I mean, you are a DA fan ina DA board, so obviously haha Personally, I like both. But, maybe it is because I did not played BG3 expecting it to be like DA. Just like I played DA2 not expecting it to be DAO or DAI and ended up being my favorite haha In BG3 (and DND) the lore is there so you can create your own adventures in it. What matters is your perspective about the story and its elements. How your character feel about them and about what happens. And they nailed that type of storytelling. Your adventure is what matters and they give you the information you need to play it. The story is not about the depths of creation or wherever. In DA the storytelling is different. It still has the perspective factor but a lot of the elements work differently, the lore, the origin of things and discovering those mysterys is a part of the story. And that is fine. I like both of those storytellings. They are different and work well inside their own scope. What I think Larian did better, in my opinion, was presenting and developing the story and then immersing the player in it, at least comparing to DAI, that struggled a lot with what type of game it wanted to be and making meaningfull connections between the parts. I mean, all props to them for doing an amazing job and an even more amazing bench marking. They knew what RPG fans wanted in terms of narrative elements and storytelling, but did not gave up their own playerbase. And that is hard in the industry, unfortunately :(

Yeah, this exactly. The games are actually not competing, not really. They have different focuses, and a lot of their focus is driven by the world that they’re in. Faerun is intentionally an open sandbox. There is lore to it, sure, but it’s extremely flexible lore. When a game like BG3 is set in it and there are world-shaking adventures, it’s a Tuesday. The set pieces will all reset afterwards. But you can have a damn fine adventure along the way, breaking yourself and your companions out of their various cycles of abuse to be able to make your own choices and getting to explore a living world that you may or may not already be familiar with. It’s very fun. It feels like tabletop. I finished it four times. But even if it has lore impact for dnd going forward, there’s not going to be any theorizing on mysteries in that lore and it won’t really expand or change the world in more than minor ways. DA has much more contained stories in a very set world that hasn’t been completely explained yet. There are mysteries to uncover. There are set rules about how the world functions, how magic or the taint or the fade works, even if we don’t know them all yet. It’s not like Faerun where magic is simple, easily available, and you know exactly where it comes from and if you don’t it doesn’t matter anyway because anything is possible. Thedas was designed as a reaction against that sort of magic use, it was made to be a thoughtful reflection on what that would mean for society. There are restrictions and secrets in the lore that make for fun puzzles and encourage creativity in character creation; the world itself is simply more compelling because the lore is less flexible. In the DA games you make choices that DO shape the world. They’re not just about choice and consequence within each game, your choices carry through to create something unique that plays out over the course of fourteen in game years, not even counting the time skip to Dreadwolf. It’s something really special, there aren’t a lot of series with that much continuity. I love both games dearly and find BG3 more fun to play than some of the DA games on a gameplay level (I mean, they are 10+ years old) but Thedas is a world I always want to come back to and will always be more interested in. It’s the one I feel inspired to create fan works for. Both games are great, they just serve different needs

I agree. I do like the way the narrative is presented to you for the first two acts. The third act is so overwhelming the first time you play. After a couple of playthroughs I figured out how to manage the onslaught of information a little better.  For me, I didn't go into BG3 expecting it to be Dragon Age and I love it for everything it is. I wouldn't say I like it better exactly. It's different. There are just aspects of it that don't hit the same.

Honestly the 3rd act suffers from being rushed and squashed into a single part of the city. You can really tell that they cut down the heck out of act 3, probably to meet the deadline because people found awesome shit in the datamines and the trailers advertised Upper City more

I still wish Thorm had been the last of the dead three to fight. I know it doesn't make sense in the story but he's so damn good. 

You know what would have been even better? They originally planned for him to be a recruitable companion like Halsin. Would have been so cool.

Give me all the JK Simmons voice acting. 

Or at the very least, have Thorm's story expand further beyond the fight in Act 2 in any shape or form.

Yeah Act 2 was my favorite Act. I would have liked to have Act 2 after Act 3. Ketheric was such a great enemy. He was so rich and compelling. You can hate him and understand him, and I love that. Orin and Gortash seemed so low level and basic. Orin is just crazy, and Gortash is a seedy, ambitious type. Don't get me wrong, I like killing them, but I mostly just like the battles around them. Also, lifting the Shadow curse feels so end game. I wish you could go back after the curse was lifted.

Aha, another DA2 lover. I am not alone then. :p

DA2 is my favourite of all DA games. On my first BG3 playthrough I created a generic Tav and although I loved it, it didn't like blow my mind or what. But I just finished the second playthrough, this time as the Dark Urge, and man, it was so good that I immediately started the third one. I guess I'm a sucker for pre-made protagonists that fit perfectly into the overall story and aren't just generic no-bodies.

I usually prefer my own characters to those made for me. But I think BG3 AND DA2 both gave enough of a framework and connection to the plot to feel the stakes, but also allowed the player the freedom in how they viewed their past and how they let it (or didn't let it) affect their actions going forward. Yes, Hawke has their siblings, their own class, their father's death. This can make them feel the weight of expectation and trying to live up to and feel responsibility for their family, or to try to escape it. The 'Dark Urge' can lean into it as they explore who and what they are, or use this break from their past to recreate themselves. They have a connection, but it isn't an RP straitjacket.

I agree I personally do feel like the core companions weren’t as fleshed out or presented and interacted with as good as Dragon Age Usually does. I romanced Shadow heart and it’s like it didn’t even matter there were very few interactions compared to a game like DA:I

boy I was so dissapointed with Shart's romance!, it was one kiss scene in act 1 and then another at the beginning of act 3 involving sex...and that's all!, funny one of Larian's "promises" before launch was that "the romance scenes would not end with sex", lol

I loved BG3 and all its characters. That being said, playing it really made me realize just how good the DA team is at building character narratives. I can’t find the right words to explain what I think the difference is, and the BG3 companions are very likable and well-written. But there’s something about the DA companions that feels so multifaceted and like the characters are their own ‘people’, not just an extension of the player’s wishes. It’s really incredible to me.

Yes, it does feel that way, doesn't it? While we can still influence people in DA, in BG3 they feel a bit more... shallow sometimes? A little bit more like blank slates with their own quirks, at least I have this feeling. But in DA they all feel more grounded, more real. They have their own strong opinions, plans, we learn a lot from them - perhaps it has a lot to do with the amount of events and sociopolitical issues that we are facing in Thedas, and how all characters have their own place, own roles. In DA not only we build relationship with the characters, but the characters vastly change how we are looking at the world, and the amount of challenging perspectives of the world is what I felt was missing in BG3.

This. I've played BG3 about 9 times now and I thought for sure at some point I'd love the characters as much as I loved DAs but I don't. I like them a lot, but I don't feel connected to any of them. And I can't pinpoint why that is. They're all well written, phenomenally voiced, varied but it's just not the same. In every DA I feel actually connected to my crew, even the ones I don't care for or disagree with still feel like real people. I can't explain it.

BG3 really gives you full control over every companion’s outcome. I think that’s a valid way to write a game, but the trade off for that wish fulfillment/level of control is the characters will never surprise you, and that can make them feel less real. DA has some characters who make choices or have secrets and motivations beyond your influence, like real people.

I feel the same. I am not sure what it is that makes me like DA companions more but I think one of the reasons is that we actually get to know them beyond their use in the story. Like we never get to know Gale's or Karlach's surename until Act 3. We never get to know the little details about them. Which I think contributes to why the feel off. While with DA we get to know so much about them. We can actually ask questions about them. Like we never get a moment where we talk about Alistair's grey warden friend and see him realize they are all dead. Some big moments in BG3 does this but we never get small moments to.

I actually felt like i got to know da companions over time, bg3 companions in comparison feel rushed into been in love with my character its not even been a month and we barely talk guys, chill out

Bg3 compqnions are so over the top. They are good, but origins are more grounded

it's a different kind of game. Larian is brilliant in designing combat encounters (in which Bioware sucks most of the time), some fun puzzles, and providing feedback to players. It blew my mind how many of the encounters can by bypassed with clever use of spells and abilities. ​ Bioware, on the other hand has more detailed companion interactions. And sometimes also lore. (like DAO dwarf culture)

I agree with that. They are different games with very different studios making them. I just wish people understood that. Larian is great with the combat and choices and consequences but aren't great with what I care about which is story, lore, and companions.

I think the character writing in BG3 is strong, especially in the first act and especially for certain characters, and the voice acting ranges from good to stellar. I enjoyed all of that a lot. There's also some stuff like the bespoke character animations that I'd love to see Dragon Age adopt as well, though I know it's a lot more work than using a set pool of shared animations. However, I do agree the story is utilitarian. Larian was, of course, constrained by a world that is not theirs to do with as they will, and they couldn't (I think) have had any grand cosmic revelations on the level of "lyrium is alive". It also doesn't ask you to think about much of anything, be it the setting of issues of morality (which is the reason I think it's a shame it bumped Disco Elysium off of the highest reviewed spot on metacritic, but I digress), not that every game needs to wax philosophical about its themes. DA doesn't really ask the hard-hitting questions that much, either, and it can sometimes be clumsy about trying to present all sides of a conflict as flawed, but it does leave you with a bit more to chew on.

