“It hit me when I got involved with the Enhanced Editions, because they reminded me of the companion design of the original game, and made me realise that following a formula had taken Obsidian largely off the beaten path,” he says. “The Pillars 1 companions, with the possible exception of Eder, just didn’t carry the same punch as the Baldur’s Gate crew.”
So much this. Take the math and checklists out of games and make them feel more organic.
“It hit me when I got involved with the Enhanced Editions, because they reminded me of the companion design of the original game, and made me realise that following a formula had taken Obsidian largely off the beaten path,” he says. “The Pillars 1 companions, with the possible exception of Eder, just didn’t carry the same punch as the Baldur’s Gate crew.”
So much this. Take the math and checklists out of games and make them feel more organic.
I still argue that this is because (without a D&D license) Obsidian basically had to create their OWN tabletop RPG rules to guide the series along (which is basically confirmed by the sourcebook that comes with a copy of Deadfire). 2nd Edition was fairly well laid out for the Baldur's Gate series, it just needed conversion to a computer game and some tweeks. The setting was also already there. Pillars of Eternity not only had to come up with a new world from scratch, but also a ruleset and (in many cases) unique classes that fit the world. It's not surprising the companions are both a.) less numerous and b.) more wooden. They couldn't do everything.
Even if we take Pathfinder: Kingmaker into account (which most people here believe is a much better representation of a BG-type than either Pillars title) it was working from what is basically an already established 3.5 ruleset AND an existing popular module to base the game on. I find it hard to criticize Obsidian for what they accomplished because it was not only at least 75% of what I wanted it to be, but also much more ambitious to create something from the ground up. The worst you can say about it is that it's way too "crunchy" from a numbers perspective and that it's lore in the initial game is not exactly easily digested.
Ok, but this is also the perspective of Avellone who has an axe to grind against Obsidian. Personally, I never understood people talking about how awesome the companions were in the BG games. I always felt most of their stories were rather underwhelming and poorly written. And by the way, I also feel this way about the companions in PsT. And by contrast, I found most of the companions in PoE to be quite good, and ironically the only ones I found poor were the ones written by Avellone!
Honestly, I tried to get into Divinity 2 and into DOS 1. Both times the writing felt... I really don't know to aptly put it - alien, maybe?
Even if you consider that some JRPG stories and settings may also feel off, there at least you've already got the disbelief suspended thanks to animesque art style, so pretty much anything gets a pass no matter how insane it is.
Larian, on the other hand, seems like a proper Western developer with perfect English, so when I saw the "sourcery" pun - even though it makes fine sense in English, it still sounds like something you just wouldn't ever write, - I kinda felt like falling into the proverbial uncanny valley.
Btw, if memory serves, they straight denied they've been working on BG3, didn't they? I imagine they'd use more ambiguous phrasing if they did.
Honestly, I tried to get into Divinity 2 and into DOS 1. Both times the writing felt... I really don't know to aptly put it - alien, maybe?
Even if you consider that some JRPG stories and settings may also feel off, there at least you've already got the disbelief suspended thanks to animesque art style, so pretty much anything gets a pass no matter how insane it is.
Larian, on the other hand, seems like a proper Western developer with perfect English, so when I saw the "sourcery" pun - even though it makes fine sense in English, it still sounds like something you just wouldn't ever write, - I kinda felt like falling into the proverbial uncanny valley.
Btw, if memory serves, they straight denied they've been working on BG3, didn't they? I mean, sure, some developers don't like spilling the beans too soon, but outright lying about it sounds a little weird.
I mean, they've spent years working on the Original Sin games and their enhancements, and they have already announced a Divinity tactics game in the near future. I don't know how large their studio is, but it would seem to be pretty tough to be doing THIS as well, but maybe they have expanded substantially since D:OS2 really launched them into the big-time.
- The visuals were not very impressive. They were, if anything, cute. The landscapes and buildings looked a bit like claymation. Like a little model landscape you might see in a ministure war reenactments, or model train sets. With their little selection circles, all the actors are based like miniatures in a tabletop game.
I disagree with this. I think the graphics were amazing for their time and they have aged very well.
