"Mearls: I can say purely from a tabletop space, one of the things we found was that the ranger character class, in tabletop players really felt the first couple of levels, they weren’t really making choices that they felt were having a real impact on gameplay... One of the things we learned is that we had some assumptions about how exploration would play out in the game back when we were developing 5th edition—we thought, “Oh, we’ll give the rangers some of these toys to play with because exploration is part of the game.” And we’ve just found that either a lot of DMs don’t use a lot of the sub-systems that those spoke to, or they weren’t really coming up on a level of play at the table that was actually impactful to the narrative.
The ranger, for instance: Oh, I’m gonna pick desert as my favored terrain. We can’t get lost in the desert. Which sounds great—I wouldn’t want to get lost in the desert. But when you’re playing a tabletop role-playing game, it basically means, “OK, you’ve crossed the desert, you’re done.” It’s not really giving the ranger a chance to shine. So we’re looking at maybe play-testing this summer some new options that complement what’s there without overriding it. One of the hard things about working in tabletop is you can’t patch a physical book—unless you’re willing to break into everyone’s house and paste in new things."
More in the link.
Yeah, I feel the ranger had issues in most D&D versions. I still like the original AD&D 1st edition Ranger the best. Had useful boni for all level ranges.
The crocodiles fight is possibly your only 6th fight from the start of the game: 2 on the ship (3 with the upgraded tutorial), 1 on the way to Fort Joy, 1 probably against turtles.
The 6th fight! Yes, each of them takes more time than Shank & Carbos, or all the enemies on the Fetishist Ogre map, but come on. At that point of time, you should have spent much more time exploring, talking, and just wandering than fighting. When did it start to become repetitive, if it's the first time you're facing enemies who can teleport, and it's the 6th fight from the start of the game?
The fights in the DOS games are designed differently than in RTwP games. They are designed the way each of them at least stands out a bit. Please name me the fight that mirrors the crocodiles in Fort Joy?
And it's not only the abilities of an enemy that defines the battle. Its scene, for example. How you can approach the fight, how you can manoeuvre.
How are fights in the DOS games MORE repetitive than in other games. Take Pillars of Eternity. Take BG1 or BG2. What is so repetitive in DOS that doesn't happen when you do exactly the same steps any time you approach enemies in other games.
I wouldn't call early Wizardry 8 fights boring, on the contrary they often mean difference between life and death. It's the late game that gets tedious, because nobody can really hurt you at that point but walks in large mobs and has hundreds of HPs.
welll when i say turn based crpgs are slow i more meant the full 3d ones not the first person dungeon crawlers. those are about jrpg speed [ as they inspired them] and not that slow.
How are fights in the DOS games MORE repetitive than in other games. Take Pillars of Eternity. Take BG1 or BG2. What is so repetitive in DOS that doesn't happen when you do exactly the same steps any time you approach enemies in other games.
Well, for one thing, as Ammar pointed out, they take much longer than most other games. This is something that I took a lot of issue with the Final Fantasy series as well, compared to Dragon Quest, and Shin Megami Tensei/Digital Devil Saga games on the PS2 which I think are the best counter points, I feel in the FF games between VII and X-2 standard battles against mooks always took like 2-3 minutes longer than I'd like them to, consistently. Issue only got worse with later summon animations until they finally put in the ability to skip them. DQ and the SMT games on the other hand go really quick, if the fights are easy, sometimes hitting the auto resolve button is enough, but even in general a long fight in those games might be 15 minutes, compared to 20-30 in the FF games.
Its kind of a similar principle here, the thing about Baldur's Gate is it's not a hugely long game and you can finish it in about as long as it takes to finish a third of the OS games. Yet I am inclined to say not much less happens in BG, it just plays much faster in every way. Its hard to accuse the game of outstaying its welcome anyway.
Now further on Original Sin, It's definitely that skill book system. That really is it, to me it just feels like an incredibly superficial setup and nothing about my characters are really decided by tactics, but by what skills I equip them with, and I have already said this, it comes down to using the same sequence of those skills for almost every fight.
