It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
On October 7, 2020, user kromienkeli posted a review (currently second "Most Helpful") of Baldur's Gate 3, saying that it had more of a Neverwinter Nights "feel" than a Baldur's Gate feel. Never having played any game from either series, I was wondering what the difference might be. How would you describe it?
I've played BG, BG2, NWN, and NWN2.

I have no idea what that reviewer was trying to say. I'm in the same boat as you.
nwn nights did use more cut scenes to move the story along, where BG is very 'open world' do this first or go wondering around the map for 5 levels if thats your cup of tea

I own \ play both and find bg3 to be a bit of both... there are lots of story vids + you are welcome to look around the map before geting back to the story line
Post edited November 04, 2020 by ussnorway
Thanks for the reply! The only RPG I've really played is just The Witcher 1, so not sure what style I'd prefer (if any). What you say for NW sounds more like The Witcher 1 I guess.
avatar
ussnorway: nwn nights did use more cut scenes to move the story along, where BG is very 'open world' do this first or go wondering around the map for 5 levels if thats your cup of tea

I own \ play both and find bg3 to be a bit of both... there are lots of story vids + you are welcome to look around the map before geting back to the story line
I think the use of cutscenes came with 3D - BG simply could not do cutscenes (other than odd CG rendered movie inserts, which mostly were not particularly great with Bioware). I agree that BG was more open world for sure - the game was absolutely huge in size for its time.

BG2 was more "linear" in a way - some of the areas were like one-way streets if I recall (Underdark?) where you would end up through the story and could not leave until you finished that part of the plot. I might be wrong though - this was back in 2000 :)
avatar
RN_at_GOG: Thanks for the reply! The only RPG I've really played is just The Witcher 1, so not sure what style I'd prefer (if any). What you say for NW sounds more like The Witcher 1 I guess.
If you played Fallout 1 or 2, you could compare the "open world" aspect to BG1/2.
Post edited December 02, 2020 by midrand
Count me out of the folks who want the game to look and feel like BG2...;) No way, Jose'...;) I fired up the original the other day and was immediately put off by the very technically-restricted presentation and graphics. I bought the original when it was new and loved it--then. Not now. Ugh. Too old.
avatar
waltc: Count me out of the folks who want the game to look and feel like BG2...;) No way, Jose'...;) I fired up the original the other day and was immediately put off by the very technically-restricted presentation and graphics. I bought the original when it was new and loved it--then. Not now. Ugh. Too old.
I think you really need a CRT monitor as well to enjoy it properly from graphics standpoint - i.e. to play it in its original resolution of 800x600 or whatever it was at the time. All this upscaling and stuff onto our wall-wide LCD screens does not really work for hand drawn graphics like BG.
Finding it somewhat strange that no-one's mentioned the NPC/party dynamic so far.

Games like Witcher and NWN feel like walking through a movie, where you get to be the main focus of the plot.

By contrast, BG and BG2 were rooted much more firmly in the traditional AD&D game mechanics, party interactions and freedom of movement.

Anyone remember this phrase? "You must gather your party before venturing forth..."

The strength of NWN was really in the multiplayer game, and the huge number of solo modules built by fans, which in my view often featured superior game-play to the official campaigns.

As far as the game mechanics went, in NWN1's original solo campaign you could only team-up with one other NPC, and this made any type of tactical combat kind of difficult.

Enemies would tend to swarm around your tank character to quickly attack the weakest, or your erstwhile friend would happily run straight through an acid trap you were trying to flag, before falling heroically dead at the feet of the enemy. Oh how the slavering Hordes of Darkness must have laughed their steel boots off!

BG allowed you to build a party of up to 5 NPCs, pause the combat between rounds, give everyone individual instructions, and develop some pretty complex battle tactics - Minsc, Jaheira and her idiot boyfriend to the front - stealthy archers and magic-users to the back.

Of course, it was sometimes hard to keep your party together, as they would quite often fall-out with each other, and you would either have to arbitrate between the two, or inevitably decide which one to cut loose.

This meant that there was an awful lot of re-playability in BG and BG2, and decisions made at character generation had a very real impact on your game experience.