I still remember the first time I saw this map and how amazed I was:
There is something unique about this kind of 2d rendering that can't be reproduced in all these spiritual successors that use a 3d engine.
Honestly, I tried to get into Divinity 2 and into DOS 1. Both times the writing felt... I really don't know to aptly put it - alien, maybe?
Even if you consider that some JRPG stories and settings may also feel off, there at least you've already got the disbelief suspended thanks to animesque art style, so pretty much anything gets a pass no matter how insane it is.
Larian, on the other hand, seems like a proper Western developer with perfect English, so when I saw the "sourcery" pun - even though it makes fine sense in English, it still sounds like something you just wouldn't ever write, - I kinda felt like falling into the proverbial uncanny valley.
Btw, if memory serves, they straight denied they've been working on BG3, didn't they? I mean, sure, some developers don't like spilling the beans too soon, but outright lying about it sounds a little weird.
I mean, they've spent years working on the Original Sin games and their enhancements, and they have already announced a Divinity tactics game in the near future. I don't know how large their studio is, but it would seem to be pretty tough to be doing THIS as well, but maybe they have expanded substantially since D:OS2 really launched them into the big-time.
@Ardanis, yes they quite specifically and forcefully denied they were working on BG3 back in October last year, so they would have to do some serious spinning of their blatant lie.
@jjstraka34, the Divinity tactics game is contracted out to some other studio. Furthermore, they themselves have been significantly expanding over the past year including opening their second studio in Quebec.
Baldur's gate means different things to different people. The framework of 2nd edition helps to make it great, but I know it is not just this, as I have found great enjoyment in the various games that used 3rd edition as their underpinning.
The graphics (and sound!) have a great deal of charm, but I know it is not only this that makes it great, as I also deeply appreciate other isometric RPGS and their graphics ( DOS2)
The characters are the perfect combination of significant, but fade to the background when it's Charname's time to shine, but this is true of other games in the genre (Dragon Age).
What I think makes Baldur's Gate special is the ability to wrap all of these things together until the sum is greater than its parts.
Along the way, we might each find that we prefer one part more than the others - but that's just subjective. I put Character and Story ahead of Gameplay and graphics. If gameplay is your absolute most important aspect for enjoying the game, then it's understandable that you would prefer a developer who has had the most success with gameplay would make BG3.
The complexity of gameplay is definitely the key strength of BG2, and the writing is indeed quite excellent even if it doesn't have the elaborate branching paths of some other RPGs--in fact, there's a fair amount more branching in BG2 than there are in most RPGs. With mods, SoD serving as a bridge, graphics updates, and a bit more content from EE stuff, the BG saga holds up quite well compared to more modern games, even if some of the environments have the same plasticky texture you'd see on old games like the first Donkey Kong Country.
The vanilla, pre-EE game isn't nearly as strong, and personally, I think BG1 by itself, if not BG2, is pretty lousy compared to the better half of modern games. It was spectacular for its time and spectacular even for many years after, but 20 years is a lot of time for other games to catch up. Gaming has advanced dramatically since 1998, and even the best games of that era eventually start to lose their shine.
BG3 is probably going to be awesome, but I'm not sure what kind of awesome I should be expecting. If we had a 5th edition, turn-based, isometric game similar to the Infinity Engine, that would be excellent, but for all I know, it might lack some of the elements I love about BG2.
I think we should bear in mind that BG3 can be an excellent game even if it's not the specific kind of game we might hope for. Let's stay openminded about this project and its potential.
Well! Things certainly have developed since my OP.
Larian.. hm.. well, that gives me mixed feelings.
I find that DOS 1 and especially 2, are far too tactically micromanagement..
Pollute area with element X, to enhance element Y, which is a weakness for Enemy A and boosts ally B, and back and forth, up and down. It's just too much.
Not a super big fan of Larian's humor and writing either, but they're certainly not the worst.
.. nor am I a fan of the character aesthetics. Armors/Weapons look strange, exaggerated.
The really good part here is that despite them having released turn-based-only games of late (i prefer Infinity's flowing turns by a lot), their games have been very solid.
