Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by bugglebeetle 919 days ago
I think the environmental effects were fun, but in longer or large battles, too much of the emphasis was placed on managing them. One thing I appreciated about BG3 is that you can use them to your advantage, but they’re not a primary focus of combat. I like the scale and variety of combat in DOS2 better overall, however. All the BG3 combat, outside a handful of battles, felt trivial and anti-climactic.
2 comments

> I think the environmental effects were fun, but in longer or large battles, too much of the emphasis became on managing them.

Oh, I see what you mean there. Yeah, I agree, the environmental effects were SO powerful they often occluded the usefulness of other skills. I'm glad they toned it down a bit in BG3.

>All the BG3 combat, outside a handful of battles, felt trivial and anti-climactic.

The final battle in BG3 was clearly rushed in design IMO. You just avoid the fight entirely and you're done. That's not what I want in a climatic final battle with an other-dimensional entity of immense power that has to be controlled by implements of the gods. You straight up shouldn't be able to cheese it, almost as a requirement; it should be the culmination of all the elements of strategy the game has offered, but it doesn't do that to me.

Yeah, you can beat the whole thing in a few turns. The enemies in the courtyard and ascent to final boss were a bit better, but still akin to any number of fights in DOS2 (vs. a climax).
Yeah, just to add on, Orin and Gortash were much more interesting fights for me even; Ketheric took a few iterations to realize what the pattern was. But the final battle is either Sisyphean or cheesed entirely. I haven't played either DOS games, I might take a go at em.
DOS2 holds up pretty well. DOS is kind of clunky.