And I did that for almost 20 straight hours, which is more than long enough.
That old and new tension is by now part of the Larian formula. When Ars listed its best games of 2017, I wrote that:
Divinity: Original Sin 2 is remarkable because it's not about reliving the classics. Instead, it extrapolates the trajectory and ambition of groundbreaking games like Ultima and Baldur's Gate into the present day. The result is a game that seems to answer the question, "What would the genre look like if it had never slowed down to begin with?"
Vincke said that's exactly what Larian was trying to do. He was irate when recalling that the genre hit a dead end in the late '90s:
I just never understood the idiocy of not continuing on everything else that was present. We had Fallout; we had Baldur's Gate. I was a big Ultima fan also, so I didn't understand why that just had to end there. Nobody wanted to invest anything more—it was just a dry—it was impossible to find investment for these type of games, right?
I mean, like, Beyond Divinity for instance was a turn-based game back in the days, and I flatly got told here at this show, at E3, "You gotta make it real time!" Right? "You have to make it real time—nothing else sells any more! You're not going to get any single minimum guarantee!" Which is how you fund studios, back in the days at least, if you don't make it real time.
That was the situation Larian was stuck in for a long time, and some of its middle-years games weren't that great, to be honest. Fans could tell why, though, and Vincke confirmed it. "We always make the games that we wanted to play," he said, "and whether or not we succeeded was often a question of financial resources and time and were always the things that we struggled with."
He said the company turned around "when we basically got rid of publishers." The financial independence afforded by Original Sin and Original Sin 2's success made it possible for Larian to move on to the sequel to the grandparent of everything they'd been trying to make for years.
"We're not making it for nostalgia reasons," Vincke clarified, though. "We're making a new modern RPG for a new era."
Fights being repetitive because you have trash mobs of the same monster is one thing. Fights being repetitive even when you're not fighting trash mobs of the same monster - that's what I experienced with D:OS. In the D:OS games, combat gameplay is built to favor repetitive actions regardless of the specifics of the combat situation. That's what makes it so utterly horrible for me.
The bottom line for me is this: If someone is try to convince me that BG3 will be a good game, then the last thing they want to do is to bring up anything related to the D:OS games as part of their argument. That is a guarantee of loss of credibility with me. I've been trying to be polite here in expressing my true feelings about the D:OS games. Let's just say my judgment of them is extremely harsh.
That old and new tension is by now part of the Larian formula. When Ars listed its best games of 2017, I wrote that:
Divinity: Original Sin 2 is remarkable because it's not about reliving the classics. Instead, it extrapolates the trajectory and ambition of groundbreaking games like Ultima and Baldur's Gate into the present day. The result is a game that seems to answer the question, "What would the genre look like if it had never slowed down to begin with?"
Vincke said that's exactly what Larian was trying to do. He was irate when recalling that the genre hit a dead end in the late '90s:
I just never understood the idiocy of not continuing on everything else that was present. We had Fallout; we had Baldur's Gate. I was a big Ultima fan also, so I didn't understand why that just had to end there. Nobody wanted to invest anything more—it was just a dry—it was impossible to find investment for these type of games, right?
I mean, like, Beyond Divinity for instance was a turn-based game back in the days, and I flatly got told here at this show, at E3, "You gotta make it real time!" Right? "You have to make it real time—nothing else sells any more! You're not going to get any single minimum guarantee!" Which is how you fund studios, back in the days at least, if you don't make it real time.
That was the situation Larian was stuck in for a long time, and some of its middle-years games weren't that great, to be honest. Fans could tell why, though, and Vincke confirmed it. "We always make the games that we wanted to play," he said, "and whether or not we succeeded was often a question of financial resources and time and were always the things that we struggled with."
He said the company turned around "when we basically got rid of publishers." The financial independence afforded by Original Sin and Original Sin 2's success made it possible for Larian to move on to the sequel to the grandparent of everything they'd been trying to make for years.
