Yes, it's hard to understand. A few months ago, there was no BGIII known to the public. Now, it's the end of the (gaming) world for hardcore fans of classic BG. If you're not interested in a new title - just let it pass, don't play it, don't even read reviews.
I see absolutely 0 sense in all this criticism of a new game based on the argument "it doesn't follow the legacy of classic BG". 20 years passed. 20 years. It'll be more when BGIII is released. Gaming has changed. The world has changed.
I - from the start - before we even got an announcement - said the following:
It should be right there - among top RPGs of all times, if not the top one. And for that, you'd want everything "best" in the category. Best storytelling, best cinematics, best characters, best music, best gameplay, best everything. You can't be the best if you use something from 20 years ago. If BG1 tried to use something from 20 years - ok, even from 5 years - before it was released...
This game should define the genre, not trail at the end of it. This game should impress, it should blow your mind. It should blow minds of millions of gamers. It's impossible to do with an old engine, it's impossible to do with an approach of "this is our spiritual successor to the classics" only.
Come on, people. Lots of gamers didn't try BG1 or BG2. There are many more gamers nowadays than there were 20 years ago. And I hope all you would agree that the more people learn D&D and become charmed by its magic, the better. That is the aim the company behind such a game should take, IMHO.
If you're not interested in the Dragon Age - type (and here I mention it only from the popularity, only from the genre-defining standpoint) - it's your choice. But how many people will be inspired and absolutely captured by something as incredible as BG1, but for today's world. For today's gaming world. When you see such games as Death Stranding going out in the same (or nearly the same) year, you want to provide quality, you want to impress, you want to be beautiful.
I don't want Vampire: The Masquerade Bloodlines 2 look like Vampire: The Masquerade Bloodlines, I want it to look modern and to be cool - while staying modern. There's nothing bad in being from today's world, living in the past is not the only way.
I don't want BG3 look like BG1. I don't want it look like PoE. I don't want it look like DOS. I don't want it look like DAO. I want more, and I have every right to demand more from such an iconic title.
And so far every bit of information released about the game assures me in my expectations.
Turn based or Real time with pause? I don’t care. I appreciate that Larian want to make their own game and want it to be as successful as possible and I trust them. DOS and DOS2 both are great games so they have my faith
The very simple point is if the final game is something you like then buy it. If it isn't don't buy it. We have no solid information about what the game will be. Certainly not enough to love it or hate it yet.
The very simple point is if the final game is something you like then buy it. If it isn't don't buy it. We have no solid information about what the game will be. Certainly not enough to love it or hate it yet.
Agreed, though we do have statements from the developers that some people may find worrying for the prospects of the game. And it's understandable if the people who are massive fans of the first two games find it disappointing if the official sequel goes in a new direction that doesn't appeal to them.
It should be right there - among top RPGs of all times, if not the top one. And for that, you'd want everything "best" in the category. Best storytelling, best cinematics, best characters, best music, best gameplay, best everything. You can't be the best if you use something from 20 years ago. If BG1 tried to use something from 20 years - ok, even from 5 years - before it was released...
Implied in this statement is the notion that Baldur's Gate 1 & 2, when viewed with a modern lens, have subpar storytelling, characters, music and gameplay. That's fine if you think that, and it would seem that the head honchos at Larian agree with you—at least partially. In my opinion, however, BG 1 & 2 would be the best RPGs on the market even if they came out today.
Come on, people. Lots of gamers didn't try BG1 or BG2. There are many more gamers nowadays than there were 20 years ago. And I hope all you would agree that the more people learn D&D and become charmed by its magic, the better. That is the aim the company behind such a game should take, IMHO.
If a game I like becomes popular, that's great, but if a series I like gets simplified and saturated to the point where it loses much of its appeal in an effort to chase higher sales numbers (a phenomenon I dub the "TES effect"), then frankly I don't care about how many people end up playing it.
(Nor do I care about D&D in general. They lost me due to their business practices a long time ago.)
Come on, people. Lots of gamers didn't try BG1 or BG2. There are many more gamers nowadays than there were 20 years ago. And I hope all you would agree that the more people learn D&D and become charmed by its magic, the better. That is the aim the company behind such a game should take, IMHO.
The problem is. This gamers will probably believe that Baldur's Gate is something completely different. More Larian changes about BG, more this problem will happens. And i already saw people mentioning dos as "modern bg" despite BG and D:OS having nothing in common.