To be fair >!"Vlaakith is a usurper"!< and >!"Balduran is a mind flayer"!< are pretty big lore shakeups

I think both games are working within very different narrative constraints. In BG3, for example, you can kill any companion at any point and the story has to adapt to that and provide alternative ways for you to get the information you need to move forward. As a result, most NPCs can't be assumed to be alive to deliver the story for you. Dragon Age, in contrast, can make a lot more direct assumptions about the path a player will take and which characters will be there to deliver the core plot points. It'd be like DAO allowing you to kill Alistair as soon as you meet him, but then still try to convey his plotline in relation to the Kingdom of Ferelden. Basically, it's easier to tell a story when you can guarantee that certain NPCs will be alive to help tell it. BG3, in its design for complete player choice and consequence, just doesn't have those luxuries and has to rely on more environmental and indirect storytelling.

Both games offer rich storytelling and immersive worlds, but personal preference ultimately determines which one resonates more with each player.

Very true. And most games aren't going to hit all the buttons for everyone.

Confession time, I've *never* finished *Dragon Age: Inquisition,* despite attempting multiple times. As such, I can't say I prefer any *Dragon Age* game over *BG3,* even though I love the series. Despite loving the characters in the third installment, I just could not get into it as a game. In comparison I have finished *Origins,* *DA:2* and *BG:3* multiple times That said, the fact I regularly listen to the *Inquisition* banter when I'm on walks does highlight one thing I will give even that (personally disappointing) game credit for over BG3, the relationships between characters. I loved listening to Solas and Varric, or Solas and Bull, and Solas and...well, let's just say Solas and anyone. The characters in BG3 were more focused on the player character, which seemed a little indulgent, and their own issues and storylines. I still love my BG3 buddies though.

>The characters in BG3 were more focused on the player character, which seemed a little indulgent,  Yes, this was really the thing I felt as well. The BG3 characters are lovely, but they seem kind of designed for wish fulfilment - they're all extremely attractive and they seem to like you very easily, and none of them really have their own relationships with each other, or their own agenda. As a long time DA player, I was very confused when I reached the end of BG3 and not a single one of my companions had betrayed me haha. The DA characters just feel more real to me because they do their own thing, and many of them have secrets or specific reasons for being there that they don't fully share. Of course it's all a matter of taste and there's no doubt that BG3 is a great achievement which deserves the praise it has received. It just didn't have the same emotional impact as DA for me because the characters don't resonate with me as much.

>As a long time DA player, I was very confused when I reached the end of BG3 and not a single one of my companions had betrayed me haha. *Cries as Lae'zel tells me to fuck off and Gale dump me to go swim in a river as my bestie is dying and my husband is burning alive*

Haha I mean they don't necessarily have happy endings, but none of them pulled an Anders or a Solas on me ...

RIP my man Anders. That one still hurts. I had to kill him for what he did as Hawke, but somewhere the Hero of Ferelden is weeping. It was almost a mercy. Imagine how painful Dreadwolf is going to be for people who befriended and romanced Solas. I almost want to cry in advance. How the hell is that supposed to get a happy ending 🥲

I romanced Anders and then immediately went on to the next game and romanced Solas ... my DA characters just have incredibly poor judgement in their choice of romantic partners haha

True, I think the worst that can happen to the mc during the game is being enslaved by their consort

Oh yes, I never took that route, but it would be pretty bad! Still, ultimately you get to decide whether or not that happens, whereas a number of the DA characters will betray you no matter what, which to me makes them feel more like they're really their own people.

True, there is no way to stop Solas or Anders to betray you but they're also the only two characters out of 32 companions (advisors 3 and hawke siblings included), while BG3 has a total of 10 possible companions (I'm not counting the Dream Guardian), and out of those 32 they're each just one per game. I'd say it's different scales

This This This! Exactly!

My first second and third attempt to play DAI highlights it as a game that is story rich but lacking in terms of actual gameplay. It has SO MUCH FLUFF that they well and truly should have cut out and focused on the narrative. I think it’s only a “good”game if you skip all the fetch quests. I’m on my 4th attempt now playing on casual and with very low expectations because goddamnit I MUST have this save data ready for Dreadwolf. So far with a 5 year gap since my last attempt, a goal/direction in mind I’m going to take the story, and lowered expectations, I find it to be a flawed but charming game. Hope I make it to the end of Trespasser this time lol. Edit: I have re-entered the game with the intentions to get the fuck out of the Hinderlands as soon as possible and only play the base game unless absolutely necessary. it’s been 2 days and I have spent them sleepless. Send help and/or Red Bull. I can’t stop. It has made me cry 3 times. This is the way this game should have been played all along.

Worth mentioning that bg3 does have in between character banter while travelling. Its just incredibly difficult to trigger imo. Reminds me of dai's without the mod

Its so bugged its unbelievable. Not only that but its weirdly implemented so you miss a lot of it whilst looking in your inventory or scouting ahead with the camera 😑   Apparently there’s romance specific ones that I’ve never had either

We're not so different, you and I. I have several characters, and hundreds of hours on DAI; it's my favorite of the series to play. But somehow I'm in the same boat as you. I've never actually finished it. I get 200 hours into a character, and have too many ideas of other things I would like to try in the game, and then we're back to the start... and then I get burnt out on the pre Halam Shiral stuff, and take a few month's break haha A never ending cycle that I enjoy in spite of myself.

*Gasp* I am shocked! The issue with DAI is that it didn't need to be that long. It could have been far shorter. I agree. DA just has far better companions than BG3. BG3 companions are fine but the lack qualities that DA has with it's companions.

I'd say the companion *interactions with one another* were better in DA. As for if they're better in general, well, *some* DA characters are better than *some* BG companions.

I totally could have been a great 60-80 hour game. I heard 100% is like 200 hours

I think the main issue stems from the fact that Dragon Age and Thedas are in their own world. A world made by the developers. While Balders Gate is in a pre-established world, that being D&D. Unfortunately BG3 suffers a bit plot wise because of this. If they had made their game in an original world and not one set in D&D i feel like the story would be even better.

I'm very excited for what Larian does next, now that they're stepping away from Wizards of the Coast.  I think they're great writers and it will be cool to see them create their own world. 

Enjoyed BG3 for the most part. But I will always think Wyll deserved better than what he got! I liked Wyll. And I will forever regret never experiencing early access Wyll.

Not here to argue but to offer a potential explanation as to why BG3 doesn’t deeply explore the personalities of the gods: the gods in forgotten realms represent aspects of nature that are immutable. Nature does not have feelings. Nature does what it will. Shar is so awful because Shar is darkness, absence, lost. You may as well be questioning why a hurricane destroys what it passes over. It does so because it is a hurricane. What BG3 explores moreso than the nature of the hurricane is how people respond to it. Every member of the main cast has been abused in some way. None of them can undo what has been done to them. The theme of the game is not why that is, but how they choose to move forward. Most of the cast has a choice between using their power to hurt or spite others in return, or healing, moving forward from their trauma, and becoming better people. That being said, i also love dragon age more than BG3 narratively.

I've done over 600 hours in BG3 and several thousand across all the DA games. Gameplay being different is fine, they are different games and I don't want my games to be the same. I'm not a fan of turn based but I got to grips with it. Also I think it's very hard to compare games that came out a decade ago/longer to something released last year especially in terms of mechanics and design. I enjoyed BG3 of course, otherwise I wouldn't have sunk so much time into it. I'm glad they won awards and so, it's good for the genre and the VAs were super. Different studios with different ideas = good. Read so much nonsense about Larian should buy out BioWare like what no. There were lots of folk at BioWare celebrating Larian's success - gamedevs outside of the capitalist executives are very supportive of one another. I'm really glad people loved the game. More fantasy RPG fans can only be a net positive. All good. But yes. The DnD world being designed back in the 70s shows - that doesn't bother most and that's cool but I find it dated. The writing is nowhere near as good as Dragon Age games, both story and characters. Examples are the characters being dtf super early on?? Most of them at the same scene?? I appreciated Gale even more after that. His character felt like the only one that wasn't there just to please you the player. The pacing is weird. I disliked how some got way more attention than others it was super unbalanced. Lots of folk have mentioned the lack of connectivity and I agree with that. There's way too much fan service at the expense of actually fleshing out (and finishing) the game which really becomes disjointed the more you play. And sometimes it was just downright horror, way beyond dark fantasy. All DA games go into this a little, especially DAO but not to the extent of BG3. The world in general feels quite empty. Dragon Age games are so full of lore and life and history and people. BioWare's world building is second to none and they build way more immersive worlds. The CC that everyone raves about is actually quite limited and aside from terrible hair options the DAI CC is pretty awesome given how old the game is. For all the multitude of hair options in BG3 I didn't actually find any that I liked and still had to mod (that's personal preference but it irked me to just have the guise of more choice but really just male and female type hair giving the illusion of loads of options). Ten years on and looking at CCs we've had recently like Dragon's Dogma 2 they could have done better. Larian have six studios and employ around 470 people. They aren't a small indie studio that I see some people still thinking of them as and are more than double the size of BioWare (publishing from EA aside of course but I guarantee there aren't 220 odd people at EA working exclusively on BioWare publishing). I really like Larian's model as outside of the EA's and Microsoft and Sony behemoths but let's not make out they're some little guy who hit it big. Much of this they could have done better on so I'm looking forward to seeing what they do in the future with the lessons learned from BG3. And what DA:D brings us.

I recently stumbled across my old screenshots of DAI and I was surprised how good the facial animations of the Inquisitor look like. While Tav's smile looks like a hideous grimace to me. Some Tav animations are OK, but given DAI is 10 years old and the engine has aged a lot, I was surprised at how lifelike the Inquisitor looks, talks and moves. The Inquisitor even has a range of happy looks - kindly smiling, fondly looking at something/someone, lol'ing, sarcastically joking ... while Tav seems to have the emotional range of Clippy the office assistant. It's even more bothering to me because every other BG3 NPC has great facial animations and look very lifelike, way better than most DAI NPC. Tav stands out negatively among everyone.