"We're not making it for nostalgia reasons," Vincke clarified, though. "We're making a new modern RPG for a new era."
The very last part of the article is the most revealing for me, where yet again a reporter is essentially gushing and fawning over D:OS2 as a way of reassuring us that BG3 is going to be awesome. This is the biggest problem BG3 faces - hubris. Being told repeatedly that their game is the "awesomest ever" even though this is far from true may result in Larian actually believing that BS and saying to themselves: "We already made the awesomest game ever, so why not just do the same exact thing again?"
In creating BG3, Larian would be very well served by talking to and sincerely listening to people who DON'T gush and fawn all over D:OS2 and who have critical things to say about that game.
This is a case where I wish people would familiarize themselves a bit more with Larian's work, when it seems they haven't. OS1 has built-in mod support or at least its enhanced edition did. And the second game was intentionally designed to be mod and custom adventure friendly. It's almost as big of a selling point as the base adventure itself.
It's another case where folks are complaining about stuff or asking for certain features and Larian is the studio that does the thing fans on here say they want a company to do. OS2 was designed to bring the tabletop experience and give you DM tools in exactly the way you're asking, as reading any marketing or news about the game would inform you.
"We're not making it for nostalgia reasons," Vincke clarified, though. "We're making a new modern RPG for a new era."
This remembers me a lot of the SCL. I an not saying that the game will be like SCL, but the games that tried to modernize the genre ended with a lot of modern BS. Look to Pillars of Eternity. They tried to solve some D&D ""problems"" like min/maxing attributes and ended with an system where low INT wizards are viable, despite it being completely against the lore of the PoE's world, where wizards study a lot and are intelligent
"The masters of academic magic, wizards are students of arcane traditions that stretch back beyond the boundaries of recorded history. Wizards are a highly organized group, often forming academies or guilds devoted to research and development in magical studies, and tend to favor environments where inquiry, experimentation, debate, and the dissemination of knowledge are encouraged. Many accomplished wizards eventually become known for their eccentricity, their egos, and their unquenchable interest in all things arcane and occult."https://pillarsofeternity2.wiki.fextralife.com/Wizard
Don't try fix what isn't broken. PoE 1/2 are amazing games, but could be better if they had an more classic approach to attributes, misses instead of greases, less health for mobs, etc. At least PoE doesn't have BS mechanics like cooldowns.
And honestly, PoE is the best game that tried to modernize the genre. All other games that tried failed miserably, like SCL, like D3 that tried to modernize D2's combat.
I mean, like, Beyond Divinity for instance was a turn-based game back in the days, and I flatly got told here at this show, at E3, "You gotta make it real time!" Right? "You have to make it real time—nothing else sells any more! You're not going to get any single minimum guarantee!" Which is how you fund studios, back in the days at least, if you don't make it real time.
Well, why not make both? Like Migh & Magic VI-VIII, you can use real time to trash mobs and turn based for hard mobs. The best of both world. When is convenient to just kill an army of weaklings, i play on real time, when i an fighting arena on max difficulty, i play on turn based mostly(except when moving)
PoE 2 can be played on both modes. Real time or turn based.
Why not make it optional and able to change at will?
@kanisatha I just want to point out that while you clearly don’t like the Divinity games, there are a lot of people here who obviously do. You speak as if it’s a fact that they are awful games when in my opinion that couldn’t be further from the truth. I have no issue with Baldur’s Gate 3 being similar in design to Divinity Original Sin 1&2 (with D&D 5th edition rules obviously). I have been one of those people from the start that would not mind the game being real time with pause or turn based. I have full faith in Larian. You couldn’t be more wrong about the Divinity games in my opinion.
You speak as if it’s a fact that they are awful games when in my opinion that couldn’t be further from the truth.
As much as it actually matters to us, it is the truth, and I suggest you consider the other side more, think of any classic game series that you hold in really high regard, and then imagine a sequel has just been announced from a company that you don't feel would be the right choice to develop the game, and it becomes clearer and clearer that company is going to impose their vision on said game.
