Side question: why do people keep referring to the original games as a trilogy? Siege of Dragonspear was an expansion to BG1(EE) and Throne of Bhaal was an expansion to BG2...
A huge pet-peeve of mine as well. Really bothers me that people don't seem to be able to count.
@JuliusBorisov "- Bhaalspawn story influence
- Minsc back
- other references, such as Faldorn-worshipping druids
- more, as directly hinted by Swen, but sorry, not revealed 'til the full game releases"
Well, Minsc was in the Neverwinter MMO iirc, does that make Neverwinter a sequel to BG as well?
As for Faldorn, etc. I don't buy cameos being indicative of a sequel. BOO was in Mass Effect. I rest my case there.
It remains to be seen if Sven can pull anything meaningful off.
"WotC has said there is a connection. Larian has said there is a connection. The only two entities who are fully able to decide if there is a connection have spoken."
@JuliusBorisov "- Bhaalspawn story influence
- Minsc back
- other references, such as Faldorn-worshipping druids
- more, as directly hinted by Swen, but sorry, not revealed 'til the full game releases"
Well, Minsc was in the Neverwinter MMO iirc, does that make Neverwinter a sequel to BG as well?
As for Faldorn, etc. I don't buy cameos being indicative of a sequel. BOO was in Mass Effect. I rest my case there.
It remains to be seen if Sven can pull anything meaningful off.
@BallpointMan "It's still a sequel, and still has connections to the original trilogy. For reasons we have discussed in here literally dozens of times, there is no perfect definition of a "sequel". Harping on this point over and over again is boring."
Dude, why did you bring it up then?
"WotC has said there is a connection. Larian has said there is a connection. The only two entities who are fully able to decide if there is a connection have spoken."
Pardon my french, but this is crap. There's an entire branch of knowledge known as "criticism." Its done for books, movies, and games. We can 100% evaluate comments made by creators and authors to see if it stands up to reality.
People are so desperate to justify this as a sequel after the fact that they are grapsing at CAMEOS and the names of characters that had minor roles at best to justify this as a sequel. The mental gymnastics required are insane.
@JuliusBorisov "- Bhaalspawn story influence
- Minsc back
- other references, such as Faldorn-worshipping druids
- more, as directly hinted by Swen, but sorry, not revealed 'til the full game releases"
Well, Minsc was in the Neverwinter MMO iirc, does that make Neverwinter a sequel to BG as well?
As for Faldorn, etc. I don't buy cameos being indicative of a sequel. BOO was in Mass Effect. I rest my case there.
It remains to be seen if Sven can pull anything meaningful off.
@BallpointMan "It's still a sequel, and still has connections to the original trilogy. For reasons we have discussed in here literally dozens of times, there is no perfect definition of a "sequel". Harping on this point over and over again is boring."
Dude, why did you bring it up then?
"WotC has said there is a connection. Larian has said there is a connection. The only two entities who are fully able to decide if there is a connection have spoken."
Pardon my french, but this is crap. There's an entire branch of knowledge known as "criticism." Its done for books, movies, and games. We can 100% evaluate comments made by creators and authors to see if it stands up to reality.
People are so desperate to justify this as a sequel after the fact that they are grapsing at CAMEOS and the names of characters that had minor roles at best to justify this as a sequel. The mental gymnastics required are insane.
I... didnt? Literally the first mention of the word "sequel" in this conversation was in, lets see - oh. Your post.
All this shows is that BG3 is a sequel to the P&P modules. The modules related to BG1 and 2 in a manner similar to the novels. Its shares some proper nouns and a setting, with no regard for the actual characters or themes.
BG3 is a sequel to SPIN OFF MATERIAL.
Yup. There it is. Your post. Previous to that was a debate on if there was any connection to the original franchise, and of course - there is. The people who are writing and making the game say there is. The people who own the license to the game also say there is a connection. That's pretty much the beginning, middle and end.
