're going in weak.

If you absolutely hated DOS2 you might not like this. If you're on PC, give it under 2 hours on Steam and you can refund if it's not for you.
 

Buggy Loop

Member
I find the battles quick and crunchy compared to every other cRPGs i played personally.

Maybe because i'm playing the overpowered Paladin, but, never felt the fights dragging on.

I even talked my way through making a devil and his dozen of minions to kill themselves with my charisma.

Man Body GIF
 

Gaiff

SBI’s Resident Gaslighter
Not similar at all. DND 5E ruleset plays nothing like Divinity OS2 and that terrible Magic Armor/Physical Armor combat system Larian came up with.
Come on, it's very similar except that BGIII incorporates D&D ruleset in the combat and general play. They're both grid-based, turn-based tactical RPGs with a party system and the questing, cameras, and controls are damn near identical.

One who loved D:OSII will almost certainly love BGIII.
 

Mozzarella

Member
It has similar presentation and style, but its mechanics core is different.
Its DnD roll based style compared to Divinity which has its own one where its guarnteed to excute the plan since there is no dice rolling and no chance based system, both system work.
I'd say if you hated Divinity OS2 then dont bother, looks like this genre is not for you.

Well i didn't like the way they handled the physical and magical armour which kinda forced you to build one way or another that's true, i was refering to difficulty (on the highest mode at least) and the resources they gave you in the game compared to BG3 where you end with 800 arrows and 500 scrolls.

Still better handled than in BG3 where burning deals like 2 dmg per turn, absurd when combats last like 2-3 turns and enemies have 100-150 hp, or you can't freeze enemies, same for lightning status you can put on enemies, useless too
It didnt force anything, you can beat all encounters on tactician with a mixed party in DOS2, this meme couldn't be more wrong, sometimes i feel people just repeat what others say on the internet without actually thinking about the statement themselves, its infuriating.
Just because pure party is more meta doesnt mean its forced or its only viable, i pretty much did 3 playthroughs and each one was different, all party composition worked for me, the game has reactive systems and tactical gameplay that allows you to beat encounters with multiple plans.
Also your complaints about BG3 system is wrong, you can synergies abilities to do a lot of damage, in Act 2 i encountered strong enemies, they had near 90 hp, i did cast water on them to wet them, and then i cast a lighting bolt, melting them with 68 damage, a huge burst, so if you deal low damage in BG3 chances are you are playing badly.
 
Last edited:

Skifi28

Member
I personally like BG3 alot more. It's much more balanced and while it can be difficult, it still feels fair. Divinity 2 started you on the deep end and it felt like every encounter was specifically tuned to kick your arse and you had to exploit systems in order to have a chance. I also didn't like how melee character were at a huge disadvantage at the first few levels.
 
Last edited:

Sentenza

Member
It's VERY similar, ignore anyone telling you otherwise. Some things have changed because it's D&D 5E but it's still tactical turn based combat with limited moves and orders based on initiative, range and height giving range advantage, AOE based effects like puddles and fire, etc.
That's one of the stupidest arguments I read in a while.
Yeah, they are part of the same genre so there are obvious analogies, but the skill system is different, the entire system of rules is different, the stat scaling is different, the way initiative queue works is different, he itemization works differently, the economy is different.

And almost every single one of these aspects is MARKEDLY better in BG3. Mostly because Larian didn't have to design it, which turns out to be for the better, more often than not.

How long do the battles take and is the difficulty gradient steep?
Combat encounters in D&D 5th edition typically last for 3 or four round at most, for better or worse.
If you aren't a clueless idiot.
 