I own DOS 1 and 2, and while not my favorites, I must say they are very robust and good quality
I'm sure Larian can live up to the franchise and make a quality game, i'm just not sure it will be to my tastes.
They may even surprise us all and release some kind of action adventure game like Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance.. hehe.. yeah, it could happen?
We'll have to wait a few more days I guess.. expecting something for E3.
Voidwoken and the Kraken in DOS2 are also very... tentacled. Spoiling an Illithid plot like that before we get to figure out its them seems wrong too. Could it be that the meta data hinting at BG3 was just Larian ruthlessly trolling everyone.
They also posted a short video of a tentacle flapping outside their window on twitter.
"Amazing" is a bit hyperbolic. Remember Morrowind was out around the same time as BG2. They were not pushing crazy graphics envelopes; the backgrounds were beautiful but they could basically be paintings; beautiful but not particular complicated to do.
I find BG2 graphics much more better than Morrowind graphics.
Nevertheless, as @BallpointMan said and I tried to say, the BG graphics were charming and more or less perfect for the games. I did not say the graphics weren't great; my point was that, if a successor decides they have to focus on eye candy (*cough poe*), they're getting it wrong.
Yes graphics is not everything, but in my opinion, they need to replicate the BG style to be a true successor.
I seriously wonder: are you, folks who say that writing in DOS games is somehow of a bad quality, indeed aware of the actual story and writing after 1st chapters of each game? Eg. In DOS 1 EE only 20% of players found Icara's cabin. And the main story, the actual- and very grim- events starts developing only after that. Only less than 10% of players found a way to handle Tenebrium, and without it you can't understand the core aspects of the story as you simply can't access the appropriate areas.
Does this narrative about writing and goofiness come from first 2-5 hours in the game, something you maybe didn't like and dropped the game because of it, and then read in a review or an opinion about "bad writing "?
On a side note, since both DOS games don't give players a clue about the actual serious events happening in the world until after the big 1st chapter is over, or even later, don't be afraid that a potential illithid in a teaser is a spoiler for a story. An npc or a fraction- probably, but most likely not even close to the main story.
Personally, I think people should disregard what they don't like about the Divinity: Original Sin games in terms of thinking about BG3. Just because a studio does one RPG title a certain way, doesn't mean they're going to make non-related RPG's similarly.
In fact, I'd imagine it's pretty common for developers to desire to create different products. It can't be fun to make a similar game over and over. I can see how some elements of D:OS rubbed BG fans the wrong way, but the games were undeniably quality products. There's no reason to think its system or even writing style will necessarily carryover to a BG3.
A new game would mean a wider fan base. Surely the new content will divide fans and even alienate many of the old fans. But the hype will surely pay some dividends into the ee:games - some how.
In DOS 1 EE only 20% of players found Icara's cabin. And the main story, the actual- and very grim- events starts developing only after that. Only less than 10% of players found a way to handle Tenebrium, and without it you can't understand the core aspects of the story as you simply can't access the appropriate areas.
As someone who hasn't played their games, I can't help but to find these numbers strange. If indeed well over 80% of Larian's overall customers "failed" to beat their first(?) game since its release in 2014... what was the point in making it? Wouldn't developers normally be eager for players to actually, you know... complete it? Just being curious here.
Thinking that BG3 writing from Larian will be like the one in DoS is like thinking the writing in Cyberpunk 2077 will be stylistically the same as it was in The Witcher 3. I'm sure CDPR is capable of doing two games in a completely different tone, sam as Larian. Besides, it's not happening until there is a confirmation from Larian. All we have now are just speculations, based on mp4 file code and Brian's Fargo tweet.
As someone who hasn't played their games, I can't help but to find these numbers strange. If indeed well over 80% of Larian's overall customers "failed" to beat their first(?) game since its release in 2014... what was the point in making it? Wouldn't developers normally be eager for players to actually, you know... complete it? Just being curious here.
The way games are consumed have dramatically changed these days. With all the sales and bundles, a lot of people own games that they have never launched. Also, as there are much more games released, people tend to switch more often and so don't have the time to finish games (especially for long RPG games).