Add to that the huge investment in humorous exchanges, sub-plots, and freedom of movement, and I kind of feel that in moving from BG through to games like NWN and Witcher, we have perhaps lost those elements of creative game-play that lie at the core of the role-playing experience for me.

The emphasis now is very much on stunningly immersive 3D graphics, and cinematically impressive cut-scenes; but it's hard to imagine developers cutting every scene six different ways - just to accommodate Jaheira's rather prudish distaste for Viconia.

In my view, the party is at the core of the AD&D experience - but as RPGs have evolved, this has been sacrificed in exchange for more focused game-play.

[ ok ok ... it's a lot of text, but I got there in the end ... ]
avatar
weirdlywise: [ ok ok ... it's a lot of text, but I got there in the end ... ]
I agree with your assessment - I think the challenge lies in striking a balance between story telling and free world adventuring. Make it too much free world, and the story stops being engaging and cohesive if you move too much out of sync with what the devs have intended. Like Fallout 2 - you could go straight to the base for the power armor, and then straight to the finish line - but then the plot will make no sense. Complexity must have also increased exponentially, hence the choice to either go plot thick or open world thick :)

I don't think BG3 will solve this either - it will be more on the plot side and explore the world in the order provided.
avatar
RN_at_GOG: Thanks for the reply! The only RPG I've really played is just The Witcher 1, so not sure what style I'd prefer (if any). What you say for NW sounds more like The Witcher 1 I guess.
The Witcher 1 was actually made on the same engine as Neverwinter Nights 1 (though a heavily improved version of the engine).
I guess that user downplayed quality of BG3 by comparing it by game not well received by fans
avatar
weirdlywise: Finding it somewhat strange that no-one's mentioned the NPC/party dynamic so far.

Games like Witcher and NWN feel like walking through a movie, where you get to be the main focus of the plot.

By contrast, BG and BG2 were rooted much more firmly in the traditional AD&D game mechanics, party interactions and freedom of movement.

Anyone remember this phrase? "You must gather your party before venturing forth..."

The strength of NWN was really in the multiplayer game, and the huge number of solo modules built by fans, which in my view often featured superior game-play to the official campaigns.

As far as the game mechanics went, in NWN1's original solo campaign you could only team-up with one other NPC, and this made any type of tactical combat kind of difficult.

Enemies would tend to swarm around your tank character to quickly attack the weakest, or your erstwhile friend would happily run straight through an acid trap you were trying to flag, before falling heroically dead at the feet of the enemy. Oh how the slavering Hordes of Darkness must have laughed their steel boots off!

BG allowed you to build a party of up to 5 NPCs, pause the combat between rounds, give everyone individual instructions, and develop some pretty complex battle tactics - Minsc, Jaheira and her idiot boyfriend to the front - stealthy archers and magic-users to the back.

Of course, it was sometimes hard to keep your party together, as they would quite often fall-out with each other, and you would either have to arbitrate between the two, or inevitably decide which one to cut loose.

This meant that there was an awful lot of re-playability in BG and BG2, and decisions made at character generation had a very real impact on your game experience.

Add to that the huge investment in humorous exchanges, sub-plots, and freedom of movement, and I kind of feel that in moving from BG through to games like NWN and Witcher, we have perhaps lost those elements of creative game-play that lie at the core of the role-playing experience for me.

The emphasis now is very much on stunningly immersive 3D graphics, and cinematically impressive cut-scenes; but it's hard to imagine developers cutting every scene six different ways - just to accommodate Jaheira's rather prudish distaste for Viconia.

In my view, the party is at the core of the AD&D experience - but as RPGs have evolved, this has been sacrificed in exchange for more focused game-play.

[ ok ok ... it's a lot of text, but I got there in the end ... ]
And just like Witcher 3 and BG1 and 2, Larian "cheat" (in my view) by have lots of enemies with archers. This means in one turn, one party member can be picked on and more or less killed first turn! Once out of the tutorial area, I don't think I have fought a group less than 8 enemies! with 4 archers. I currently lost my party to 14 enemies and 8 archers!
Post edited August 08, 2023 by UK_John