Last edited:

Sentenza

Member
It didnt force anything, you can beat all encounters on tactician with a mixed party in DOS2, this meme couldn't be more wrong, sometimes i feel people just repeat what others say on the internet without actually thinking about the statement themselves, its infuriating.
Just because pure party is more meta doesnt mean its forced or its only viable, i pretty much did 3 playthroughs and each one was different, all party composition worked for me, the game has reactive systems and tactical gameplay that allows you to beat encounters with multiple plans.
The problem with the armor system in DOS 2 is that it makes hardly any sense in principle and it creates way more problems that it solves.
Discouraging mixed sources of damage (which it factually does, it doesn't matter if you can work your way around it) is only the tip of the iceberg. There's also the fact that makes a certain amount of utility skills/spells utterly useless (not "unreliable" as much as literally 100% pointless to even attempt) until a certain threshold of damage has been passed, etc.

Basically it's a system of HP bloat (now in three different flavors!) that favors direct damage dealing above any other strategy. And conversely once that threshold of damage is surpassed the exact opposite becomes true, and some of these crowd controls become 100% reliable.

I mean, sure, you can learn to live with that. We all did.
But holy fucking Christ if it doesn't go straight in the bottom tier among all the countless attempts at "simulating damage mitigation" I've experienced across the years in different rulesets.

I'll also quote an addendum to the above observation that someone else made:

The system is simply bad. It splits combat into two phases:
One where you avoid using most skills to not waste status effects.
One where everyone is spamming status effects, or at least those characters who aren't currently stunned, knocked down or polymorphed into poultry while bleeding and on fire.
It also fails to have any semblance to anything.
Ablative HPs are generally not particularly good armor mechanics.
Ablative armor over entire battle duration is just singularly awful and being combined with cooldowns and stupidly abstract and highly segregated damage system (odd chloroform notwithstanding) doesn't do it any favors.

Smaller split pools depleted and replenishing on per turn basis might actually be quite tolerable both in terms of gameplay (encouraging more tactical approach than non-status alpha strike followed by status alpha strike) and in terms of making sense (overwhelming combatants defenses by concentrating attacks on them), but the system as it is is just a huge clusterfuck of concentrated derp.

There is a lot to like in DoS2 including sizable chunks of combat system, but there is no denying that large parts of it are just inexplicably bad. This includes armor system, damage system, ease of traversing terrain with everyone having jump, flight or teleportation abilities trivializing all those nice area layouts Larian lovingly made as well as lesser things such as nearly inconsequential initiative.
 

AV

We ain't outta here in ten minutes, we won't need no rocket to fly through space
That's one of the stupidest arguments I read in a while.
Yeah, they are part of the same genre so there are obvious analogies, but the skill system is different, the entire system of rules is different, the stat scaling is different, the way initiative queue works is different, he itemization works differently, the economy is different.

The OP "absolutely hated" D:OS2. He wants to know if the combat in BG3 has "similar gameplay". It's incredibly similar. Take particular mechanics and complexities out of the equation in the context of recommending or not recommending a game to a person. He's not going to give two shits that the stat scaling and itemization is different when numerous battles in the game will take a long time.
 

poodaddy

Member
The problem with the armor system in DOS 2 is that it makes hardly any sense in principle and it creates way more problems that it solves.
Discouraging mixed sources of damage (which it factually does, it doesn't matter if you can work your way around it) is only the tip of the iceberg. There's also the fact that makes a certain amount of utility skills/spells utterly useless (not "unreliable" as much as literally 100% pointless to even attempt) until a certain threshold of damage has been passed, etc.

Basically it's a system of HP bloat (now in three different flavors!) that favors direct damage dealing above any other strategy. And conversely once that threshold of damage is surpassed the exact opposite becomes true, and some of these crowd controls become 100% reliable.

I mean, sure, you can learn to live with that. We all did.
But holy fucking Christ if it doesn't go straight in the bottom tier among all the countless attempts at "simulating damage mitigation" I've experienced across the years in different rulesets.

I'll also quote an addendum to the above observation that someone else made:
Bro.....chill out dude lol.

We're talkin video games here folks. Everyone have a beer or an edible and take five. When we get back, I'll hug and eye fuck everyone in the room, and if that's not love I don't know what is.

fox tv hug GIF by Kicking & Screaming
 
It has similar presentation and style, but its mechanics core is different.
Its DnD roll based style compared to Divinity which has its own one where its guarnteed to excute the plan since there is no dice rolling and no chance based system, both system work.
I'd say if you hated Divinity OS2 then dont bother, looks like this genre is not for you.