You've also utterly missed the point. You can debate the merits of the connection, and if they're good or bad connections... but to debate their existence is ridiculous - because the people who have created the work are saying the connection is there. It's officially part of the canon. I know you wish it wasnt, but your wishes are irrelevant to the official canon. As are mine. Such is the way of things.
I'm thinking now to get a Microsoft Surface to run this game, although I'll use my 43" TCL 4K TV as the monitor (which I already have for my desktop tower that's too weak for BG3). I'm assuming that a new or very recent model will run the game fine...? Please correct if this is mistaken! Any suggestions for a particular model?
@BallpointMan "I... didnt? Literally the first mention of the word "sequel" in this conversation was in, lets see - oh. Your post."
That's cute, but a discussion about how connected the game is came up before I ever posted that. So no, I didn't start it. Nevermind that you threw your own comment in, but then strangely the topic was suddenly off limits as soon as I commented on it.
I'm thinking now to get a Microsoft Surface to run this game, although I'll use my 43" TCL 4K TV as the monitor (which I already have for my desktop tower that's too weak for BG3). I'm assuming that a new or very recent model will run the game fine...? Please correct if this is mistaken! Any suggestions for a particular model?
I would be weary of any model that uses intel graphics. But I'm also not an expert when it comes to these things.
I'm thinking now to get a Microsoft Surface to run this game, although I'll use my 43" TCL 4K TV as the monitor (which I already have for my desktop tower that's too weak for BG3). I'm assuming that a new or very recent model will run the game fine...? Please correct if this is mistaken! Any suggestions for a particular model?
I would be weary of any model that uses intel graphics. But I'm also not an expert when it comes to these things.
Yeah, it looks like a desktop pc tower is way cheaper anyway. I'm finding refurbed HPs with Intel i7 4770k and 16 GB RAM going for in the $330-350 range, but they all have Integrated Intel HD Graphics. For about $100 more there are some with NVIDIA GeForce GT 210, though. However I see that minimum requirement for graphics is Nvidia GTX 780. I'm assuming GTX 780 is a step up from GT 210.
Should I maybe consider a console system instead? (Edit: oops I see that BG3 doesn't currently run on any console systems.)
I'm beginning to wonder if getting a machine to run BG3 is even worth it for me. I honestly don't even know if a) I'll really get into BG3 the way I did BG1 and 2 (hope so! but it's a different animal, really), or 2) I'll actually have regular time to play it.
For around $300 eh, okay. Not a tremendous waste of money if I end up never playing the game. I could go to maybe $350. There are some deals to get the Amazon credit card that reduce the price by $100-125. But with that factored in, I'm still not finding a rig with Nvidia GTX 780 in that price range. And the computers that use AMD processors and graphics are more expensive.
More than the compatibility with the saves ( In the EA the amount of content is not that huge that starting again it´s not such a big deal to me) I´m more worried about the compatibility of the mods.
After the first runs, I was trying some of the frightening amounts of mods already available to the game in one of the accounts.
More than the compatibility with the saves ( In the EA the amount of content is not that huge that starting again it´s not such a big deal to me) I´m more worried about the compatibility of the mods.
After the first runs, I was trying some of the frightening amounts of mods already available to the game in one of the accounts.
That's the risk of modding an EA game. It was a surprise to see so many though, gives me hope.
Darn. Based on what I'm seeing on Amazon it'll take around $700 minimum to get a recommended specs computer. With everything else on the Christmas list that's too much for a game I may not love. Maybe for birthday later this year, down the road.
Here's hoping for truly professional level development of amazing mods using the BG2EE game engine. Like even though I personally couldn't get into SoD, I can see the possibilities from what Beamdog did there.
I would love to see a brand new adventure set in roughly the same time period of FR, using the same game engine and rule set. I'd rather have a new game using the BG series' game engine and ruleset, anyway. Put together a brand new story using the same ingredients and I'm totally in.
Maybe I shouldn't be expressing this sentiment, or wish, in this thread. Apologies if so. But it stems directly from the substantial cost of a rig required to optimally run BG3, lol.
Usually at the end of the EA the games are optimized and it takes less to run the game. There´s still hope...
