@Kamigoroshi Oh, I simply didn't know this because I never delved into their lore. With Mulhorand I simply got suspicious after I read about the gods for the first time, so I did some digging on that. Thanks for the heads up.
@Fardragon The story doesn't actually need to be about the lore, culture, etc. It's enough to serve as a background. You can still have a generic hero's journey story in a setting like Planescape.
"Spiritual successor" does not mean set in the same story, or even universe. It just means adhering to the same basic principles, i.e. the "spirit" of the original(s) - the setting and story can really be anything.
1. North American fauna. Ditch the mooses and groundhogs (whatever they are supposed to be).
Moose are Canadian pride. There is actually a Canadian law that requires any type of entertainment created here to have at least one of our beloved national symbols (Maple Leaf, Polar Bear, Beaver, Moose, Mountie, Hockey, Hooser) inserted into the work.
1. North American fauna. Ditch the mooses and groundhogs (whatever they are supposed to be).
Moose are Canadian pride. There is actually a Canadian law that requires any type of entertainment created here to have at least one of our beloved national symbols (Maple Leaf, Polar Bear, Beaver, Moose, Mountie, Hockey, Hooser) inserted into the work.
That sounds like it should have been in the "Did you actually know..." thread.
On paper that sounds amazing. But in reality I think that would be an unfocused mess, since PS:T and BG have such vastly different narrative angles.
I think that is what PoE is actually. It fails to have the epic fantasy feel of Baldur's Gate, whist at the same time failing to be as thought provoking as PS:T.
1) no social-justice first-world-problems bullshit. People on the internets are already twitchy, spoiled and entitled brats.
I agree with you to a point. Transferring our own morality to times past or even to other universes or multiverses distorts the reality of that universe. Very few were the people who complained about the slavery as an institution in antiquity and thus if fiction set in antiquity has a major theme of emancipation the setting suffers. In same manner fantasy setting should have fantasy problems for fantasy people to fantastically tackle with...and that sounds fabulous too.
Good point @Pohjanmaalainen - slavery exists in BG universe and nobody reacted to that as it's not "in". I don't want to discuss this bullshit simply on the grounds that I don't give a damn. Just expressing my observation that people will try to find something to hate you for, so let's not give them cannon fodder by pursuing some stupid agenda within a purely fictional universe.
1. North American fauna. Ditch the mooses and groundhogs (whatever they are supposed to be).
Moose are Canadian pride. There is actually a Canadian law that requires any type of entertainment created here to have at least one of our beloved national symbols (Maple Leaf, Polar Bear, Beaver, Moose, Mountie, Hockey, Hooser) inserted into the work.
Just expressing my observation that people will try to find something to hate you for, so let's not give them cannon fodder by pursuing some stupid agenda within a purely fictional universe.
Interesting. My observation was that people will always find something to hate you for, so why let that affect your choices?
I'd like to say that I don't want a new game to have you reach 15 levels in a single story. Part of the fun of BG1 is the fact that you go from beginner to mid level .
Many of the comments is the other thread indicate an easy modifiable game with multiplayer support. To my mind this sounds like NWN -- a game I didn't like. I mean it was okay but if someone made NWN EE is would yawn and go about life.
did you seriously ask for no evil content? The most obnoxious thing I've ever read was you telling that BG2 did it better because it punishes players for being evil.
Then you say you don't agree with the Dorn's content only for evil parties? Are you out of your mind or just a troll?
did you seriously ask for no evil content? The most obnoxious thing I've ever read was you telling that BG2 did it better because it punishes players for being evil.
Then you say you don't agree with the Dorn's content only for evil parties? Are you out of your mind or just a troll?
Some people don't like playing evil. And realistically, there should be some punishments for evil behavior because it's...you know...evil.
And realistically, there should be some punishments for evil behavior because it's...you know...evil.
Interesting assumption.
Even assuming the existence of absolute good and evil (as is apparently the case in D&D), it's still a bit of a leap to just deserts. In fact, given the whole good vs. evil dynamic that seems to underlie much of D&D lore, you could very well argue that both evil AND good evoke forms of "punishment" - i.e. an opposed reaction from the respective other side.
This is a very puzzling thread. I don't like these things so don't put them in the game.
Don't want an easily moddable game: The other games were moddable, and some of the mods that were made were really fantastic. Whether it was a mod that made the mobs harder, or added widescreen support, or allow BG to be played on the BGII interface.
Don't want Evil Edition: You may not like it, but other people do. Why shouldn't they allow for multiple options just because some people don't prefer it and choose not to play it (yes, it's your choice to ignore that part of the game, not theirs.)
Don't want multiple camera angles: Don't use them.
Everything in the OP is a problem with the Original Poster, not remotely with the game. I want it moddable, because there are really creative people out there that do amazing things. From Team BG to BeamDog. Make the game moddable and then host the mods. Make an evil edition, make a good edition, make a good and evil edition, make one that you're all ducks and one that you're all penguins. Let people have as many camera angels as they can, including first person if someone really wants to use that. The more options there are, the more people will find something they like, buy the game and stay and play. Don't cater to just one person's view.