It didnt force anything, you can beat all encounters on tactician with a mixed party in DOS2, this meme couldn't be more wrong, sometimes i feel people just repeat what others say on the internet without actually thinking about the statement themselves, its infuriating.
Just because pure party is more meta doesnt mean its forced or its only viable, i pretty much did 3 playthroughs and each one was different, all party composition worked for me, the game has reactive systems and tactical gameplay that allows you to beat encounters with multiple plans.
Also your complaints about BG3 system is wrong, you can synergies abilities to do a lot of damage, in Act 2 i encountered strong enemies, they had near 90 hp, i did cast water on them to wet them, and then i cast a lighting bolt, melting them with 68 damage, a huge burst, so if you deal low damage in BG3 chances are you are playing badly.
It didn't literally force you, it just made it easier, not saying you can't beat the game with a mixed group tho.

About BG3, honestly i can't remember any strong encounter in act 2, my last one was the spider at lvl 3, i had to use some scrolls/arrows there, but nothing after that, so if you found strong enemies, maybe it's you who is playing badly or wrong?

Yes i know lightning damage deals x2 on wet enemies, but i also lost the count of the amount of attacks my barbarian or monk can deal on a same turn, also they can 1shot pretty much any boss at this point with a couple buffs unless the dice rolls troll me so there's no point for any kind of combo, just use double haste on your 2 melees and blessing and watch them kill everything in a couple turns, the game is this easy even on the highest difficulty.
 
Last edited:

The Cockatrice

Gold Member
Most people here dont realize OP prolly isnt thinking about the rulesets of BG3. Forget what everyone said, if you didnt like DOS2, you will absolutely not like BG3 either. Skipping the fact that everything you do is based on a dice roll, compared to divinity, the combat is exactly the same, turn-based, you use skills, and the battles require a lot of time, patience, and strategy to have a chance. Some combat moments can last even 20 minutes. Outside of combat, again, it is the same as Divinity in the sense that you have to click a lot, open a lot of things, loot a lot of things, explore everything, get annoyed by the level design, avoid traps, solve puzzles and talk/read a lot.

The core of BG3 is exactly as DOS2 the only difference is that BG3 has a higher quality cinematic experience, aka everything is voiced, cutscenes, etc and what goes behind combat and rpg mechanics aka the dice roll.
 

Mozzarella

Member
The problem with the armor system in DOS 2 is that it makes hardly any sense in principle and it creates way more problems that it solves.
Discouraging mixed sources of damage (which it factually does, it doesn't matter if you can work your way around it) is only the tip of the iceberg. There's also the fact that makes a certain amount of utility skills/spells utterly useless (not "unreliable" as much as literally 100% pointless to even attempt) until a certain threshold of damage has been passed, etc.

Basically it's a system of HP bloat (now in three different flavors!) that favors direct damage dealing above any other strategy. And conversely once that threshold of damage is surpassed the exact opposite becomes true, and some of these crowd controls become 100% reliable.

I mean, sure, you can learn to live with that. We all did.
But holy fucking Christ if it doesn't go straight in the bottom tier among all the countless attempts at "simulating damage mitigation" I've experienced across the years in different rulesets.