I'd caution waiting for final specs, especially if they aren't sure its something they will enjoy. 700$ is a LOT of money to drop just to run a single game. Even if its one you love.
I'm totally serious that I really, really want (and would rather have anyway) a new game from Beamdog using the BG/IWD engine, however that might be cobbled together. Imo it doesn't have to be related to BG's Bhaalspawn saga. It can be a brand new story but ideally still set in FR (I'd say stick to the Sword Coast) during roughly the same time period. Is there a thread anywhere for that? I know I can look for myself, but just in case anyone already knows of one.
Usually at the end of the EA the games are optimized and it takes less to run the game. There´s still hope...
I'd caution waiting for final specs, especially if they aren't sure its something they will enjoy. 700$ is a LOT of money to drop just to run a single game. Even if its one you love.
If I was sure that I was going to love it as much as BG1 and 2 I'd be tempted do it. But having tried a bit of DOS and from what video I've seen of BG3, although it will be well made and have all sorts of bells and whistles, I'm not feeling in my bones that it's going to have the sheer charm of BG1 and 2.
Usually at the end of the EA the games are optimized and it takes less to run the game. There´s still hope...
I'd caution waiting for final specs, especially if they aren't sure its something they will enjoy. 700$ is a LOT of money to drop just to run a single game. Even if its one you love.
If I was sure that I was going to love it as much as BG1 and 2 I'd be tempted do it. But having tried a bit of DOS and from what video I've seen of BG3, although it will be well made and have all sorts of bells and whistles, I'm not feeling in my bones that it's going to have the sheer charm of BG1 and 2.
It's hard to tell right now and it won't be until quite some time after. Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 have stood the test of time in a manner that will be hard to repeat. In general, I feel games with more zoomed-out, abstract and/or hand-painted art age better than the best 3D stuff at the time.
It's hard to tell right now and it won't be until quite some time after. Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 have stood the test of time in a manner that will be hard to repeat. In general, I feel games with more zoomed-out, abstract and/or hand-painted art age better than the best 3D stuff at the time.
It depends... While as a whole I've noticed that sprite-based games have aged fairly well, there seems to be a sort of "uncanny valley" threshold where 3D graphics either look very crude by today's standards, or quite attractive. For instance, if you look at Half-Life 2 or Doom 3 (both released in 2004), they still look quite presentable, but Neverwinter Nights 1, despite being released within the same "generation" looks very blocky and unappealing without graphical mods.
Usually at the end of the EA the games are optimized and it takes less to run the game. There´s still hope...
I'd caution waiting for final specs, especially if they aren't sure its something they will enjoy. 700$ is a LOT of money to drop just to run a single game. Even if its one you love.
If I was sure that I was going to love it as much as BG1 and 2 I'd be tempted do it. But having tried a bit of DOS and from what video I've seen of BG3, although it will be well made and have all sorts of bells and whistles, I'm not feeling in my bones that it's going to have the sheer charm of BG1 and 2.
It's hard to tell right now and it won't be until quite some time after. Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 have stood the test of time in a manner that will be hard to repeat. In general, I feel games with more zoomed-out, abstract and/or hand-painted art age better than the best 3D stuff at the time.
Usually at the end of the EA the games are optimized and it takes less to run the game. There´s still hope...
I'd caution waiting for final specs, especially if they aren't sure its something they will enjoy. 700$ is a LOT of money to drop just to run a single game. Even if its one you love.
If I was sure that I was going to love it as much as BG1 and 2 I'd be tempted do it. But having tried a bit of DOS and from what video I've seen of BG3, although it will be well made and have all sorts of bells and whistles, I'm not feeling in my bones that it's going to have the sheer charm of BG1 and 2.
It's hard to tell right now and it won't be until quite some time after. Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 have stood the test of time in a manner that will be hard to repeat. In general, I feel games with more zoomed-out, abstract and/or hand-painted art age better than the best 3D stuff at the time.
All 3D games look dated within 6 months.