It's a situation in which I don't think there's any really good answer for those of us who feel let down. We could just ignore it, and in the end that's probably all we can do, but I don't think many people wouldn't want to voice their disappointment.
And yeah in this case, you're willing to be excited for it. That's fine. It's also fine for us to be anti-excited :P
@kanisatha I just want to point out that while you clearly don’t like the Divinity games, there are a lot of people here who obviously do. You speak as if it’s a fact that they are awful games when in my opinion that couldn’t be further from the truth. I have no issue with Baldur’s Gate 3 being similar in design to Divinity Original Sin 1&2 (with D&D 5th edition rules obviously). I have been one of those people from the start that would not mind the game being real time with pause or turn based. I have full faith in Larian. You couldn’t be more wrong about the Divinity games in my opinion.
How did I speak as if it were fact? It is very clear in my posts that this is my personal opinion. What is a fact, though, is that there are quite a number of people who did not like the D:OS games, even though fans of the D:OS games (including reporters and reviewers) routinely portray it as everyone thought those games were awesome.
I din't writed an review for D:OS2 despite din't liked the game exactly because the game for those who doesn't hate modern mechanics like modern gearing, CDs, etc; and plays more for an "tactical game" instead of immersion, will not have an bad time.
My critique is that Immagine if Baldur's Gate is an Dulce de leche Ice Cream and D:OS2 an Italian pizza. People like both for different tastes, but mix both will not be tasteful. An another example is Lawbreakers, tried to mix modern hero shooters with old scool arena shooters and failed miserably, because hero shooter fans will never stop their overwatch to play LB and arena shooters will never stop with their quake...
@SorcererV1ct0r I’m not opposed to mixing Ice cream and Pizza ? Sounds yummy ? And thanks for posting that picture. It proves my point that while there are some that dislike the game, the majority clearly do like it ?? Nothing wrong with not liking a game. I’m just not a fan of people making out that the majority hate it when that is clearly a lie.
I’m just not a fan of people making out that the majority hate it when that is clearly a lie.
Hopefully you mean this hypothetically, because neither I nor anyone else has said such a thing in this forum. What I have said, though, is that popularity is not a useful measure of whether a game is good because the goodness of a game is inherently subjective.
How are fights in the DOS games MORE repetitive than in other games. Take Pillars of Eternity. Take BG1 or BG2. What is so repetitive in DOS that doesn't happen when you do exactly the same steps any time you approach enemies in other games.
Being a passionate hater of turn-based combat myself, I would not call TBC repetitive - just unbearably long. For me (TB-hater) the story must be absolutely amazing to tolerate that sluggish snore fest, I simply fall asleep during that endless "battles" (and don't make me start on immersion breaking here). With modern games I was able to make it through only 2 of them - Shadowrun (story) and Tides of Numenera (mostly because there I can avoid most of the fights). DOS1&2 I still could not finish to this day (I own both) and I blame TBC for that.
With all that said, when Pathfinder Kingmaker came out, the most loud outcry (aside from bugs) was unanimous "DnD is turn based by nature! Change the combat system! RTwP does not work here!!!". I disagreed at first - to me, everything worked just fine (as it was in BG, NWN, PoE, etc.) but it made me think... DnD IS turn based by nature, is not it? May be - just may be! - it would not be a bad thing? At least to try? And Larian is a perfect studio for that attempt.
Larian has a good well tested game engine, good art department (tastes aside - games are stylish, memorable, not a single detail can be called "generic"). They lost their amazing composer - Kirill Pokrovsky - and it's a huge blow to their sound department, but Larian do care about sound (in all aspects) and I believe the game will be fine in this regard too. Larian are not cheap - both DOS are high quality games in every aspect. AND Larian are very experienced in turn based combat.
Stadia and insistence on bindings to previous games (I blame WotC) do frighten me. Still, both DOS were at least somewhat moddable, guess, in the worst case some scary things can be fixed.