I'll also quote an addendum to the above observation that someone else made:
The whole of DOS2 barely makes sense, its rather very video gamey. I still dont understand why its bad if mixed party source of damage is viable, its bad because it is? Going by this logic almost all games are bad, because in most games you are going to come up with a strategy that is the strongest.
Exactly the fact that its unreliable is the whole shtick of the system, its a system that is based on a clear plan, there is no chance and roll system so everything that you are thinking to do will be done, the plan will 100% work, ofcourse this makes it less complex and more one dimensional in that regard but what lifts this up in this case is the varied amount of ways to do it, so you need to bring the armor down, you have multiple spells and ways to deal the damage, you then have multiple spells to control the enemies with CC, and also the enemies can obviously heal, restore armor and remove CC too.
You say there is no strategy and i disagree, dealing damage is the strategy, the way you do it is up to you, you can check the skill tree in the game, there is tons of abilities to use, and you can't just spam one strong one, because there is cooldown on spells and some of them even use source points so that forces the player to engage with the rest of the spells.
From your quote i think i can agree with the flying/teleporting criticism as most enemies use it, so thats a fair point, i can understand someone who doesnt find the armor system appealing or fun, but i dont see how its a bad system after all, maybe its flawed, never said it was perfect but i think it was solid enough, its straight forward and didnt take away from my enjoyment.
I'm prefer the system in Baldur's Gate 3 mind you, but the one in DOS2 was good.
What other turn based RPGs have better combat in your opinion?
It didn't literally force you, it just made it easier, not saying you can't beat the game with a mixed group tho.

About BG3, honestly i can't remember any strong encounter in act 2, my last one was the spider at lvl 3, i had to use some scrolls/arrows there, but nothing after that, so if you found strong enemies, maybe it's you who is playing badly or wrong?

Yes i know lightning damage deals x2 on wet enemies, but i also lost the count of the amount of attacks my barbarian or monk can deal on a same turn, also they can 1shot pretty much any boss at this point with a couple buffs unless the dice rolls troll me so there's no point for any kind of combo, just use double haste on your 2 melees and blessing and watch them kill everything in a couple turns, the game is this easy even on the highest difficulty.
In most games its easier to specialize in one damage type, it gives you higher number but at the cost of being versatile.
Alright, so here is the thing, i thought you were complaining that the damage was low and enemies have a lot of health, i got that you are having a hard time with it, so now you are telling me its easy for you, i dont get it, whats the issue again?
Barbarian deals a lot of damage but they have to get close + they deal single target most of the time.
Just now i wet a group of enemies and casted chain lighting, 120, 118, 116. Huge numbers i roasted the enemies with it, multiple kills in a single spells, ofcourse its a slot 6 spell so its not available all the time, but with the right set up it can be devastating.
The game gets easier as i level up too, i guess its the result of me doing all side content, well cant complain, every RPG i played i reached the same point, when you do everything you will become OP at some point. I think its still offer a good challenge despite that, but a harder mode for the people who minmax into the strongest possible forms is not a bad idea.
 
In most games its easier to specialize in one damage type, it gives you higher number but at the cost of being versatile.
Alright, so here is the thing, i thought you were complaining that the damage was low and enemies have a lot of health, i got that you are having a hard time with it, so now you are telling me its easy for you, i dont get it, whats the issue again?
Barbarian deals a lot of damage but they have to get close + they deal single target most of the time.
Just now i wet a group of enemies and casted chain lighting, 120, 118, 116. Huge numbers i roasted the enemies with it, multiple kills in a single spells, ofcourse its a slot 6 spell so its not available all the time, but with the right set up it can be devastating.
The game gets easier as i level up too, i guess its the result of me doing all side content, well cant complain, every RPG i played i reached the same point, when you do everything you will become OP at some point. I think its still offer a good challenge despite that, but a harder mode for the people who minmax into the strongest possible forms is not a bad idea.
What i meant is that it's pointless to use some of the elemental status after the first levels since the damage doesn't scale with levels, for burning or electrified ground, or acid too if i remember correctly, i don't mean that it's hard because of this, just that there's no point on burning enemies for example after lvl 2-3.

My issue with the combat in this game overall is that it is just too easy, i remember Divinity 2 was quite a challenge on the highest difficulty, resources like arrows, gold etc were limited too and stealing made sense, there's nothing of that on BG3 sadly, i hope they'll fix it on the Enhanced Edition, but right now the combat is very simple, and far from the best ones i've seen on tactical RPG's

My english is far from perfect by the way, so sorry if some of the stuff i wrote doesn't make sense <3
 

Mozzarella

Member
What i meant is that it's pointless to use some of the elemental status after the first levels since the damage doesn't scale with levels, for burning or electrified ground, or acid too if i remember correctly, i don't mean that it's hard because of this, just that there's no point on burning enemies for example after lvl 2-3.