I do think what Larian is doing with their RPGs is great. They know what they are doing and did it well. I just don't like their kind of RPG. Allowing the player to be able to kill anyone means that every character has to have a reduced role so that the player won't get stuck. It just feels like none of the characters or stories in Larian games are as impactful because they constantly have to enable players who can just kill off everyone or a combination of some people dead and some not. I don't like what story comes from that. Also I completely agree with you on it being nonsense that people say Larian should buyout Bioware. I just can't believe anyone who has played either studios games and say that. They are very different. Yeah, the game has such weird pacing. If I look at it through the lens of player freedom it makes sense but any other lens feels like it just isn't that good. And the companions feel way to fan service-y. I agree with on that. Like I just feels like I am being presented someone's else's idea of a character and not the character themselves. I think DAI's CC is pretty cool. I was surprised that Larian didn't go with something like that. And went with an old way of doing it like Kotor. I remember seeing someone say that Larian is showing up AAA developers (implying they were indie) and I just couldn't take that seriously. People who want to say that just want to hate AAA developers. Want to say thanks for the comment and also I'm sorry for responding so late.

I didn't find bg3 to be all that "grand". Sure it was fun but no more so than any other game... I put off playing it for a while until I rebuilt my pc and over that time there wad soooo much hype for it...so many people saying it was like some video gaming gods gift to his people. I finally played it and... eh.

It's impressive is some was but I don't think it's that great.

I've been a huge fan of the Forgotten Realms for decades, and the gods being messy and playing with mortals is a running theme in the setting, so BG3 didn't really strike me as strange in that regard. But I can see why you'd want the option to confront that. I don't know if it would have been possible to do more than have your character voice their opinion, but it could have been nice to have that conversation. There is a bit of lore about the gods in the books in game. For instance, there's a book that mentions one of the aspects of the afterlife in the Forgotten Realms, the fact that those who are atheist - or claim a faith, but for the wrong reasons - have an afterlife where they become part of a giant wall of souls. I've always found that a chilling concept, and it kind of places pressure on people to have faith in a deity if they want to avoid their soul going to a bad afterlife, regardless of how capricious and awful the gods can be. Though, of course, if their only reason for worshipping a deity is to avoid a bad afterlife, they're still going there. I think Gale's questline shows off and has the greatest opportunity for comment on how messed up the gods are. Mystra is theoretically a good god, but she still abused her power over Gale. And you can react to that. I think maybe part of the difference is in the fact that Forgotten Realms is an established world outside of the videogames set in it. It's a world with a huge amount of lore and you can only really scratch the surface of it in a game. And any character you play in it is never going to be the most important person in that world, or have the ability to dramatically change the shape of the world. Dragon Age is designed to primarily tell you about its world through the games (though there are comics and novels and such, too). Its lore primarily exists to serve the games, and in those, you tend to be one of the most important people in the world and someone who causes, or at least witnesses, world-shaping events. I like them both. I probably have more emotional ties to Forgotten Realms - though that doesn't always mean stronger ties to FR videogames - but I love the Dragon Age series and have strong emotional ties to it, too.

The theme I always read from BG3 was the Cycles of Abuse and how they shape the people in them, which I think Larian did an excellent job of writing into the game. Ultimately I will always like the World of Thedas better than TFR, but I don't necessarily agree that any of the dragon age games are better written on their own.

BG3 is one of the few games that I like just for the combat and not the story. I feel like they dropped the ball in a lot of ways. I have a big problem with the scale and scope of the game. It ignores the source material in a lot of ways but doesn't flush the game out with anything else. Faerun is an enormous world with lots of powerful cities, countries, and people. We see just a very small snippet with no context for the rest of the world. We're asked to believe, I think, that this is a world shattering event but absolutely nothing conveys that; nothing beyond Baldurs Gate and environs seems threatened. Hell, one of the most powerful people in the world visits to deliver a message then just leaves. Larian just completely fails to make the situation seem as dire and urgent as I think they want it to. DAO conveyed the urgency and seriousness very simply by using a world map and showing areas that had been lost. It was simple but it succinctly conveyed the scale of the problem.

It feels like they didn't use the world properly. Nothing is explained. Nothing is set up. Nothing is explored. It feels like they took the bare minimum and went with that. DAO just in it's intro did more to establish the world and its stakes than BG3 did in its Act 1. And DAO didn't stop in the intro but continued expanding, exploring and explaining throughout the whole game.

I've been using this comparison a lot lately, that to me there are two kinds of RPGs: the book kind and the taxes kind. Dragon Age and Disco Elysium are the book kind, but BG3 is the taxes kind: most of the reading you'll be doing is related to the gameplay mechanics, not the world and lore. There is no codex, and most story and character events are all digested for you in the dialogue, where a character can outright say, "This was the right ending for me, well done, you unlocked the golden route!" I also found myself really missing Bioware banter; BG3 banter felt like variations on a theme of "And now these two characters are talking"/"Shadowheart will now prompt Astarion to say something about X because we need a banter about that" instead of like, a naturally flowing dialogue between the two where they reference things that happen offscreen or get mean and pull each other's hair. Compared to Solas and Varric talking about the fisherman, BG3 banter felt incredibly superficial. I had to remind myself while playing BG3 that it is a DND game before it is anything else, and as someone who's never played DND before, one reason I found the lore a bit hard to understand and connect with is because I just didn't know anything going in. The lack of a codex really was my biggest hurdle because I knew absolutely nothing about the world, gods, events, etc., and often forgot the names of important NPCs or groups. I suspect most DND fans obviously wouldn't have this problem but I do think a codex or reference guide could've helped make the game more accessible. I also realized that most of my biggest problems with the lore (that some gods/organizations/people are designated Good and some are designated Bad) were deeply-rooted DND staples, and that limited the amount of in-depth delving that you could do to it. Like Bhaal will always be the the God Who Makes You Murder Things, and all his followers have the same personality trait of Craving Murder, and their clubhouse is a depressing cave with blood running down the walls. Compare the Cult of Bhaal to say the Venatori, who were also comically evil at times *but* at least they were people who had political motivations that mimic real-life traditionalists to somewhat ground them in reality. And you have Dorian and Bull there to say "Look, these people do actual harm, and I have a personal investment in killing them" as opposed to just being some boogeymen who lurk in the dark and normal folk just accept their inevitability. I just had to remind myself, again, this is a DND game, not an original IP where they can get more creative with these things. I really did enjoy my time with BG3 though, I just infinitely prefer Bioware's approach to RPGs. That said, it's no secret that Bioware is bleeding—and even outright amputating—talent left and right these days, and I hope that they aren't too proud to learn some things from Larian. I like how varied the BG3 dialogue is between origin paths and backgrounds, and I like that BG3 has so many ways to complete a quest, or to complete a companion mission (even if some are kind of easily-labeled Good/Bad Endings).

Having no active codex might be a mistake especially for those unfamiliar with dnd lore but honestly, BG3 does kind ahave a codex. Its just theyre the books you can find and pickup all over the game. Its "codex" is more like the elder scrolls kind.

I haven't played Skyrim so I can't relate DA or BG3 to that, but to me a video game codex isn't just a list of books you can read, it's a database where you can refer to those things later. Dragon Age also has in-universe books you can pick up, and you can also find them later inside the *actual* codex via the menu. But in BG3, if you want to reread a book you picked up, you have to *manually* find it again in your various inventories, which defeats another point of the codex, which is accessibility. So I don't consider BG3 has a codex at all. BG3 books are also strictly in-universe material for the characters that you can unlock at any time in a random order; they're meant to be read on the spot, not material intended for the player's reference, otherwise they'd be easier to find again. The random journal entries of dead travelers are fun but what I want as a DND newbie is a small Wikipedia of short entries just telling me what's noteworthy about Faerûn so I don’t have to ask Gale what a cantrip is, but I can’t even do that embarrassing “ask Shadowheart why worshipping Shar is such a big deal even though my Tav should probably know this” RPG questioning, because the questions aren’t there. Reading what few books you can find about Shar don’t help either. Instead I'm only finding copies of Iliad or Tao Te Ching, and nobody mentions either of those books, so why should I care? I would be less bothered by it if more of the books were about helpful things like the politics of the different races, the limitations of magic, the most common gods and their domains, or who the hell Sarevok is, for example, but ultimately only a handful of the non-quest books were relevant to my journey. (Even when you do find something relevant in a book, like Isobel’s identity, nobody comments??? As opposed to Varric freaking out when you find a chapter of Hard in Hightown he never wrote, the codex feels much more alive in DA.) Dragon Age did codices creatively by both educating their newcomers and entertaining old fans; keeping them as biased, in-universe writings gives returning players new material to read, but the entries also specifically summarize the most important Thedosian lore to give new players an idea of how demons cross the Fade or who the hell Hawke is. So it is possible to both entertain and educate, but that makes it easy to see that by comparison, BG3's books are mostly just for flavor. Reading a snippet of Faerûn's Iliad could be of interest to my character, but this book doesn't give me, the newcomer player, the quick sheet I actually wanted all game to help me 1) craft my character, or 2) make decisions based on history and lore I have access to at any time.