I saw a lot of people that because can play Larian games on hardest difficulty, tried Pathfinder Kingmaker on "unfair", failed miserably and instead of lowering the difficulty or reading the rules, they blamed the game by the worst possible reasons. The normal difficulty was balanced around Pathfinder veterans.
I don't want Vampire: The Masquerade Bloodlines 2 look like Vampire: The Masquerade Bloodlines, I want it to look modern and to be cool - while staying modern. There's nothing bad in being from today's world, living in the past is not the only way.
VtMB2 will not be good as the first one due a lot of reasons. Come on, Tremere without domination? Only two powers/discipline? Temp guns? But VtMB2 devs din't said loud and clear that having dots as you have in pnp, doesn't work. And the best aspect of VtMB 2 is the investigation, conversations, etc. Not the combat and looking for the E3 gameplay, the game is at least decent on it.
IMO VtMB2 will be better than other recent vampire games like vampyr but far worse than vtmb1.
BG3 in other hands, will probably be an D:OS clone.
]Implied in this statement is the notion that Baldur's Gate 1 & 2, when viewed with a modern lens, have subpar storytelling, characters, music and gameplay. That's fine if you think that, and it would seem that the head honchos at Larian agree with you—at least partially. In my opinion, however, BG 1 & 2 would be the best RPGs on the market even if they came out today.)
I strongly agree but remember that many journalists today decides what is an good game and that fully voice acting is viewed as a necessity. And that journalists took away scores from pathfinder kingmaker because "i can't kill an insect swarm with my poleaxe, this game is broken"
This not mentioning political controversy. Be able to purchase slaves on the underdard would lead to an controversy nowdays.
I strongly agree but remember that many journalists today decides what is an good game and that fully voice acting is viewed as a necessity. And that journalists took away scores from pathfinder kingmaker because "i can't kill an insect swarm with my poleaxe, this game is broken"
It does seem to be the case that a considerable portion of game journalists these days have an agenda to push and a chip on their shoulders regarding games that dare challenge their players. Luckily gaming journalists are less relevant now than they've ever been. Word of mouth rules.
Implied in this statement is the notion that Baldur's Gate 1 & 2, when viewed with a modern lens, have subpar storytelling, characters, music and gameplay. That's fine if you think that, and it would seem that the head honchos at Larian agree with you—at least partially.
I disagree with this. Implied in the statement is that Larian's doesn't want to remake an old game, but wants to put their own twist on it.
Every artist that covers a well known song and makes a few stylistic changes is not necessarily suggesting the original was inferior. Making a video game is, at its heart, equal parts creative and technical. Creative people want to put themselves into their work.rather than just recreating someone else's.
This seems especially apparent because Larian has spoken *glowingly* of BG1 and 2. They're clearly fans.
Implied in this statement is the notion that Baldur's Gate 1 & 2, when viewed with a modern lens, have subpar storytelling, characters, music and gameplay. That's fine if you think that, and it would seem that the head honchos at Larian agree with you—at least partially.
I disagree with this. Implied in the statement is that Larian's doesn't want to remake an old game, but wants to put their own twist on it.(...)
And who said that this is a good idea??? Bliz putted his own twist "wow" on D3 instead of making an proper diablo. I don't wanna modern gaming BS on any D&D game. Like :
Cooldowns
Gear determining charname's IQ and muscle mass
Homogenizated classes
Confounding difficulty with time consuming
Armor never deflects anything, you can easily damage someone with plae armor with an knife
Implied in this statement is the notion that Baldur's Gate 1 & 2, when viewed with a modern lens, have subpar storytelling, characters, music and gameplay. That's fine if you think that, and it would seem that the head honchos at Larian agree with you—at least partially.
I disagree with this. Implied in the statement is that Larian's doesn't want to remake an old game, but wants to put their own twist on it.
Every artist that covers a well known song and makes a few stylistic changes is not necessarily suggesting the original was inferior. Making a video game is, at its heart, equal parts creative and technical. Creative people want to put themselves into their work.rather than just recreating someone else's.
Saying that a modern game cannot be the best when featuring gameplay from a previous game does imply that the gameplay of the previous game was inferior. You can certainly create a game that features gameplay, characters, and even musical and storytelling themes from an earlier game without it being a retread, surely you would agree. Or do you consider BG2 to be a retread of BG1 as well? You can be plenty creative with a video game sequel without iterating out several basic design concepts that partly constitute the essence of the original games.