My issue with the combat in this game overall is that it is just too easy, i remember Divinity 2 was quite a challenge on the highest difficulty, resources like arrows, gold etc were limited too and stealing made sense, there's nothing of that on BG3 sadly, i hope they'll fix it on the Enhanced Edition, but right now the combat is very simple, and far from the best ones i've seen on tactical RPG's

My english is far from perfect by the way, so sorry if some of the stuff i wrote doesn't make sense <3
Ehh, i dont really agree with you there, its not pointless because its a bonus. Think about it, you have grease on the surface for whatever reason, and now you throw fireball, you deal a lot of damage and as an extra you also set the field on fire burning enemies that move through it, this makes them take more dip-dmg each turn + your initial damage, how is that pointless, you are going to do the damage anyway, why not more to it?
Ofcourse unless you mean that you specifically set the terrain on fire and then cross your hands and pass the turn, yeah in that case its pointless. lol.
I'm confused, i dont think you need arrows in DOS2, maybe you mean arrows with special ability like fire arrows and charm arrows and this stuff? because normal arrows if i remember correctly are infinite, and stealing gold is as useful as BG3, how is stealing making more sense? i dont get it, its a different set of rules for thieving, but i actually prefer the pickpocket system of Baldur's Gate 3 by far, the one in DOS2 is decent but leaves little room for surprises and that takes away from the tension of stealing, imo.
What kind of tactical rpg combat you like?
 

Grildon Tundy

Gold Member
Glad to see other people were as triggered as me by people saying DOS2 and BG3 aren't similar. Like, come on, man. How opinionated and pedantic is that?
 
Last edited:
I absolutely hated Divinity 2 Original Sin as the battles lasted ages and the difficulty gradient was ridiculously steep.

I'm not saying Divinity 2 is a bad game, it just wasn't for me.

My question is, is Baldur's Gate 3'd gameplay is similar to this?
Thanks, a lot of people say any game they don't like must therefore be bad so people who like it must be dumb lol. For my part I absolutely love Divinity Original Sin 2's battle system. It was challenging and the battles could be long but they were the best part of the game for me so I was down with that.

I was excited that this game would just be Divinity 3, and it isn't. The D&D rules change things a lot, in some ways not for the better as those rules weren't designed specifically to be a computer game. Things from D&D like the camping system almost don't make any sense being here. You'll get an interesting new ability that has a 50% chance to work because of dice rolls, it'll miss which means you'll have to wait a long time to camp and recharge it to try it again to see what it does and if it's any good. That incentivizes you to camp all the time, which seemingly has no penalty except your horny party members constantly trying to jump your bones but then you camp after seeing a building that was on fire and you come back the next day and the fires over and people died and you're like "oh maybe camping does matter in this game after all." I've only seen a few other times where camping clearly had a penalty on story events but I don't know how you could get an exhaustive list without having spoilers ruin your adventure. Maybe in the future Larian can add a "hardcore" mode where food is scarce and you have to really think hard about what you can squeeze out of a day before camping, but right now it seemingly only exists as an illusion to make the player think they need to hold back on trying their more interesting and powerful abilities in battle for no reason with the exception of a few events that are actually time sensitive. Please nobody tell me when I can and can't camp, I'm still playing through the game and don't want any spoilers.

But while BG3 is different at its core because of the D&D rules, this is definitely "Larianized" D&D, with countless similarities too many to list, things like vents of poisonous gas that can be covered with objects to clear the air and comedic talking animals. Battle too has signature Larian features like using the elements in the environment to increase damage. After wetting a group of enemies and zapping them with electricity for double damage, I looked up the math in the battle log and it was clear that the double damage from combining "wet" status and electricity was actually calculated on top after all the other dice rolls had been factored in, making the divinity trademark elemental combo one of the most important considerations for doing damage in combat. So yeah it's not like divinity, and it's a lot like divinity.