I disagree with the specificity of this, but I agree with the general point that if you put a lot of emphasis on graphics, the quality of the game will likely erode faster than if resources are put elsewhere.
That said, sometimes graphics can be charming in a way to maintains the shelf-life. So it's not a constant. I'll also say that gameplay mechanics can and do often feel dated, so it's not like there's any one aspect of the game that doesnt age (and potentially/probably, age poorly). This even includes story/plot/characters.
Plenty of character concepts are a bit (sometimes more than a bit) dated even in the BG franchise.
i consider them charming. but thats how i feel about alot of early 3d.
Doom and Quake and Thief look charming, Neverwinter Nights has always looked awful to me.
I must be too easily pleased or too unused to modern graphics. I don't mind the graphics in NWN EE. That doesn't mean I particularly love them, but they have never bothered me. Perhaps that's just because story comes first for me and graphics aren't very high on my priority list.
Of course the graphics in BG3 (seen in videos, haven't bought EA yet) look awesome, but it shouldn't be the most important thing about a game (in my opinion. For others it might be).
Comments
- Minsc back
- other references, such as Faldorn-worshipping druids
- more, as directly hinted by Swen, but sorry, not revealed 'til the full game releases"
Well, Minsc was in the Neverwinter MMO iirc, does that make Neverwinter a sequel to BG as well?
As for Faldorn, etc. I don't buy cameos being indicative of a sequel. BOO was in Mass Effect. I rest my case there.
It remains to be seen if Sven can pull anything meaningful off.
"WotC has said there is a connection. Larian has said there is a connection. The only two entities who are fully able to decide if there is a connection have spoken."
Pardon my french, but this is crap.
- Minsc back
- other references, such as Faldorn-worshipping druids
- more, as directly hinted by Swen, but sorry, not revealed 'til the full game releases"
Well, Minsc was in the Neverwinter MMO iirc, does that make Neverwinter a sequel to BG as well?
As for Faldorn, etc. I don't buy cameos being indicative of a sequel. BOO was in Mass Effect. I rest my case there.
It remains to be seen if Sven can pull anything meaningful off.
@BallpointMan "It's still a sequel, and still has connections to the original trilogy. For reasons we have discussed in here literally dozens of times, there is no perfect definition of a "sequel". Harping on this point over and over again is boring."
Dude, why did you bring it up then?
"WotC has said there is a connection. Larian has said there is a connection. The only two entities who are fully able to decide if there is a connection have spoken."
Pardon my french, but this is crap. There's an entire branch of knowledge known as "criticism." Its done for books, movies, and games. We can 100% evaluate comments made by creators and authors to see if it stands up to reality.
People are so desperate to justify this as a sequel after the fact that they are grapsing at CAMEOS and the names of characters that had minor roles at best to justify this as a sequel. The mental gymnastics required are insane.
I... didnt? Literally the first mention of the word "sequel" in this conversation was in, lets see - oh. Your post.
Let me quote:
Yup. There it is. Your post. Previous to that was a debate on if there was any connection to the original franchise, and of course - there is. The people who are writing and making the game say there is. The people who own the license to the game also say there is a connection. That's pretty much the beginning, middle and end.
You've also utterly missed the point. You can debate the merits of the connection, and if they're good or bad connections... but to debate their existence is ridiculous - because the people who have created the work are saying the connection is there. It's officially part of the canon. I know you wish it wasnt, but your wishes are irrelevant to the official canon. As are mine. Such is the way of things.
That's cute, but a discussion about how connected the game is came up before I ever posted that. So no, I didn't start it. Nevermind that you threw your own comment in, but then strangely the topic was suddenly off limits as soon as I commented on it.
?
I would be weary of any model that uses intel graphics. But I'm also not an expert when it comes to these things.
https://store.steampowered.com/newshub/app/1086940/view/2894088190702891542
Yeah, it looks like a desktop pc tower is way cheaper anyway. I'm finding refurbed HPs with Intel i7 4770k and 16 GB RAM going for in the $330-350 range, but they all have Integrated Intel HD Graphics. For about $100 more there are some with NVIDIA GeForce GT 210, though. However I see that minimum requirement for graphics is Nvidia GTX 780. I'm assuming GTX 780 is a step up from GT 210.