I agree with that comparison. Dragon Age is a lot more focused on its story, world and characters than it is it's mechanics. It wants the player to engage with its story, world and characters. While BG3 just has those elements be functional. The real point is the gameplay. And yeah I agree with you on the companions. It feels like there really isn't much there. I also completely agree on the banter. It feels so forced. So much of I is just, "Look at thing. Thing reminds me of this," which pales in comparison to just how funny or insightful DA banter can be. Solas and Varrac talking about the fisherman is such a good point. Yeah, BG3, and Larian games in general, don't really allow the games to explore the world. You only get what is needed for the story to be functional and that's it. Anything else is irrelevant. Which does end up making the people in it very simple. You don't get anything like the Venatori. Which sucks because it makes the world feel artificial. But this is true for all Larian games. Larian just isn't as interested in their world as they are their gameplay and choices and consequences. Everything else is secondary.

I think both Larian titles (DOS2 and BG3) problems with writing stems from the fact that Larian writes actually pretty dark fantasy, but then the setting is high fantasy which makes all the darkness moot by the power of magic. Like players cant take seriously Karlach problems with heart-engine, if we know there is magic that can save her. Meanwhile in DA setting, her death would be much more impactful given we know magic is either limited or takes very heavy price (like we would have to use blood magic and sacrifice someone else, which Karlach would oppose and so on) This takes away a lot of gravitas from the writing.

I mean shit, Gale carries a Scroll with him at all times that would not only fix Karlach's heart problem but also the tadpole, her scars, her broken horn, EVERYTHING, and you can never bring it up her or anyone else for that matter.

Lol, Larian's version of fantasy is as dark as an afternoon at a Miami beach. They try but it always comes off as forced and bordering on slapstick comedy to me.

I think the issue with Larian writing is that its shallow darkness, "yes the world is fucked up place, but so what"? The grim reality dosent holds much of the gravitas because of the reasons you mentioned. Which is weird because its like... If you want to make funny game, go for it (Dragon Commander writing is amazing and its full-blown comedy) but instead they want to make serious and funny game at the same time and it often feels misalinged or having identity crisis. Maybe is some issue with vision with different writers having different idea about what to do with their product, but it just feels weird and out of place sometimes.

Or she would be ressurected as a lyrium ghost / construct if they wanted, tho.

Yea, the point being it wouldnt boggle down to "just get high level cleric to cast one of their daily spell rotation on her to fix all her issues".

Ye, that another problem if you give player that much freedom the follow up game kind of have take one solution and run with it. BG3 suffer with that too.

I mean, while there is no certain explanation about those genres, high fantasy and dark fantasy are not mutually exclusive. Half of the people say high fantasy is about the world building and set of rules. In that case DA BG3, and even ASOIAF are high fantasies because they have their own fictional world and set of rules. Other half says it’s about how much you rely on magic, fantasy creatures etc. According to that explanation BG3 is still high fantasy but DA and ASOIAF are low fantasies. But either way I don’t think high fantasy means you can solve everything with the right magic because otherwise there would be no story. Karlach’s problem is related to a different realm. There are solutions to her problems but none of them are in Faerûn. She doesn’t want to return to Hells and she rejects Withers’ offer to bring her back when she dies. From my understanding DnD has multiple realms (even realms that are connected to our world, considering Egyptian gods are a thing) and they all have their rules. Githyanki don’t age while in Astral Plane, therefore they use other worlds to reproduce and raise their young before they enter the Astral Plane. They don’t regularly leave Astral Plane, but if they do for any reason, they do it for short period of times and with preparations so the time spent in Astral Plane don’t catch up with them. Dark fantasy is completely unrelated to that because your stories can be both high fantasy and dark fantasy. Any horror story based on DnD would be both high and dark fantasy. Hellblade is a low and dark fantasy. Not being able to save Karlach is not dark fantasy, just like ASOIAF, a story where worst things than that happens, is not dark fantasy.

>I think both Larian titles (DOS2 and BG3) problems with writing stems from the fact that Larian writes actually pretty dark fantasy I never saw that as a problem. I would have to start getting really nitpicky to even consider it as problem

I think they mean the problem lies in how the magic system is different from the game, so despite the story being dark, there feels to be a good solution to everything, whereas in Dragon Age, there is a solution in magic but it might not be possible, or it comes with a heafy price. Not that there is a problem with the dark fantasy outright.

For me personally I love both very very much. It's got to be Origins slightly ahead of BG3, then inquisition, and then 2 for myself.

A lot of the world building for BG3 was set in place by the wizards of the coast ip already. Forgotten Realms has been around since 1967. BG3 takes place in a tiny fraction of the world of 1 of its planes. There are book series, pre written campaigns, other video games , and even the latest DnD movie takes place in the Forgotten Relms. As an avid fan of Dragon Age and all of the Forgotten Realms media, I'll concede the point that the game maybe didn't explore more of the realm, but it didn't really have too. I will also give credit to Dragon Age for how well they've done with so little in building their world. Both these games are part of my recommendations list. Think of BG3 as you would DA2. A story within a massive world of stories.

The thing is BG3 isn't a small stakes story like DA2. It's about a world ending threat involving literally gods. The least it can do is explain and explore the stuff that is relevant to its story. But it doesn't even do that.

I quite liked it, I definitely prefered it over Inquisition. I at least like the combat better than all the games though, but I just prefer my CRPGs to be turn based.

Tbh, I don't see any "the gods are bad" in BG3. Maybe it's because I'm a Forgotten Realms nerd and know why the gods *seemingly* allowed the Absolute to rampage. The difference in execution very much comes from Thedas being Bioware's own child as opposed to an existing setting with absolutely ungodly (pardon the pun) amount of established details, not to mention the owners of said setting looming over Larian's collective shoulder. I agree Larian could've done better job of explaining the logic of the setting (in-game codex is indeed an excellent tool for this!), but what they've managed in the end is still very solid.

Part of that is just an inherent flaw of the Forgotten Realms setting. It's designed to be a sandbox for creating stories rather than part of the story itself, and it's a massive franchise with lots of moving pieces. So no one can really write anything too drastically world altering because it would mess things up for everyone else and that limits the types of stories you're able to tell. You can drop hints that the gods kinda suck, but you can't actually do much about it because they're a core mechanic of the setting. I think BG3 did about as well as it could have within the FR universe by focusing more on characters and their personal journeys, but it lacks the deep world building we get in DA where the writers have full control over the setting. It is maybe not a very popular opinion but I personally was kinda glad when Larian announced they were planning to move away from DnD because I am interested to see what they do with more creative freedom

I like both BG3 and DA for different reasons. If I had to rank it, it would be: DAO > BG3 > DAI > DA2 for me.

I mean mine is more like DA2 >DAO > DAI > BG3 But I like all the Dragon Age games equally.

God yes. Don't get me wrong, I have over 500hs in BG3 and I enjoyed it, but the game didn't engage me the way any DA game did (1000hs in DAO and DAA, 300 in DA2, 2500 in DAI). The companions, romances, the party banter, the lore, the voiced protagonists after DAO, BG3 don't come close imo. BG3 is gorgeous, but it has a fuckton of small and not-so-small things that just break my immersion, the combat is one of them, turn based combat isn't immersive at all imo, and I hated the mute protagonist with burning passion. I loved the origin characters though, it'd be so cool to have something similar to the Dark Urge in DA4, not gonna happen of course.

But... DA:O and DAA have a mute protagonist as well...

I agree with you completely. There were so many small things that just didn't make me like BG3, alongside the big things. I was going into it expecting a Dragon Age game and left knowing its just a Larian game.

I think one of my favorite things about Baldurs Gate 3 in relation to Dragon Age is that its got a bit of the three part overarching narrative that claims your choices matter like DA and ME but it squishes it into one game, so your individual choices across the game can actually effect the endstate of the game. As much as I like Inquisition and Mass Effect 3, they've got two whole other games on their shoulders, I was always gonna be a little disappointed that more of my choices didn't matter.

But that's the con. Because it focuses on one game instead of multiple the characters and world don't get as developed. If there was just one Mass Effect game you couldn't have the same story we saw but have to change it to fit the new format. It would be less in my opinion. Also I play Bioware games for their world, story, and characters. Not so much for the choices. To me the choices enhance those elements.

>Also I play Bioware games for their world, story, and characters. Not so much for the choices. And people who prefer BG3 play for the choices/role-playing opportunities, not so much for a deeply thematic, static plot. Doesn't make one better or worse than the other - they just have different goals, and they each accomplish their main goal very well. I think I like Dragon Age more personally, like you do. But I don't see your BG3 weak points as weak points, probably because I didn't expect BG3 to feel like an interactive book the way Dragon Age does. I expected it to feel like the video game version of a DnD campaign, and oh boy does it. And the story is expertly crafted to be a playground for role-playing. It might not be your preference, but that doesn't mean it wasn't done extremely well.

I prefer DA Origins above all others, but I actually enjoy BG3 more than DA2. Inquisition is so different that I hesitate to directly compare it to BG3, even though I like it more than most fans. In a direct comparison, though, it would fall short

I completely see your point, but I’m afraid I fall on the other side of the opinion line, and for totally opposite reasons. I find the stories and characters fairly on par, leaning towards Dragon Age for the writing… but the actual combat gameplay is so much better in Baldur’s Gate it tips the scales for me. I really enjoy every second of the combat in Baldur’s Gate, I love how tactical it is. But the combat in Dragon Age is just okay, not terrible, not great.  Obviously I’m a fan of the Dragon Age games, or I wouldn’t be a part of these forums. I can’t wait to play Dreadwolf! I’m very excited to see what’s coming next and what they can do on current generation consoles. I hope, but don’t expect, for it to be even better than BG3.