Most people here dont realize OP prolly isnt thinking about the rulesets of BG3. Forget what everyone said, if you didnt like DOS2, you will absolutely not like BG3 either. Skipping the fact that everything you do is based on a dice roll, compared to divinity, the combat is exactly the same, turn-based, you use skills, and the battles require a lot of time, patience, and strategy to have a chance. Some combat moments can last even 20 minutes. Outside of combat, again, it is the same as Divinity in the sense that you have to click a lot, open a lot of things, loot a lot of things, explore everything, get annoyed by the level design, avoid traps, solve puzzles and talk/read a lot.

The core of BG3 is exactly as DOS2 the only difference is that BG3 has a higher quality cinematic experience, aka everything is voiced, cutscenes, etc and what goes behind combat and rpg mechanics aka the dice roll.

Ultimately I think people saying stuff like this are probably right. If you bounced off divinity 2 you gotta understand upfront that while people looking at the systems deeply will find large differences, this is without question the most similar game in the entire world to divinity original sin 2, with the arguable exception I guess of divinity original sin 1 which is smaller and less complex than these games. There are still long battles and a learning curve. Dialogue, production values and roleplaying choices are all better here than they are in the divinity games though, so if you like story in games you might enjoy this on easy mode even if you hate divinity.
 
Last edited:

Sentenza

Member
The OP "absolutely hated" D:OS2. He wants to know if the combat in BG3 has "similar gameplay". It's incredibly similar. Take particular mechanics and complexities out of the equation in the context of recommending or not recommending a game to a person. He's not going to give two shits that the stat scaling and itemization is different when numerous battles in the game will take a long time.
Eh. The OP is probably a clueless fool, anyway.

If he absolutely hates an entire genre there’s little that can be done about making another title in the SAME genre palatable for him, no matter how differently it plays.

That doesn’t change that stuff like itemization and stat scaling aren’t just “side flavor” and they affect EVERYTHING about the granularity of how these games play.

For instance how much “forced linearity” is pressed on the player about the ideal order to do things (a pressing issue in DOS2, broadly a non-factor in BG3) or how frequently you are pressed into swapping equipment to keep up with the power curve (as often as possible in DOS 2 because items become obsolete in a heartbeat, while “good items” remain viable the entire game in D&D-based systems).

DOS2 has also a (very puzzling) initiative system where no matter what the action was constantly swapping between a player character and one opponent. In BG3 all characters are queued in a broad initiative order with no particular favoritism.

D&D focuses a lot on managing a limited pool of resources across multiple encounters, while DOS incentivize the player to spam all it got at every turn with the sole notable exception of (refillable) “Source powers”.

And so on.
 

Physiocrat

Member
If he absolutely hates an entire genre there’s little that can be done about making another title in the SAME genre palatable for him, no matter how differently it plays.
It depends what you mean by genre. I have no in principle objection to turn based combat in a group. My objection to D2OS was just how long the battles took and how hard it was to begin with. If that is part of the genre, then I dislike the genre but it is clear you could make a combat system similar to that but reduce the average battle time and make a better difficulty gradient.

It might be my limited time but I would want a battle to last max 10 mins. I'm happy to lose and restart multiple times but having a really long battle which I then lose really demotivates me and I can't be bothered to try again.
 
Last edited:

Sentenza

Member
I don't even agree that DOS 2 was a particularly slow game in that sense, but that aside...

Most fights in BG3 don't last 5 minutes (unless you spend 3 thinking of each move, obviously), let alone 10 or 20.
As I said the average length of most D&D fights is 2 or 3 ROUNDS with four already being on the lengthy side.

Anyone who's claiming he's taking more is probably doing something poorly (starting precisely with the common mistake "pulling an entire enemy outpost when you could face enemies in isolated groups if you do things with a bit of sense").