Is not necessary to watch all video to pick the point that i an trying to make, only the beginning. He mentions that after they changed how armor and magic armor worked from 1 to 2, he noted that all fights works in the same way. So, i would probably like much more D:OS1 over D:OS2 but don't wanna put more money at risk. He mentions other problems like stat inflation, the fact that some choices are only illusion of choices, etc.
And if you see his video, you can see clearly. One change on how armor works leaded to an chain reaction of changes even on Larien's games. And it always happens. Diablo 2 to 3, Morrowind to Oblivion(...) So, if Vinke really wanna change everything, i wonder what will be the end result. For example,an spell with 400 feet + 40 feet per caster level range but that requires an ranged touch attack can work well. The same spell where you will barely miss will be an entire different spell... Other example? Spell focus necromancy. If my finger of death will almost always hit, why have this feat in the first place? this talking only about misses/saves.
There are the leveling that IMO D&D has one of the best and an organic way to fell powerful instead of just damage inflation(mainly for casters) and "sleep spam" that Pathfinder Kingmaker already "solved" by making time matters and resting supplies more limited.
You speak as if it’s a fact that they are awful games when in my opinion that couldn’t be further from the truth.
As much as it actually matters to us, it is the truth, and I suggest you consider the other side more, think of any classic game series that you hold in really high regard, and then imagine a sequel has just been announced from a company that you don't feel would be the right choice to develop the game, and it becomes clearer and clearer that company is going to impose their vision on said game.
It's a situation in which I don't think there's any really good answer for those of us who feel let down. We could just ignore it, and in the end that's probably all we can do, but I don't think many people wouldn't want to voice their disappointment.
And yeah in this case, you're willing to be excited for it. That's fine. It's also fine for us to be anti-excited :P
Ubisoft getting the rights to Heroes of Might & Magic comes to mind as an example. Heroes 5 was pretty good after the 2nd expansion (and like 2 years!) when most of the bugs were finally squashed. Heroes 6 then completely changed everything and ruined the series IMHO.
You speak as if it’s a fact that they are awful games when in my opinion that couldn’t be further from the truth.
As much as it actually matters to us, it is the truth, and I suggest you consider the other side more, think of any classic game series that you hold in really high regard, and then imagine a sequel has just been announced from a company that you don't feel would be the right choice to develop the game, and it becomes clearer and clearer that company is going to impose their vision on said game.
It's a situation in which I don't think there's any really good answer for those of us who feel let down. We could just ignore it, and in the end that's probably all we can do, but I don't think many people wouldn't want to voice their disappointment.
And yeah in this case, you're willing to be excited for it. That's fine. It's also fine for us to be anti-excited :P
Why shouldn't they impose their vision on the game though? They're the ones taking all the risk here. Paying hundreds of people over multiple years in a professional capacity isn't cheap. A mediocre BG3 isn't going to sell enough on pre-launch hype alone. If the game gets mediocre reviews and mediocre sales it could be a fatal blow to a company like Larian. It's happened before in the industry.
I think some of the consistently negative folks here should have some sympathy for how tough the game industry can sometimes be, especially when it comes to making these niche titles. Plenty of companies with legendary titles in their backlog have gone under over the years.
I'd be sympathetic to people complaining about a company with some legitimate issues in its history -- such as Bethesda or EA. But Larian isn't like that. Even if OS and other Divinity games aren't to your particular taste in some regards (and I have issues here), it's hard to argue that the company has a track record that's incompetent or unethical.
Just to give a relevant counterexample, I find it curious the level of slack some of the Larian critics on here have given Owlcat over Pathfinder:Kingmaker. I realize they were a small studio, and it's a new launch. But that game had some unacceptable bugs and issues at launch. No game should be launched in the state that game was at. It's borderline unethical, imo.
I'm a huge fan of where the game is now. And I look forward to their next title. But when it comes to a track record of basic competence, Larian, afaik, has no equivalent stain in its history.
Comments
Yeah, I feel the ranger had issues in most D&D versions. I still like the original AD&D 1st edition Ranger the best. Had useful boni for all level ranges.