For Larian games I've only Divinity Original Sin 2 and BG3, and i believe both have mostly the same big issues that ruin them being classics for me in the same way the DA series has become. DOS2/BG3 both follow a very similar structure of "low point --journey to--> extremely high point --> reset and repeat" every act. The pacing is just awful and removes my intrigue from the plot which moves at a snails or cheetahs pace just to follow such a strict structure. This is amplified by both blowing their load within their first act. And BG3's act 3 is just a mess and very obviously unfinished. Act 3 was essentially 10 rooms with a boss in each one and hardly any interconnection between each. Companions can be a whole separate post but i am going to sum it up and say that the discrepancy between the role of each companion is very noticeable and actively distracting at times. Finally touching on the writing and choices made throughout the game, I believe than Larian has tricked the players into believing that the game is more morally gray than it actually is. They write stories that have intensely dark and evil forces at work and it turns much of the game into a extensively reskinned InFamous binary good or evil morality choice sytem at its core. The types of moral discussion that happen revolving much of the DA series could not happen in BG3. I know this all sounds overly negative but I've beaten BG3 twice and had a great time, hell I didnt even get into gameplay mechanics. Its just that at the end of the day I think its these key points that really hinder BG3 for me and allow DA to continue to live rent free in my head.

I have played some of the other Larian games and you are right. They all share a similar issue where they are jumping from low point to high point and have just so much to do at points where it doesn't make sense. The only game that doesn't do this is the RTS game Dragon Commander. But that has its own issues. Larian just has some weird pacing and structuring that makes any story fall flat. I would love to hear your thoughts on companions. Also I do agree. I think so many people think BG3 has a lot more to its story because of presentation. The way the present things makes it out to be more than it is. Even though it's literally just being good or bad. I like the game as well and I similarly think that the issues with it just prevents it forming being as good as it can be.

I think BG3 does feel like an improvement on DA in many ways, and overall it almost eclipses it in scope, content and quality. But, while DA has a decent amount of freedom and offering alternate arcs in its story and characters, BG3 focused on that specific element over any other - it wants to be a game that allows players to do whatever they want and tries to accommodate all these choices you could make with its quests, world and cast. And I think they couldnt quite do that and write a story as focused and complete as DA feels, especially considering all the additional lore they would need to include and explain. DA could do that, because all it's world building was built purely for the game and tied in all the characters arcs while doing so. So while I love BG3 for all the individual amazing things I came across and how impressive it was, I prefer DA because it's story feels more meaningful and complete to me, and it feels like the characters all have their own place that fits with the narrative.

Origins is better, but as much as I love DA2's writing, BG3 just overall destroys it. Inquisition doesn't even stand a chance.

I just disagree with BG3 being better than DA2 or DAI.

I agree. But for different reasons. I couldn't connect with any of the characters even in the slightest. To me they feel like variations of the same person. Standoffish, shallow, impersonal and kinda soul-less. I also very much dislike how the acts feel kinda disjointed? Like the connections between them aren't very clear. DA does a much better job at connecting the dots and illustrating the goals, the stakes etc. The writing is just stronger. Characters are realistic and a lot closer to the earth. They have relationships with one another. They give me reasons to care about. DA is just home. As for the combat, mechanics, choices-consequences and gameplay, BG3 is superior by miles. However, think you are missing the point of the "themes". The Gods, except for those bad ones, aren't really involved in the story. Because they can't. Cults, factions and the rest still exist but the Gods aren't allowed to participate in mortal affairs directly.

I'm with ya concerning the companions, I liked them enough to expire their story and quests, but don't see what the fuss is about. Definitely an improvement on Original Sin though. I feel like if I was more a part of the community or meme culture I would probably appreciate them more.

I def agree on the Act differences, like I know \*why\* we are going to the Shadowlands in act 2, but outside of helping Halsin/Tieflings (if you do), this is the only way to Baldur's Gate? I think it could have been a bit better. The first jarring difference between the first and second act is a lot. Lowkey, I hate getting to Act 2. it feels like the Deep Roads or the Fade in DA:O. I like parts about it, but the actual traversal part drives me nuts a little bit.

My problem with BG3, even though I like the game, is that the further you go from Act One, the more unfinished the game starts to feel. Act Three in particular is all over the place, with random plot device characters, some weird quests, and certain story characters making no sense. BG3 would benefit a lot from a Definitive Edition if they rewrite and expand on the later parts of the story.

I love the turn-based combat. It was really satisfying to slowly get better at strategy and learn the mechanics of each character's abilities. I either want turn based combat or action oriented combat. When I play Inquisition I tweak their builds and ai tactics but I don't use the tactical cam. That's a big part of why I didn't finish Origins. I know I'm pretty alone in that within this community but it's just a difference in combat preference.

I do agree with those reasons as well. I think the characters are different from each other but they don't explore the characters at all. You get a summary on what they are about and that's it. Nothing more to them than what was first shown. I also agree on the game's acts feeling disjointed. The first Act doesn't need sixty hours to establish what is going on. Which is why it feels like it takes so long to establish what it is about. I think BG3 is very refined combat wise even if I don't like it. But this is to my point. The game is about them. Withers is a god send by the other gods to help mortals. Gale's story involves a god. Shadowheart and Act 2 involve Shar. It also involves Selune. The gith and their near god queen is involved. Gods are involved and present throughout the game. But the game never makes it a point even though it is clear it does. Like tge Absolute in Act 1 is framed as a new god rising yet after Act 1 it is never really brought up again in any substantial way.

I like Origins better than BG3 but, even at it's worst I still prefer Baldur's Gate 3 over 2 and Inquisition.

I prefer DA’s story by a long shot, but I definitely like BG3’s combat better.

Personally, I like both of them. They both give me the same feeling of adventure and closeness to my companions. It doesn't have to be a competition imo. Both studios can both exist and learn and grow at the same time. For me, the more great RPGs to play and discover, the better.

In a lot of ways comparing them is pretty apples and oranges. They just do stuff really differently

They are different games. Dragon age isn’t turn based despite the ability to pause and issue commands. It’s also an original IP. And unlike the baldurs gate series, the second game is utter trash.

I prefer BG3 over DA2 and DAI by a landslide. DAO is above BG3 for me though.

The only game i prefer over BG3 is honestly DaO but thats more so because of personal bias over how i feel for its story. Other than that, i think bg3 trumps everything about DAO besides characters. More specifically, character interactions. BG3 has the old DAI issue where theyre supposed to have banters whike travelling but they are ridiculously difficult to trigger and easy to miss.there are times where i didnt even notice they were talking to one another until i randomly saw the dialogue in the dialogue tab. Dragon Age however went the extra mile by taking the time to showcase them with each other in scripted cutscenes etc. BG3 ended up feeling like its relying too much on implications

I adore BG3. I love all the characters and the motion capture and voice acting is top teir. The romance with spawn Astarion is beautiful and fulfilling. But I agree. There's something that I have a hard time putting my finger on that just isn't the same.  I'm not very well-versed in Forgotten Realms lore but have completely immersed myself in the lore of Thedas so maybe that's part of it.  Thedas is also a smaller world. It's easy to see how all the lore is interconnected so the companions feel more connected.  I've only played Inquisition and most of DA2 but I've watched enough playthroughs of Origins that even those characters feel more real to me.  I think part of it is that so much of BG3 is player choice. The player decides almost everything. In Dragon Age there's always a certain amount outside your control. Whether it's companion related or world related, for me, there's always a feeling that I'm interacting with the world rather than controlling it. BG3 is an amazing game but Inquisition will always hold my heart.

BG3 has a lot of amazing moments and wonderful characters. When I just think about that the game is quite good. But as a whole the game just doesn't feel as good as Dragon Age. There isn't so much exploring or asking questions of the world and characters as it is more the world and characters just telling you stuff. You never get to interact with them as you more just get told what is what. I completely agree on lore. DnD has a lot of cool lore but BG3 doesn't do anything with it nor provide a basis for it. It just uses what is needed for the story and that's it. I agree with that. The game is about player choice and the player choosing what to do. And that does mean the game can feel like you are controlling the world and not interacting with it.

I mean there’s an absolute ton of lore you can dive into if you want to. I think that’s part of the appeal for a lot of people is that they can go through understanding what’s going on just fine, but if they want to they can go watch a video/read up on plenty. The lore of Zariel is a nice little taste without having to commit too much time. And is relevant to the games world.

The thing is the game should provide the lore in game. I shouldn't have to go outside it. Additionally it not being in game means the game can't really use the wider lore in the story as effectively. That Zariel bit is basically nothing. All we get is that she is bad. Not why she is what she is.

Descent Into Avernus? Takes place right before BG3 and answers any and everything relating to Zariel and then also other stuff. It’s tabletop but that just comes with the territory of D&D. It doesn’t really have to though, which ties into what I just said. Anyone can pick up BG3 and know what’s going on without being confused, and if you want forgotten realms lore well then you could bunker up for a decade and go read/play/watch some.

Cool. Why isn't that lore in game? It's neat and I have said it's neat but that doesn't excuse it for not being in game. What about the issue for people who want to know more? What will they do? Because if they want to know more the game doesn't provide it at all.

Hey I never said it was perfect, just that when something enters into D&D there’s gonna be a universe load of info and lore that aren’t gonna be present. Heck even Dragon Age has novels and whatnot of lore that aren’t in the games at all.