The game in general has a rather "snappy" feeling for a turn-based battle system (we are world apart of something like Wrath of the Righteous, for instance), with quick and "pretty" animations and so on.

That said the game still has room for improvement, since it's not that rare to see the AI having some occasional hang-ups for few seconds in a row. There's also a couple of unnecessary moments of slow down (i.e. not sure why "DASH" needs to play a "supersayan charge-up" animation rather than just give you the extra movement is supposed to give) that could be easily addressed.
 
Last edited:

Physiocrat

Member
I don't even agree that DOS 2 was a particularly slow game in that sense, but that aside...

Most fights in BG3 don't last 5 minutes (unless you spend 3 thinking of each move, obviously), let alone 10 or 20.
As I said the average length of most D&D fights is 2 or 3 ROUNDS with four already being on the lengthy side.

Anyone who's claiming he's taking more is probably doing something poorly (starting precisely with the common mistake "pulling an entire enemy outpost when you could face enemies in isolated groups if you do things with a bit of sense").

The game in general has a rather "snappy" feeling for a turn-based battle system (we are world apart of something like Wrath of the Righteous, for instance), with quick and "pretty" animations and so on.

That said the game still has room for improvement, since it's not that rare to see the AI having some occasional hang-ups for few seconds in a row. There's also a couple of unnecessary moments of slow down (i.e. not sure why "DASH" needs to play a "supersayan charge-up" animation rather than just give you the extra movement is supposed to give) that could be easily addressed.

How long on average did you complete battles in D2OS?
 

Skifi28

Member
Glad to see other people were as triggered as me by people saying DOS2 and BG3 aren't similar. Like, come on, man. How opinionated and pedantic is that?
They are similar in a broad sense (if you hate turn based combat, BG3 won't be changing your mind) but there are huge difference in the moment to moment gameplay to the point you can dislike one combat system while loving the other (like me). I'll give you the most basic example: Character movement in divinity is using the same resource as attacking while in BG they are separate which completely changes how combat flows.
 

The Cockatrice

Gold Member
As I said the average length of most D&D fights is 2 or 3 ROUNDS with four already being on the lengthy side.

You havent played the games. heres 2 random videos(not mine)






I played both games on hardest difficulty, some simple encounters last 2-3 minutes but most combat scenarios can reach 20 mins easily.
 
Last edited:

The Cockatrice

Gold Member
You don't know what you're talking about.

sNR4fQe.jpg

Then your memory must be pretty bad.

"It can reach 20 minutes easily"
Proceeds to post a video of someone pulling the ENTIRE goblin camp unnecessarily (and summoning reinforcements too) and it's still 13 minutes.

It was just a random video. I can find you more. You said encounters last less than 5 minutes. That is completely and utterly false. I haven't played either games on easy so Im not sure how fast combat goes in there, but I highly doubt its less than 5 even then. Sure there are some fights that last real quick but most normal/important ones are longer.
 
Last edited:

Sentenza

Member
It was just a random video. I can find you more. You said encounters last less than 5 minutes. That is completely and utterly false. I haven't played either games on easy so Im not sure how fast combat goes in there, but I highly doubt its less than 5 even then. Sure there are some fights that last real quick but most normal/important ones are longer.
I said MOST encounters tend to last less than five minutes and -more specifically- for 2 or 3 ROUNDS (where, for people unfamiliar with the terminology, a round is the sequence of all the participants taking their individual turn). Which I will stand to, having played through the game multiple times.

I never suggested that it's impossible to DRAG an encounter for as long as you want, if you are inept. Or even to IGNITE a non-mandatory fight involving every single character on an area, even if that's not an actual "encounter" in the game.

Take the goblin fight you posted. Aside for the fact that ONE well placed AoE would vaporize two thirds of these goblins out of the fight in one shot, the game gives you a half dozen tools to dispatch most of them separately, without having to face them as an unique wave of enemies.
in fact, it's not even mandatory to deal with them at all.
 