I expect to see similar stats with Baldurs gate or Pillars if you look at how many people go past the first chapter.
I seriously wonder: are you, folks who say that writing in DOS games is somehow of a bad quality, indeed aware of the actual story and writing after 1st chapters of each game? Eg. In DOS 1 EE only 20% of players found Icara's cabin. And the main story, the actual- and very grim- events starts developing only after that. Only less than 10% of players found a way to handle Tenebrium, and without it you can't understand the core aspects of the story as you simply can't access the appropriate areas.
Does this narrative about writing and goofiness come from first 2-5 hours in the game, something you maybe didn't like and dropped the game because of it, and then read in a review or an opinion about "bad writing "?
On a side note, since both DOS games don't give players a clue about the actual serious events happening in the world until after the big 1st chapter is over, or even later, don't be afraid that a potential illithid in a teaser is a spoiler for a story. An npc or a fraction- probably, but most likely not even close to the main story.
It’s bad writing to not be able to hook the player within the first 20 - 30 minutes of gameplay with the story IMO.
I am one of those 80% and I haven’t picked up D:OS2 yet because of it. I think I tried restarting the game 3 or 4 times but there are a lot of elements of the game that don’t appeal to me.
Comments
Thanks for sharing and this:
“It hit me when I got involved with the Enhanced Editions, because they reminded me of the companion design of the original game, and made me realise that following a formula had taken Obsidian largely off the beaten path,” he says. “The Pillars 1 companions, with the possible exception of Eder, just didn’t carry the same punch as the Baldur’s Gate crew.”
So much this. Take the math and checklists out of games and make them feel more organic.
I still argue that this is because (without a D&D license) Obsidian basically had to create their OWN tabletop RPG rules to guide the series along (which is basically confirmed by the sourcebook that comes with a copy of Deadfire). 2nd Edition was fairly well laid out for the Baldur's Gate series, it just needed conversion to a computer game and some tweeks. The setting was also already there. Pillars of Eternity not only had to come up with a new world from scratch, but also a ruleset and (in many cases) unique classes that fit the world. It's not surprising the companions are both a.) less numerous and b.) more wooden. They couldn't do everything.
Even if we take Pathfinder: Kingmaker into account (which most people here believe is a much better representation of a BG-type than either Pillars title) it was working from what is basically an already established 3.5 ruleset AND an existing popular module to base the game on. I find it hard to criticize Obsidian for what they accomplished because it was not only at least 75% of what I wanted it to be, but also much more ambitious to create something from the ground up. The worst you can say about it is that it's way too "crunchy" from a numbers perspective and that it's lore in the initial game is not exactly easily digested.
I can't trust a list that trusts reviews that put Diablo over Fallout.
Even if you consider that some JRPG stories and settings may also feel off, there at least you've already got the disbelief suspended thanks to animesque art style, so pretty much anything gets a pass no matter how insane it is.
Larian, on the other hand, seems like a proper Western developer with perfect English, so when I saw the "sourcery" pun - even though it makes fine sense in English, it still sounds like something you just wouldn't ever write, - I kinda felt like falling into the proverbial uncanny valley.
Btw, if memory serves, they straight denied they've been working on BG3, didn't they? I imagine they'd use more ambiguous phrasing if they did.
I mean, they've spent years working on the Original Sin games and their enhancements, and they have already announced a Divinity tactics game in the near future. I don't know how large their studio is, but it would seem to be pretty tough to be doing THIS as well, but maybe they have expanded substantially since D:OS2 really launched them into the big-time.
I disagree with this. I think the graphics were amazing for their time and they have aged very well.
I still remember the first time I saw this map and how amazed I was:
There is something unique about this kind of 2d rendering that can't be reproduced in all these spiritual successors that use a 3d engine.
@Ardanis, yes they quite specifically and forcefully denied they were working on BG3 back in October last year, so they would have to do some serious spinning of their blatant lie.
@jjstraka34, the Divinity tactics game is contracted out to some other studio. Furthermore, they themselves have been significantly expanding over the past year including opening their second studio in Quebec.