The 6th fight! Yes, each of them takes more time than Shank & Carbos, or all the enemies on the Fetishist Ogre map, but come on. At that point of time, you should have spent much more time exploring, talking, and just wandering than fighting. When did it start to become repetitive, if it's the first time you're facing enemies who can teleport, and it's the 6th fight from the start of the game?
The fights in the DOS games are designed differently than in RTwP games. They are designed the way each of them at least stands out a bit. Please name me the fight that mirrors the crocodiles in Fort Joy?
And it's not only the abilities of an enemy that defines the battle. Its scene, for example. How you can approach the fight, how you can manoeuvre.
How are fights in the DOS games MORE repetitive than in other games. Take Pillars of Eternity. Take BG1 or BG2. What is so repetitive in DOS that doesn't happen when you do exactly the same steps any time you approach enemies in other games.
Well, for one thing, as Ammar pointed out, they take much longer than most other games. This is something that I took a lot of issue with the Final Fantasy series as well, compared to Dragon Quest, and Shin Megami Tensei/Digital Devil Saga games on the PS2 which I think are the best counter points, I feel in the FF games between VII and X-2 standard battles against mooks always took like 2-3 minutes longer than I'd like them to, consistently. Issue only got worse with later summon animations until they finally put in the ability to skip them. DQ and the SMT games on the other hand go really quick, if the fights are easy, sometimes hitting the auto resolve button is enough, but even in general a long fight in those games might be 15 minutes, compared to 20-30 in the FF games.
Its kind of a similar principle here, the thing about Baldur's Gate is it's not a hugely long game and you can finish it in about as long as it takes to finish a third of the OS games. Yet I am inclined to say not much less happens in BG, it just plays much faster in every way. Its hard to accuse the game of outstaying its welcome anyway.
Now further on Original Sin, It's definitely that skill book system. That really is it, to me it just feels like an incredibly superficial setup and nothing about my characters are really decided by tactics, but by what skills I equip them with, and I have already said this, it comes down to using the same sequence of those skills for almost every fight.
And I did that for almost 20 straight hours, which is more than long enough.
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/06/interview-baldurs-gate-3s-creators-talk-dd-turn-based-rpgs-and-dreams-coming-true/
"The re-turn of turn-based games
That old and new tension is by now part of the Larian formula. When Ars listed its best games of 2017, I wrote that:
Divinity: Original Sin 2 is remarkable because it's not about reliving the classics. Instead, it extrapolates the trajectory and ambition of groundbreaking games like Ultima and Baldur's Gate into the present day. The result is a game that seems to answer the question, "What would the genre look like if it had never slowed down to begin with?"
Vincke said that's exactly what Larian was trying to do. He was irate when recalling that the genre hit a dead end in the late '90s:
I just never understood the idiocy of not continuing on everything else that was present. We had Fallout; we had Baldur's Gate. I was a big Ultima fan also, so I didn't understand why that just had to end there. Nobody wanted to invest anything more—it was just a dry—it was impossible to find investment for these type of games, right?
I mean, like, Beyond Divinity for instance was a turn-based game back in the days, and I flatly got told here at this show, at E3, "You gotta make it real time!" Right? "You have to make it real time—nothing else sells any more! You're not going to get any single minimum guarantee!" Which is how you fund studios, back in the days at least, if you don't make it real time.
That was the situation Larian was stuck in for a long time, and some of its middle-years games weren't that great, to be honest. Fans could tell why, though, and Vincke confirmed it. "We always make the games that we wanted to play," he said, "and whether or not we succeeded was often a question of financial resources and time and were always the things that we struggled with."
He said the company turned around "when we basically got rid of publishers." The financial independence afforded by Original Sin and Original Sin 2's success made it possible for Larian to move on to the sequel to the grandparent of everything they'd been trying to make for years.
"We're not making it for nostalgia reasons," Vincke clarified, though. "We're making a new modern RPG for a new era."