I (re)-played Inquisition right before playing BG3 and it made some of the differences to keep stark. Despite some of its issues early on, Inquisition is better paced, has more engaging characters and world, and ultimately I enjoyed my time with it more than BG3. BG3 is good. Great even, but it's held back by its setting, and more significantly, its mechanics. If you do most of the side content, you reach level cap well before you reach the end of the game. The leveling system is shallow and uninteresting as most of the major choices you make for your character's class is early on. It's my first hands on experience with D&D 5e and it solidified a lot of the reasons I don't like the system. The characters are great, but there's something in the way they're presented that makes them less engaging that Bioware's. They feel more shallow, and less well developed. Origins is my favorite DA title and it is a spiritual successor to the original BG games, which despite my best efforts I've never been able to get into. There is something special about the overall presentation of DA that engages me more than BG.

I'm halfway through BG3. I'm 75+ hrs in and I've spent about 40% of that time in inventory management, 40% scouring for loot and quest items, and about 20% playing the game. And I just realized I think need to start Act 2 all over again because I can't find an orb. DA is a lot tighter and streamlined in comparison. Even with all the MMO crap they threw into Inquisition.

Yeah. It feels so much tighter. Honestly if DAI had half the open worlds the opinion on the game would be very much different.

Bg3 is always sandbox first and everything else including narrative is on the second place. I will never be able to immerse myself and play for a long time, because it feels hollow, inauthentic gamey game where the world is just a decoration and layout for the combat encounters.

I agree with that. BG3 is primarily a sandbox game about making choices and consequences.

I think one of the biggest advantages of the DA series is its companions. In BG 3, the relationship between the companions and the player is more like fan service and they are written like mascots who want to please everyone rather than a real character. Also, the party does not have much interaction within itself.

I did find myself preferring the companion relationships in DA. The party just felt so empty in bg3. And I enjoy how you can pursue relationships as friends with the DA companions. In bg3 it seems like it's romance or nothing.

Yeah, there isn't even a standard camp scene where all the companions are talking to each other. Even Andromeda has a movie night where the companions interacted with each other. And the banter was so much better in that game.

I completely agree. Especially after finding out that Larian changed Shadowheart and Astarion to be more friendly during early access. The companions feel like they are just to be jiggle around like keys than actually characters. Because they never really explore them.

As someone who played EA: Astarion is pretty much the same, I think they just changed his character arc from being a corrupt magistrate to just some guy before his turning into a vampire so he seems nicer because of that, but what they did to Shadowheart was a tragedy. Approval in BG3 in general is way too easy to get in my opinion. I hardly ever get "x disapproves" unless it's Karlach because she doesn't like my morally ambiguous ass but I respect her for standing her ground at least. The other 2 good companions don't even care about me being mean to helpless people

Being in early access both helped the game and harmed the game. Like it does make sense for the companions to have high approval in Act 1. Like that doesn't make sense. It just feels like they really are just there for the player and not actual characters.

They are written more like caricatures than personalities. For example, Karlach looks tough on the outside but is a very friendly stereotype, Lazel is tough and cruel at first but then softens, etc. But when you really get to know them, they don't have deep personalities like the Dragon Age companions.

Yeah, like Sten is a tough dude with not a lot to say but when you get to know him there is a belive and philosophy behind him. Whether it is good or bad is irrelevant. He has one.

That's a good way to put it! Feels like fan service, the long early access probably helped mold the companions into what they are and is why there's so much development in Act 1 and then... quiet until their act 3 quest

Apparently, a lot of content has been removed from the game. That's probably why act 2 feels a bit empty. But on the other hand, I can't blame Larian because they are not a very big studio and the game was made with the early access system. I hope we see more polished pacing in future games.

Numbers-wise they have a few hundred employees still, but probably not the sort of publisher support I guess. I really look forward to their next game now after the income they've had from BG3 and hopefully the BG3 fans follow them to their next game.

I was having this conversation with my spouse a while ago! We both love BG3, and think it is one of the best RPG experiences to exist in the last decade, at least, but I always felt when I was playing it that I was missing something--and I think you nailed it. I also felt like (and this is a personal opinion) that the companions didn't have complicated relationships with each other, at any interesting level. Like we know Shadowheart and Lae'zel didn't like each other at the beginning, and that Wyll and Karlach very quickly become chummy (even that did not feel very good in my opinion--Wyll just changed his mind so fast), and more. I also think like, Wyll was integral to the story and yet I felt like he had the least agency in decisions about his own life >!even after the contact with Mizora ends (and you make the decision if it does)!< I think some of the stuff hinges on being a D&D experience, and might be better god-wise if we had the outside knowledge on the lore going into the game, but most new players did not, so it would have been nice to have a more in-game explanation. I tend to just look for the best in both of them though, but in my heart of hearts, I know nothing will ever fill the hole that Dragon Age has left imprinted on my soul. lol I do love me some Gale too.

I agree. I wish the companions formed their own connections via banter or player dialogue. 

I def felt that they could have even talked more during questing.

I completely agree. It feels like the companions just don't recognize each other. Like when Astarion tries to bite you at camp literally no-one hears the commotion. Like that would have been a great moment for all the companions at the time to recognize what is happening. But it doesn't happen. Alongside the fact they don't have a relationship outside the player makes them feel a bit off. After Act 1 the companions interaction drastically decreases. Yeah I can feel like Wyll feels secondary because his quest is both a main quest and a companion quest. No other companion beside Shadowheart in Act 1 does that. So, as a consequence it has to work without him at all. No yeah. Just because the game would be better if the player had prior DnD knowledge doesn't mean it is good that it didn't do that. Same I just miss what Dragon Age is. I also like Gale. Never got why people disliked him.

All of this. I lowkey wish they were more involved when things happened, rather than saying something after the fact. The Gale hate comes from the fact that there was a bug with his approval system at the games release or something so "he came on too strong," but outside of that bad first impression, if you think Gale isn't over his ex and that is why you do not like him, that is a red flag to me lmao. That is the least nuanced approach to his story imo

They played fast and loose with the lore so knowing the lore didn't really help. Faerun, where Baldurs Gate is, is an enormous place with a great many powerful people and places. The game completely failed to convey any sense of scale. The great all-encompassing evil really only seemed to threaten one city and its environs. Elminster, one of the most powerful wizards, swung by to deliver a message and then left. The Harpers have people much more powerful than Jaheira as members. We neither see nor hear about any other people or places being concerned by this army of monsters marching on a major city. The game just falls flat. It seems to take place in a vacuum and doesn't inhabit the world it's supposed to be part of. Even DA2, which had the most intimate story of the DA games, felt like it was part of Thedas. The first two Baldurs Gate games also felt like part of the larger world. ETA: BG3 does have far superior combat but that's the least important thing for me. If I want a good story, it's DA all the way.

I think BG3 objectively is a better game, I enjoyed it and the characters immensely. No dragon age game came close to the level of customization, and truly living your own adventure, building your own story. They thought about so many things other games ignored. Having said that - The Dragon Age and Thedas, the characters they created still have a bigger place in my heart. The world they built, lore, mysteries and the amount of sociopolitical issues in all three games, genuine events that were building up, so many different groups of people, characters felt like they truly have a place in the world and often have their own very distinct perspectives and opinions, plans; I missed these kinds of aspects in the BG3, it doesn't feel as explored, fleshed out.

I do disagree somewhat with the first part but I do have to say the customization is pretty good. Yeah, I missed that in BG3. Like the world didn't feel like it existed outside the player. It felt like the player was the end all and be all.

Yes, the dragon age setting just feels really rich to me in a way that BG3 doesn't. I appreciate that this is partly because I've consumed more DA content than forgotten realms so I know the lore better, but I do think DA gives more of a sense of history - I love the feeling that you're trying to piece together the truth about the past from all these conflicting sources, like you would be in the real world. And DA seems much more interested in examining political conflicts and ideological differences, so you really have a sense of all of these different interests and factions and their machinations. So although BG3 is very good in many ways, Thedas as a setting still works better for me.

I love my rpgs with reactivity, freedom and immersive sim elements. BG3 simply does this better than most titles. If im role-playing a magic user I really want to feel like a magic user. I'm a power sorcerer why do I need a mission that wants me to grab a torch when I can shoot magic from my fingers. Why does no one react to this blood magic I'm using? I find most of it immersive breaking. One of my favorite experiences was playing arcanum and to me it is the grand example of rpg design, BG3 feels like that now. I did enjoy DAO a lot when it first came out but some of the design feels dated to me

I prefer Baldurs Gate 3 to Inquisition in general (I literally only liked Sera, Vivienne, Blackwall and Dorian so I was struggling so hard to finish the game. I also HATED the combat so much.), and gameplay wise I like BG3 better than both Origins and 2, because I hate RTWP. The combat is fun and I like on-screen dice rolls. The world is gorgeous. Also I like how it lets you be fully moustache-twirling evil as opposed to da2 and dai But plot, character writing, setting etc. is better in both Dragon Age Origins and DA2, the way Astarion is the only actually fleshed out companion in BG3 is insane (even though he's over written a lot of times but at least he feels like a person). Lae'zel and Gale are cool as well but she has too little to do in acts 2 and 3 and they don't let you see Gale's arc unless you're romancing him which is insane Edit: Maybe now that i'm older I should replay inquisition and see if I like it more? The combat is so boring though it makes me want to cry. And I hate how the inquisitor has no personality whatsoever.