Last edited:

The Cockatrice

Gold Member
I said MOST encounters tend to last less than five minutes
maybe for you and me who have 300+ hours in divinity or similar crpg games, but for someone new, the time is doubled not to mention the fact that they will most likely reload quite a few times in combat.

KVxJgUH.jpg


You randomly picked what is probably the biggest encounter in the entire game where you aggro an entire village's worth of NPCs?

OP can certainly try the game for himself and see if the length of combat encounters fits his needs. OP complained about the length of combat in DOS2, at the start of the game, which should be the easiest and short ones, so its only natural later ones and BG3 will feel quite long for him since he probably hasnt played crpgs. Again, skill, difficulty, all matters. Its easy to say, yeah combat is short when you fucking have so many hours in the game lmao.
 
Last edited:
Ehh, i dont really agree with you there, its not pointless because its a bonus. Think about it, you have grease on the surface for whatever reason, and now you throw fireball, you deal a lot of damage and as an extra you also set the field on fire burning enemies that move through it, this makes them take more dip-dmg each turn + your initial damage, how is that pointless, you are going to do the damage anyway, why not more to it?
Ofcourse unless you mean that you specifically set the terrain on fire and then cross your hands and pass the turn, yeah in that case its pointless. lol.
I'm confused, i dont think you need arrows in DOS2, maybe you mean arrows with special ability like fire arrows and charm arrows and this stuff? because normal arrows if i remember correctly are infinite, and stealing gold is as useful as BG3, how is stealing making more sense? i dont get it, its a different set of rules for thieving, but i actually prefer the pickpocket system of Baldur's Gate 3 by far, the one in DOS2 is decent but leaves little room for surprises and that takes away from the tension of stealing, imo.
What kind of tactical rpg combat you like?
Yes it's an extra to burn enemies of course, what i meant when i said it's pointless is that, for example, i am using my mage as a double haste machine, and then after that i can either pass my turn or just use him to finish some low hp enemy, but by using haste and avoiding losing my concentration on my mage i feel i am more useful and that i am wasting less resources than by trying to do combos or to deal a lot of damage, after all my two hasted guys are going to destroy the fight in a couple turns, and even if they are melee their movement is so high that they can go anywhere to be honest.

I feel Divinity 2 made me try harder to use elemental status since the damage output overall was way lower unless you used "Glass Cannon", but that forced you to be really really squishy, while on BG3 you can be tank as hell and still land a lot of attacks per turn.

About the arrows yes i mean the ones on your inventory, basically every usable item on there, same for scrolls, or grenades etc, on BG3 there's way more than you'll ever need, i have hundreds of these items at this point, Divinity 2 felt way more hand-crafted on that, that's why i meant stealing was more useful in D2, as you were resource limited, each arrow, barrel, or gold you could get was great.

On BG3 i got over 20k coins right now, which i left on my camp because it's already over 20KG, most items cost 100-400, i could buy every item from every trader and i wouldn't waste all my coins at this point, as for camp resources, when i saw you needed these to camp i liked the idea of having to plan when to rest etc, now i have around 3k resources also on my camp since it's around 150-200kg. that's like 35 long rests.

That's why i said stealing doesn't make much sense in this game, other than for quest items, i created a character to steal because it was very important on Divinity 2, but on this game i just stole something two times, i don't see any point on stealing more gold, arrows, scrolls etc when i have so many already.

As for my favourite games i'd say both Divinity games combat wise were great, even tho both have flaws, also both XCOM, i've spent over a thousand hours on these games and i still don't get tired of playing them just for the combat. There are more but these are the ones that will always come to my mind first.

And about the combat i agree with you, it's not that long at least on BG3, while some specific fights can last 20mins, i'd say the average might be 5 to 10 mins range, would help if we could "skip" enemies turn's animations for example.
 

brian0057

Banned
It's Larian.
It's gonna be the greatest game of all time for the first half and by the third act is gonna nose dive in quality.
 
Top Bottom