The bottom line for me is this: If someone is try to convince me that BG3 will be a good game, then the last thing they want to do is to bring up anything related to the D:OS games as part of their argument. That is a guarantee of loss of credibility with me. I've been trying to be polite here in expressing my true feelings about the D:OS games. Let's just say my judgment of them is extremely harsh.
The very last part of the article is the most revealing for me, where yet again a reporter is essentially gushing and fawning over D:OS2 as a way of reassuring us that BG3 is going to be awesome. This is the biggest problem BG3 faces - hubris. Being told repeatedly that their game is the "awesomest ever" even though this is far from true may result in Larian actually believing that BS and saying to themselves: "We already made the awesomest game ever, so why not just do the same exact thing again?"
In creating BG3, Larian would be very well served by talking to and sincerely listening to people who DON'T gush and fawn all over D:OS2 and who have critical things to say about that game.
It's another case where folks are complaining about stuff or asking for certain features and Larian is the studio that does the thing fans on here say they want a company to do. OS2 was designed to bring the tabletop experience and give you DM tools in exactly the way you're asking, as reading any marketing or news about the game would inform you.
This remembers me a lot of the SCL. I an not saying that the game will be like SCL, but the games that tried to modernize the genre ended with a lot of modern BS. Look to Pillars of Eternity. They tried to solve some D&D ""problems"" like min/maxing attributes and ended with an system where low INT wizards are viable, despite it being completely against the lore of the PoE's world, where wizards study a lot and are intelligent
"The masters of academic magic, wizards are students of arcane traditions that stretch back beyond the boundaries of recorded history. Wizards are a highly organized group, often forming academies or guilds devoted to research and development in magical studies, and tend to favor environments where inquiry, experimentation, debate, and the dissemination of knowledge are encouraged. Many accomplished wizards eventually become known for their eccentricity, their egos, and their unquenchable interest in all things arcane and occult." https://pillarsofeternity2.wiki.fextralife.com/Wizard
Don't try fix what isn't broken. PoE 1/2 are amazing games, but could be better if they had an more classic approach to attributes, misses instead of greases, less health for mobs, etc. At least PoE doesn't have BS mechanics like cooldowns.
And honestly, PoE is the best game that tried to modernize the genre. All other games that tried failed miserably, like SCL, like D3 that tried to modernize D2's combat.
Well, why not make both? Like Migh & Magic VI-VIII, you can use real time to trash mobs and turn based for hard mobs. The best of both world. When is convenient to just kill an army of weaklings, i play on real time, when i an fighting arena on max difficulty, i play on turn based mostly(except when moving)
PoE 2 can be played on both modes. Real time or turn based.
Why not make it optional and able to change at will?
I think turn-based BG may interest me even less than third-person would.
As much as it actually matters to us, it is the truth, and I suggest you consider the other side more, think of any classic game series that you hold in really high regard, and then imagine a sequel has just been announced from a company that you don't feel would be the right choice to develop the game, and it becomes clearer and clearer that company is going to impose their vision on said game.
It's a situation in which I don't think there's any really good answer for those of us who feel let down. We could just ignore it, and in the end that's probably all we can do, but I don't think many people wouldn't want to voice their disappointment.
And yeah in this case, you're willing to be excited for it. That's fine. It's also fine for us to be anti-excited :P
How did I speak as if it were fact? It is very clear in my posts that this is my personal opinion. What is a fact, though, is that there are quite a number of people who did not like the D:OS games, even though fans of the D:OS games (including reporters and reviewers) routinely portray it as everyone thought those games were awesome.
And on gog is 4.7/5.0
https://www.gog.com/game/divinity_original_sin_2
Greater than for example Pathfinder Kingmaker.
I din't writed an review for D:OS2 despite din't liked the game exactly because the game for those who doesn't hate modern mechanics like modern gearing, CDs, etc; and plays more for an "tactical game" instead of immersion, will not have an bad time.
My critique is that Immagine if Baldur's Gate is an Dulce de leche Ice Cream and D:OS2 an Italian pizza. People like both for different tastes, but mix both will not be tasteful. An another example is Lawbreakers, tried to mix modern hero shooters with old scool arena shooters and failed miserably, because hero shooter fans will never stop their overwatch to play LB and arena shooters will never stop with their quake...