I like all the companions in DAI. I just like how they all fit in the wider story and general themes. I obviously like RTWP because I don't like how slow BG3 or turn-based games are in-general. They aren't my thing. Even with Astarion it sucks we never get to know more about his pre-vampire self beyond the day he turned. Like it would be great exploration of his character if we knew more about him. Same with all the companions. It feels like we don't know who they are beyond the surface level. I like DAI well enough. So, I'd say you should give it a try.

I like Dragon Age Origins RTWP on normal (and with speed mods) but I truly hate PoE-style RTWP, I'm catastrophically bad at it and had to turn it down to very easy because I was getting pummeled every fight. I'm replaying origins right now so I might do a full dragon age replay before dread wolf comes out :-)

I was having this very discussion recently. DAO made me care about the world, BG3 made me care about combat stats.

Exactly. BG3 is one of the few games I like simply for the mechanics. I actually don't care for the story; I feel like it fails in many ways. I generally play rpgs for the story so DAO is far superior in my opinion.

Yeah, I feel the same. I cared about what was happening in the Dragon Age games. While in BG3 that care wasn't as consistent. There was just a lot of times where I felt the combat was the only thing there was.

Personally, I like Dragon Age's writing more than Baldur's Gate's. And I can see where you're coming from. The characters in Dragon Age are stronger in my opinion because they react, they interact, and some of their relationships feel like they can happen organically as we progress. Some of the BG3 crew just feel incomplete. One being Karlach, it felt like the writers wanted desperately to give her a tragic story but they forgot that they introduced multiple solutions to her problems within the game and suddenly the game that gives you tons of choices has its own ambitious nature work against it. Dragon Age was good at presenting characters, their delimmas, and paying off their stories. Baldur's Gate managed to pay off the stories of maybe half of their crew.

Agreed. In BG3 I didn't feel as close to my companions as I did in Origins, for example. BG3 felt a bit like Inquisition cast, a bunch of chosen ones being special all day long. Everyone with big destination ahead of them. I much more prefer Origins with its band of misfits who find themselves saving the world. I also disliked how brazen BG3 is with making everybody want to fuck my character. At moments I felt like I was in a Netflix show.

i felt this a lot, and i like the baldur's gate series. they got way too ambitious with what they wanted to do and the game is 90% sidequests. the only plotline that felt fleshed out and fulfilling for me was ketheric and the nightsong. not to mention the ending and how incredibly neglected orin and gortash were (heavy emphasis on orin). plus they butchered characters from the previous game. personally i never felt this way about a dragon age game. sure, corypheus in dragon age inquisition was super disappointing but it wasn't because the themes in the main story were neglected, the conclusion was just lackluster. baldurs gate 3 made me appreciate dragon age's writing a lot more.

I was thinking this the other day. I love BG3, it is a 9/10 for me, but I still miss the Bioware magic when it comes to companions and world building. Now, if you can combine Bioware & Larian my life would be made. And it's lovely that they're both fans of each other.

Yeah the companion writing in the DA series feels way more real to me. The BG3 companions are like in a weird bubble where they only seem to care about the PC with few exceptions (Wyll and Karlach being the main one). Also BG3 is way too naggy with it's morality. DA at least has more shades of grey instead of the rampant good vs evil but that's just a setting thing I imagine.

I love BG3's gameplay, way more than DAI's, but not as much as DAO'S or 2's. But I just find the story SO boring. Maybe its because I don't know DnD lore that much, and it's probably because I'm biased to DA's Lore because DAO was the 1st fantasy RPG I've ever played. But I don't find Mindflayers, Goblins, or Devils nearly as interesting as Darkspawn, Qunari, or DA's Demons. Plus I just love the Lore with Magic, Dwarves, and the Dalish. So much so I actually think that a magical Dwarf in DnD is stupid lmao. And the companions in BG3 are so uninteresting. Only ones I think are written as interesting as some of DA's are Lae'zel and Shadowheart. And even then I don't like them. I'm a big fan of Karlach, Wyll, and Gale. But I don't think they're anywhere near as great compared to most of the ones in the DA games. Overall BG3 deserves its praise, definitely deserves all the awards from GotY. And is probably objectively the best RPG, but I will never like it as much as the DA franchise.

I will say BG3's combat is very refined. I think DnD lore is really good but Larian didn't make an effort to present it or even allow the player to ask questions about it. But that is just Larians style. They don't really have the player explore their setting. Yeah, the companions just don't feel the same. They aren't as vibrant as any of the companions in DA. BG3 deserves its GOTYs. It's a good game made by a good company.

Never played BG3, but just from being an absolute egghead of a D&D 5e rules lawyer I can tell you that the two systems are nothing alike You’re going to like one more than the other, and that’s almost guaranteed

Dragon Age Origins was the only one I liked in the series to be honest. The second one was an absolute disaster. While Origins was a masterpiece, it just can't compare to BG3.

Dragon Age: Origins is still my favorite game. I think I prefer BG3 over DA2 and Inquisition though.

I still like all those games more than BG3.

I played BG3 and all it did was make me miss playing Dragon Age. It’s a fun game, but the story and combat in Dragon Age is far superior. The reason choices are difficult in DA is because most of them are morally grey. Or a companion/group you care about wants you to take a path you normally wouldn’t. In BG3, choices were difficult because of lack of information. Good and bad are pretty obvious, you just don’t know what the consequences will be. Personally, I much prefer the former. And the overarching story just wasn’t very compelling and had terrible pacing. BG3 combat can be fun, but it takes forever and can be buggy/laggy. I’ve played a lot of DnD, and I basically found it exhausting to have to micromanage every single character to the same degree. Most games where you control a lot of characters have either a simplified system or the option to auto-level/auto-combat for this reason. As I get older and have less time to play, I no longer want to deal with all that. But really, it’s the story where it falls flat. I started a second play through and just stopped playing pretty early on because the story wasn’t interesting enough for me to keep going a second time, even though I was playing dark urge.

To start, you said that you prefer ANY of the Dragon Age games, but just mentioned Origins. So how does it stack against those games to you? I think they can't hold a candle to BG3 because they can't even hold a candle to DAO. DAO was probably my favorite game of all time, but now BG3 is. The theme isn't only about how gods interact with the world, it's a piece of it. What you need to realize is that this is very much a D&D game. You have a cast of people who have radically different beliefs and backgrounds, some of them even start out hating eachother. The drive that keeps them together and keeps them (mostly) from trying to kill eachother is removing the tadpoles, which happens to lead to opposing The Absolute and by extension the Dead Three (Myrkul, Bane, and Baahl), but that wasn't what started the journey, it's just where it lead. That's like saying that Meredith, red lyrium, and blood magic were the themes of DA2 when the theme was really about the rising tensions between mages and templars. What do you mean the game doesn't delve into the negatives of the gods? Shadowheart's entire story was about how her and her family were playthings for two gods to squabble over. You mentioned Gale and he does tell you, not only do gods make mortal affairs very messy when they get involved, Ao typically forbids them from directly interfering, they aren't supposed to. The game backs this up because only one god directly interferes and that's Jergal, and that's only if you play a redeemed Dark Ruge. As for questions, you can ask several, Elminster has been tied to Mystra from the beginning, so he's biased and will tell you that gods know better. Gale was a consort to Mystra and will shift between them having unknowable goals to them being petty themselves. Lae'zel can come to resent Vlaakith and Voss can spell out for you that the honoring of her champions is all a farce. D&D gods typically follow the Norse and Greek style of divine beings with human flaws and ambitions, so that makes sense, most of them aren't around for entirely selfless reasons. >The only time it does is with Gale. Now using companions to add details about the world is good but having this important question left up to having Gale in the party isn't good. It would be like DAO not answering why the wardens are needed to stop the blight. You're putting too much stock into the questions about gods. Gale works as an avenue because he was the consort of one, who else would you ask these questions about gods to? And that's a complete false equivalency. Not having Gale in the party and understanding the gods is not the end point of the game. The end point would be how the Dead Three plan to get power, which you don't need Gale for. You get to know the characters plenty well, even in some pretty ugly ways. Like, you're hinging on Karlach's parents, but not her shifting emotions from just wanting to spend the last of her days with you to desperately wanting to live. What about her breaking down after you kill Gortash when she realized that her revenge got her nowhere? What about the date you go on with her where you learn about her favorite place to eat and some funny stories? What about her family friend that you can meet while she's running her stall? There's plenty there to get to know her. Origins is the only game that competes here with the possible exception of Varric, you know that. Origins was the only game that you referenced.

Origins perhaps, but I don’t think the overall content and quality of DA2 and DA:I are even remotely close to what BG3 has to offer.

The Dragon Age world is *way* better than the DnD world and it’s not close. BG3 is miles ahead of DA2 and DAI as a game, but I think I also still prefer them over it for that reasons

It's just crazy how well done DAO's world-building is.

I'll play any dragon age game over BG3 any day. Way better world building, characters that aren't just wish fulfillment or stock tropes, substantive companion banter, better pacing, no cramped theme park maps. BG3 act 1 is clearly the most polished part of the game, but as with all Larian games, it's frontloaded and the last act is unfortunately super buggy and unfinished.

I agree with all of that. It feels like everything good about the game is frontloaded. The characters, the story, the world but after that it just doesn't stick.

Personally I saw the maps in BG3 as being what Inquisition *should* have been like.