Should I maybe consider a console system instead? (Edit: oops I see that BG3 doesn't currently run on any console systems.)
I'm beginning to wonder if getting a machine to run BG3 is even worth it for me. I honestly don't even know if a) I'll really get into BG3 the way I did BG1 and 2 (hope so! but it's a different animal, really), or 2) I'll actually have regular time to play it.
For around $300 eh, okay. Not a tremendous waste of money if I end up never playing the game. I could go to maybe $350. There are some deals to get the Amazon credit card that reduce the price by $100-125. But with that factored in, I'm still not finding a rig with Nvidia GTX 780 in that price range. And the computers that use AMD processors and graphics are more expensive.
More than the compatibility with the saves ( In the EA the amount of content is not that huge that starting again it´s not such a big deal to me) I´m more worried about the compatibility of the mods.
After the first runs, I was trying some of the frightening amounts of mods already available to the game in one of the accounts.
That's the risk of modding an EA game. It was a surprise to see so many though, gives me hope.
Here's hoping for truly professional level development of amazing mods using the BG2EE game engine. Like even though I personally couldn't get into SoD, I can see the possibilities from what Beamdog did there.
I would love to see a brand new adventure set in roughly the same time period of FR, using the same game engine and rule set. I'd rather have a new game using the BG series' game engine and ruleset, anyway. Put together a brand new story using the same ingredients and I'm totally in.
Maybe I shouldn't be expressing this sentiment, or wish, in this thread. Apologies if so. But it stems directly from the substantial cost of a rig required to optimally run BG3, lol.
I'd caution waiting for final specs, especially if they aren't sure its something they will enjoy. 700$ is a LOT of money to drop just to run a single game. Even if its one you love.
If I was sure that I was going to love it as much as BG1 and 2 I'd be tempted do it. But having tried a bit of DOS and from what video I've seen of BG3, although it will be well made and have all sorts of bells and whistles, I'm not feeling in my bones that it's going to have the sheer charm of BG1 and 2.
It's hard to tell right now and it won't be until quite some time after. Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 have stood the test of time in a manner that will be hard to repeat. In general, I feel games with more zoomed-out, abstract and/or hand-painted art age better than the best 3D stuff at the time.
It depends... While as a whole I've noticed that sprite-based games have aged fairly well, there seems to be a sort of "uncanny valley" threshold where 3D graphics either look very crude by today's standards, or quite attractive. For instance, if you look at Half-Life 2 or Doom 3 (both released in 2004), they still look quite presentable, but Neverwinter Nights 1, despite being released within the same "generation" looks very blocky and unappealing without graphical mods.
All 3D games look dated within 6 months.
I disagree with the specificity of this, but I agree with the general point that if you put a lot of emphasis on graphics, the quality of the game will likely erode faster than if resources are put elsewhere.
That said, sometimes graphics can be charming in a way to maintains the shelf-life. So it's not a constant. I'll also say that gameplay mechanics can and do often feel dated, so it's not like there's any one aspect of the game that doesnt age (and potentially/probably, age poorly). This even includes story/plot/characters.
Plenty of character concepts are a bit (sometimes more than a bit) dated even in the BG franchise.
i consider them charming. but thats how i feel about alot of early 3d.
Doom and Quake and Thief look charming, Neverwinter Nights has always looked awful to me.
This says a lot more about good art direction in general, than 3d graphics. FF9 absolutely looks dated, but the art style gives it a lasting charm.
I must be too easily pleased or too unused to modern graphics. I don't mind the graphics in NWN EE. That doesn't mean I particularly love them, but they have never bothered me. Perhaps that's just because story comes first for me and graphics aren't very high on my priority list.
Of course the graphics in BG3 (seen in videos, haven't bought EA yet) look awesome, but it shouldn't be the most important thing about a game (in my opinion. For others it might be).