Being a passionate hater of turn-based combat myself, I would not call TBC repetitive - just unbearably long. For me (TB-hater) the story must be absolutely amazing to tolerate that sluggish snore fest, I simply fall asleep during that endless "battles" (and don't make me start on immersion breaking here). With modern games I was able to make it through only 2 of them - Shadowrun (story) and Tides of Numenera (mostly because there I can avoid most of the fights). DOS1&2 I still could not finish to this day (I own both) and I blame TBC for that.
With all that said, when Pathfinder Kingmaker came out, the most loud outcry (aside from bugs) was unanimous "DnD is turn based by nature! Change the combat system! RTwP does not work here!!!". I disagreed at first - to me, everything worked just fine (as it was in BG, NWN, PoE, etc.) but it made me think... DnD IS turn based by nature, is not it? May be - just may be! - it would not be a bad thing? At least to try? And Larian is a perfect studio for that attempt.
Larian has a good well tested game engine, good art department (tastes aside - games are stylish, memorable, not a single detail can be called "generic"). They lost their amazing composer - Kirill Pokrovsky - and it's a huge blow to their sound department, but Larian do care about sound (in all aspects) and I believe the game will be fine in this regard too. Larian are not cheap - both DOS are high quality games in every aspect. AND Larian are very experienced in turn based combat.
Stadia and insistence on bindings to previous games (I blame WotC) do frighten me. Still, both DOS were at least somewhat moddable, guess, in the worst case some scary things can be fixed.
I say - BG3 will be well worth to see.
Is not necessary to watch all video to pick the point that i an trying to make, only the beginning. He mentions that after they changed how armor and magic armor worked from 1 to 2, he noted that all fights works in the same way. So, i would probably like much more D:OS1 over D:OS2 but don't wanna put more money at risk. He mentions other problems like stat inflation, the fact that some choices are only illusion of choices, etc.
And if you see his video, you can see clearly. One change on how armor works leaded to an chain reaction of changes even on Larien's games. And it always happens. Diablo 2 to 3, Morrowind to Oblivion(...) So, if Vinke really wanna change everything, i wonder what will be the end result. For example,an spell with 400 feet + 40 feet per caster level range but that requires an ranged touch attack can work well. The same spell where you will barely miss will be an entire different spell... Other example? Spell focus necromancy. If my finger of death will almost always hit, why have this feat in the first place? this talking only about misses/saves.
There are the leveling that IMO D&D has one of the best and an organic way to fell powerful instead of just damage inflation(mainly for casters) and "sleep spam" that Pathfinder Kingmaker already "solved" by making time matters and resting supplies more limited.
Ubisoft getting the rights to Heroes of Might & Magic comes to mind as an example. Heroes 5 was pretty good after the 2nd expansion (and like 2 years!) when most of the bugs were finally squashed. Heroes 6 then completely changed everything and ruined the series IMHO.
Why shouldn't they impose their vision on the game though? They're the ones taking all the risk here. Paying hundreds of people over multiple years in a professional capacity isn't cheap. A mediocre BG3 isn't going to sell enough on pre-launch hype alone. If the game gets mediocre reviews and mediocre sales it could be a fatal blow to a company like Larian. It's happened before in the industry.
I think some of the consistently negative folks here should have some sympathy for how tough the game industry can sometimes be, especially when it comes to making these niche titles. Plenty of companies with legendary titles in their backlog have gone under over the years.
I'd be sympathetic to people complaining about a company with some legitimate issues in its history -- such as Bethesda or EA. But Larian isn't like that. Even if OS and other Divinity games aren't to your particular taste in some regards (and I have issues here), it's hard to argue that the company has a track record that's incompetent or unethical.
I'm a huge fan of where the game is now. And I look forward to their next title. But when it comes to a track record of basic competence, Larian, afaik, has no equivalent stain in its history.