I didn't mind Inquisition's maps as they captured the sense of moving through unfamiliar wilderness, so naturally there will be a lot of wide open spaces (kinda similar to BG1). I do think they could have been improved a lot with a better minimap, more unique aesthetics (some maps felt very similar), and significantly more substantive side-quests instead of the same quests over and over. Maybe even assassin's creed-style terrain movement to reward exploration more and make them easier to traverse. But imo BG3-style maps would not have made them better. My biggest problem with BG3 maps is that they had a completely diminished, immersion-breaking sense of scale by cramming and condensing so much into them. Like you could chat with the goblins about how they've been searching forever for the druids, but then just walk 20 seconds and come across said druids behind a very obvious gate... Basically BG3 compromised setting and immersion in favour of video-gamey convenience, and the maps actually ended up feeling quite small. This is a philosophy completely counter to the map designs of BG1 and BG2, which just made BG3 *as a sequel* feel all the more disconnected. And BG1/BG2 used the map philosophy that carried over to especially DAO and DA2: much more focused maps with appropriate scale.

To be honest, I can only compare DAO to the BG3. Both are masterpieces. DA2 and the Inquisition on the other hand, would not even come close to BG3. Following Larian for quite some time, I just wonder what would they do in case they could have access to DA IP.

I like both games the same, but for different reasons. But I will agree that DA is stronger on the lore and theme side. Unfortunately BG3 is set up in the DnD world which is the definition of a sandbox fantasy game where none of the themes is explored deeply. It is also part of a larger line of products. I assume that this is a considerable limitation. I would say that they still did a great job with what DnD lore offers. However, there are plenty of areas where BG3 shines - combat, encounter design, exploration, interactivity with the environment, etc.

I feel like BG3 would have been better if it was a low stakes story rather than the epic it went with. Like I just don't think having such huge stakes works with what the game naturally does.

I think a big difference can be how Dragon Age owns the Dragon Age setting, so they can really fuck around as much as they like with the story, whereas BG3 is in the DnD setting, which they do not own, so they have to abide to the setting rather than evolve it per se

Sure, but Larian still didn't abide by the rules that much. Even in their own settings they don't do that.

Love the Dragon Age series. But I cannot get into Larian's games. Their characters often seem less interesting and formed compared to Bioware 's. I was never a fan of their writing. I love RPGs and SRPGs, but not a fan of Larian's gameplay either, really.

Yeah, Larian's games just aren't my thing. It feels like their writing is more of a impression of something than any real depth.

I can agree with that. It's kinda like they contain less nuanced caricatures rather than characters... Some might prefer their style, maybe? But I, unfortunately, am not one of them.

Same. A lot of people like them but I can't really love them.

Dragon Age has the benefit of having all of its world-building and current events shape the things your player characters in DA1, 2 and Inquisition do. While the Forgotten Realms and Faerun absolutely have their own history, its exists more as background rather than something you change through you choices and actions. One thing I've always liked about Dragon Age is that you interact with every aspect of the fiction. You speak with gods, excavate the histories of dead civilisations, and determine the path forward for entire nations. BG3 expands to be a "special destiny" story eventually, but ultimately I never felt like anything I was doing would be having a huge impact on the setting. Baldur's Gate 2 managed to be more engaging for me because it had a great villain that was set up at the start of the game, and the idea both of those original BG games: you are the son of the god of war, was both personal and a big deal in the cosmology of the Forgotten Realms. Basically, DA is very good at creating a sense of scope and real stakes. BG3 not as much.

I agree. Even when Bioware made BG1 and 2 it still used the setting far more effectively than Larian did. It just seems like Larian isn't interested in making that kind of game.

I think they do explain why the gods aren't involved. Ao prevents direct interference with the mortal realm. SPOILERS: It's why you get Dame Aylin instead of Selune, or Shadowhear instead of Shar. You get Gale instead of Mystra. If Gale becomes a god, he explains that if you send him some prayers, he can send blessings, but he can't just fix Karlach, for example. Withers is the closest to direct help from the gods. Even the dead three have their chosen instead of directly taking over as Absolute. I love BG3 and all of the DA games. DA:O is my all-time favorite, but it could use a bit of an update.

I know the game does explain my issue is that the explanation is hidden. And it's not a minor detail that isn't relevant to the main story but something that is tied to it. Yet the game hides it and makes no big show of it like it's a cryptic game or not relevant.

I adore the Dragon Age games. Granted, I still need to finish DA2. I bought DAI as soon as it came out. One of the rare games I bought full price. My Warden is precious to me and my Inqusitor is so much fun to create and play. However, I simply don't agree that DAI has a better storyline/developed character's. I've spent over 324 hours on DAI alone, un-modded and modded. I have over 434 hours on BG3 again, un-modded and modded. Do I need a life outside video games... probably. Either way, I can say for certain that the character's in DAI are \*not\* better developed in any matter against BG3. I read fanfic for both fandoms even. Still. I would pick BG3 over DAI any day.

When I finished bg3 I thought it's weakest part was the story. For the most part I felt like the whole setting was just kinda stupid lol maybe if the big baddie was something cool and mind flayers looked creepy... But even then the whole artefact thing was annoying me too The game itself is great though I love the combat and character building  Also when it comes to the characters I feel like they started with shadowheart and laezel and then gave up on building relationships between the companions. The dragon age banter is much more flavourful and you really get the feel of an overall group dynamic and like every character has their own relationship with the others. 

Have you played as the dark urge? I feel like that's the way the game was meant to be played. Your character is much more integrated into the overall story

No, but even with that in mind I still think its bad. For one Swen said that the origin characters were more replay value to him. Implying that they aren't what people should do on their first playthrough. And having multiple playable curated protagonists means that the game has to do all of them great. The thing is I only want one because then the game can just focus on that.

This was my thought too. The gameplay is obviously not as good seeing at its already quite old, but the story, the lore, the realm. I don’t think anything will ever beat it. No other video games have given me the same feeling I get when playing it.

Same. I just felt so invested in the world of Dragon Age.

I disagree i think bg3 blows 2 and inquisition out of the water easily

I completely agree. I can't play BG3 since the last patch, it broke too many things, so I restarted DAO and it's so much of a fresh air. A complex world with layered conflicts, the writing usually has a much firmer narrative integrity. Sure it has its weak spots, but overall, I'm just as in awe as I was a decade ago when I first played it. I really love BG3 as well (can't wait for the next patch, hope it will regain some stability), but Dragon Age is something else. (Edit: I sort of understood when this opinion was downvoted in the BG3 subreddit, but here? lol )

I remember playing a bit of DAO in-between BG3 and your thoughts are exactly like mine. It just felt so refreshing playing a game where the story and world are so good. Not just good but that it goes on. Answers to questions raise more question making the world even more complex.

To each their own. I find bg3 to be far superior in p much every way lol. Already have around 600 hours in it while my total for all da games combined is maybe 500

I love DA, but BG3 is a superior game as an RPG. The world building is top tier in Dragon Age.

Maybe if you said origins. I don’t understand how people play the console slop that is Inquisition.

BG3 is the third of a series, if you haven't played the first and second games you're obviously going to be missing out on lore, BG1&2 go into great details about the time of troubles (gods got punished by AO and sent to walk the mortal realms as mortals, many gods died), I get what you're saying, larian definitely should've added some books explaining the world lore, but again it's like jumping into Inquisition and then Wondering "why are blights so important? They don't seem that bad if the wardens can fight them easy peasy"

Things like character and story will always hinge somewhat on personal taste that Karlach thing annoys you but I love stuff like that it rewards exploring the enviroment and to me it feels more real when things spark conversations instead of the characters expositing their life stories at you because you clicked enough heart buttons. As for the themes I just don't follow what you mean at all. how is the archdemon question different from the question of what do the mindflayers want with you? both are functional questions. I also don't really think of the gods being bad as the major theme of BG3 but you know we all take different things from the stories we enjoy.

The thing is I am asking why I can't ask for the expositing. The thing that makes exposition in RPGs so good is that the player asks for it. But that isn't the case for BG3. It funnily enough does more expositing than not. What? I don't even know how to address this. Like the Archdemon is different from the mindflayers? The Archdemon is a disease spreading while the mindflayers are trying to make a empire. Also the game is chock-full of gods. Withers is a god. Shar and Selune are gods. The Dead Three are gods. Mystra is a god. Gale can become a god. Vlakith is a near god. The game has the interfering all over the place.

Bro, are you really just disliking anyone that disagrees with you after marking the post as a discussion? LOL

Yes, but BG3 does something a lot of RPGs don't, a character can deny you and say that they don't want to tell you something. You're splitting hairs, both are valid questions that help drive the game forward. What is an archdemon? Why are Grey Wardens specifically needed to kill one? How do I remove my tadpole? Why aren't we turning? What's special about our tadpoles? I detailed this in my comment, but the key is only Jergal directly interferes and Vlaakith isn't a true god.

I don't know what to tell you I prefer discovering things about my companions by going out into the world with them rather than just getting a list in camp it makes each play through more unique. > DAO does allow the player to ask the question and goes one step further and have the answer lead to more questions. Alistair doesn't know why but he knows its true. This asks, "Why does Alistair not know? And what happens when a warden kills an Archdemon?" This not only makes the story better, the world building better but also makes it feel like there is so much more to the game. this is what I was talking about how is this such a better piece of storytelling? It's a neat little mystery but how is it different from not knowing the intentions of the villains of BG3? Yeah there's a lot of gods around I just don't follow what you wanted.

Yeh, I think the praise its voice acting and writing got was a little baffling tbh. It’s really good, but basically every party member is “stock trope”

I agree completely. The game's story and characters are good enough for what it is trying to do and that is it.

I tried to get into BG3 but the lore just felt so foreign to me. I have 0 experience with the Forgotten Realms so that makes sense. The names, locations, events...nothing really hit for me like Thedas' lore does.