Now that we know what you don't want, what do you really want to see?
Don't want multiple camera angles: Don't use them.
I do agree on your other points, but not on this.
The thing with fixed camera angles is, that you have to specifically design the levels to work with them. A lot of 3D games - both early and current ones - still face problems where you can't see the things you need to see properly because the level design does not work with a freely adjustable camera.
Look at point and click adventures for example. Even most 3D ones usually have at least pseudo-fixed angles to assure that the player doesn't miss out on any important elements.
BG-style gameplay doesn't work well with a free camera, just look at it's first 3D successor, NWN. When playing, I have to constantly re-adjust the angle just to see where I am going. That's why the games that followed got rid of that concept one-by-one. Today we have our Dragon Ages who went a completely different path and our Pillars of Eternities who stuck to the original and that is so for a reason.
It is way better to have one angle that works really well than to have a bunch of angles that work okay at best. Besides, programming for the environment to work from different angles takes up resources that could - and should - be used in parts where it's way more beneficial.
Personally, if the game goes for 3D environments instead of 2D ones, I would prefer it if the camera would work similar to 3D real time strategy games such as WarCraft 3 and Age of Mythology, where the gameplay is from a fixed angle and only cutscenes utilize other angles.
Though in the end, I really prefer handdrawn 2D environments like in IWD, PoE and Sacred.
Comments
Thanks for the heads up.
@Fardragon The story doesn't actually need to be about the lore, culture, etc. It's enough to serve as a background. You can still have a generic hero's journey story in a setting like Planescape.
So, I guess it's more about the over all feeling, atmosphere and gameplay.
The party could battle the villain and his minions on whom gets to own the Gazebo.
Max Von Sydow would provide the voice of De Traanon's evil brewmeister.
- asymmetric ruleset (enemy HP bloat etc.)
- simplistic mechanics (e.g. absence of monsters with on-hit 'save vs x' status effects)
Incidentally, this trio plagues all DA games.
Then you say you don't agree with the Dorn's content only for evil parties? Are you out of your mind or just a troll?
There's no need to be rude.
Even assuming the existence of absolute good and evil (as is apparently the case in D&D), it's still a bit of a leap to just deserts. In fact, given the whole good vs. evil dynamic that seems to underlie much of D&D lore, you could very well argue that both evil AND good evoke forms of "punishment" - i.e. an opposed reaction from the respective other side.
Don't want an easily moddable game:
The other games were moddable, and some of the mods that were made were really fantastic. Whether it was a mod that made the mobs harder, or added widescreen support, or allow BG to be played on the BGII interface.
Don't want Evil Edition:
You may not like it, but other people do. Why shouldn't they allow for multiple options just because some people don't prefer it and choose not to play it (yes, it's your choice to ignore that part of the game, not theirs.)
Don't want multiple camera angles:
Don't use them.
Everything in the OP is a problem with the Original Poster, not remotely with the game. I want it moddable, because there are really creative people out there that do amazing things. From Team BG to BeamDog. Make the game moddable and then host the mods. Make an evil edition, make a good edition, make a good and evil edition, make one that you're all ducks and one that you're all penguins. Let people have as many camera angels as they can, including first person if someone really wants to use that. The more options there are, the more people will find something they like, buy the game and stay and play. Don't cater to just one person's view.
Now that we know what you don't want, what do you really want to see?
This thread was started afterwards as a counterpoint for things players did not want to see.
Game design requires making choices, and resources are finite.
The thing with fixed camera angles is, that you have to specifically design the levels to work with them.
A lot of 3D games - both early and current ones - still face problems where you can't see the things you need to see properly because the level design does not work with a freely adjustable camera.
Look at point and click adventures for example. Even most 3D ones usually have at least pseudo-fixed angles to assure that the player doesn't miss out on any important elements.
BG-style gameplay doesn't work well with a free camera, just look at it's first 3D successor, NWN.
When playing, I have to constantly re-adjust the angle just to see where I am going. That's why the games that followed got rid of that concept one-by-one. Today we have our Dragon Ages who went a completely different path and our Pillars of Eternities who stuck to the original and that is so for a reason.
It is way better to have one angle that works really well than to have a bunch of angles that work okay at best. Besides, programming for the environment to work from different angles takes up resources that could - and should - be used in parts where it's way more beneficial.
Personally, if the game goes for 3D environments instead of 2D ones, I would prefer it if the camera would work similar to 3D real time strategy games such as WarCraft 3 and Age of Mythology, where the gameplay is from a fixed angle and only cutscenes utilize other angles.
Though in the end, I really prefer handdrawn 2D environments like in IWD, PoE and Sacred.
2 - Escort Quests.
3 - Escort Quests.