The graphics (and sound!) have a great deal of charm, but I know it is not only this that makes it great, as I also deeply appreciate other isometric RPGS and their graphics ( DOS2)
The characters are the perfect combination of significant, but fade to the background when it's Charname's time to shine, but this is true of other games in the genre (Dragon Age).
What I think makes Baldur's Gate special is the ability to wrap all of these things together until the sum is greater than its parts.
Along the way, we might each find that we prefer one part more than the others - but that's just subjective. I put Character and Story ahead of Gameplay and graphics. If gameplay is your absolute most important aspect for enjoying the game, then it's understandable that you would prefer a developer who has had the most success with gameplay would make BG3.
The vanilla, pre-EE game isn't nearly as strong, and personally, I think BG1 by itself, if not BG2, is pretty lousy compared to the better half of modern games. It was spectacular for its time and spectacular even for many years after, but 20 years is a lot of time for other games to catch up. Gaming has advanced dramatically since 1998, and even the best games of that era eventually start to lose their shine.
BG3 is probably going to be awesome, but I'm not sure what kind of awesome I should be expecting. If we had a 5th edition, turn-based, isometric game similar to the Infinity Engine, that would be excellent, but for all I know, it might lack some of the elements I love about BG2.
I think we should bear in mind that BG3 can be an excellent game even if it's not the specific kind of game we might hope for. Let's stay openminded about this project and its potential.
Larian.. hm.. well, that gives me mixed feelings.
I find that DOS 1 and especially 2, are far too tactically micromanagement..
Pollute area with element X, to enhance element Y, which is a weakness for Enemy A and boosts ally B, and back and forth, up and down. It's just too much.
Not a super big fan of Larian's humor and writing either, but they're certainly not the worst.
.. nor am I a fan of the character aesthetics. Armors/Weapons look strange, exaggerated.
The really good part here is that despite them having released turn-based-only games of late (i prefer Infinity's flowing turns by a lot), their games have been very solid.
I own DOS 1 and 2, and while not my favorites, I must say they are very robust and good quality
I'm sure Larian can live up to the franchise and make a quality game, i'm just not sure it will be to my tastes.
They may even surprise us all and release some kind of action adventure game like Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance.. hehe.. yeah, it could happen?
We'll have to wait a few more days I guess.. expecting something for E3.
What?
Tentacles?
They also posted a short video of a tentacle flapping outside their window on twitter.
I find BG2 graphics much more better than Morrowind graphics.
Yes graphics is not everything, but in my opinion, they need to replicate the BG style to be a true successor.
FLUMPHS confirmed!
As for Fallout 3... You and me, in the parking lot. Bring a knife.
(NV is very good though).
Does this narrative about writing and goofiness come from first 2-5 hours in the game, something you maybe didn't like and dropped the game because of it, and then read in a review or an opinion about "bad writing "?
On a side note, since both DOS games don't give players a clue about the actual serious events happening in the world until after the big 1st chapter is over, or even later, don't be afraid that a potential illithid in a teaser is a spoiler for a story. An npc or a fraction- probably, but most likely not even close to the main story.
In fact, I'd imagine it's pretty common for developers to desire to create different products. It can't be fun to make a similar game over and over. I can see how some elements of D:OS rubbed BG fans the wrong way, but the games were undeniably quality products. There's no reason to think its system or even writing style will necessarily carryover to a BG3.
A new game would mean a wider fan base. Surely the new content will divide fans and even alienate many of the old fans. But the hype will surely pay some dividends into the ee:games - some how.
The way games are consumed have dramatically changed these days. With all the sales and bundles, a lot of people own games that they have never launched. Also, as there are much more games released, people tend to switch more often and so don't have the time to finish games (especially for long RPG games).
I expect to see similar stats with Baldurs gate or Pillars if you look at how many people go past the first chapter.
It’s bad writing to not be able to hook the player within the first 20 - 30 minutes of gameplay with the story IMO.
I am one of those 80% and I haven’t picked up D:OS2 yet because of it. I think I tried restarting the game 3 or 4 times but there are a lot of elements of the game that don’t appeal to me.