As for the song cover metaphor, I don't think it fits. A song cover is the same song done with a different style, while a game sequel is—typically—a different game done with the same style. They're pretty much opposing concepts.
Yup, let's just start throwing around Ableist hate speech because people disagree with you. Classy. That's totally gonna convince us that you are in the right.
When I played BG back in the day I thought the combat was boring.
I still think BioWare can not make interesting combat to save their lives. (Aside from copying shooter-combat)
I really like BG and it is to this day one of my favorite games - but it is not flawless.
The combat is not that great, held back partly by decisions AD&D made.
The Graphics were dated when BG2 came out (I read the articles and the test back when it came out in GameStar and they noted that as one of the flaws, still topepd their rpg charts for a decade).
The story is, even by the standarts of the 90s, full of cliches and some weird cameos.
The strength of the game is its characters, Sarevok was well done and when they went into BG2 they have made the npcs fully come to life!
BioWares mastery of creating good and memoriable characters, no persons is what made the game good - not the clunky GUI, the weirdly balanced* combat, nor the servicable but not groundbreaking main story.
* with balanced I mean that early combat was murderous and highly luck dependent, mid combat was usually ok and late combat was completly absurd. Also, quicksave and 2hour workdays messed up the combat-balance further.
When I played BG back in the day I thought the combat was boring.
No, compared to other famous games of the 90s, BG has an amazin in depth combat. Compare to FF VII, everyone in a line, clicking on menus and watching and you can even decide what you will be. Their combat is far better than most modern """rpgs'""" where the combat is spam the same rotation over and over for 30 minutes to kill an boss.
The Graphics were dated when BG2 came out (I read the articles and the test back when it came out in GameStar and they noted that as one of the flaws, still topepd their rpg charts for a decade).
I strongly disagree. The Graphics are on par with Diablo 2 and both are launched on 2000.
BioWares mastery of creating good and memoriable characters, no persons is what made the game good - not the clunky GUI, the weirdly balanced* combat, nor the servicable but not groundbreaking main story. (... ) murderous and highly luck dependent,
I don't care about balance. Balance is only an excuse to bring homogenization and make an paladin as effective against undead as a sorcerer that only knows cold spells. As for UI, i agree that could be improved.
But the "luck dependent", life is very lucky dependent. It makes the fight more intense and immersive. Know that someone can crit your cleric with an poisoned arrow and it can affect the encounter is what make the battles interesting. This is not supposed to be an strategy game. And i like strategy game likes HoMM, but rpg's have another focus.
Even on Mount & Blade, an game without fantasy nor magic(not counting mods), i got OHKilled by an "sniper" archer during an failed cavalry charge attempt who hit my head, is very unlikely that someone can hit you while you are moving at very far way, but can happen. If was on a generic mmoish game where bows has 13m range, everyone is a bullet spongee and my cavalry charge are on cooldown, the game would not be as good as was.
_________________________________
edit :
About the graphics. BG2 VS D2 and M&M 8. all games launched on 2000
BG 2
d2
mm8
Some people prefer the cartoonish graphics but is a matter of taste. BG2 din't had bad graphics for his time.
Yea voice acting is constraining. It's expensive and it becomes an issue if you need to change any text. You also have to be mindful of how easy phrases and words are for the voice actors.
Voice acting is also highly overrated, the BG series hit the perfect amount of voice acting, a few voiced lines from the important characters so we have an idea of what they sound like, and the rest is text. Going from no voice acting or partial voice acting to voice acting everything has almost always led to a major decline in dialogue variety.
It would be nice if Larian kept the partial voice acting model and instead focused on compelling dialogue, but let's face it, they almost certainly won't. It's not "modern" enough.
Implied in this statement is the notion that Baldur's Gate 1 & 2, when viewed with a modern lens, have subpar storytelling, characters, music and gameplay. That's fine if you think that, and it would seem that the head honchos at Larian agree with you—at least partially.
I disagree with this. Implied in the statement is that Larian's doesn't want to remake an old game, but wants to put their own twist on it.
Every artist that covers a well known song and makes a few stylistic changes is not necessarily suggesting the original was inferior. Making a video game is, at its heart, equal parts creative and technical. Creative people want to put themselves into their work.rather than just recreating someone else's.
Saying that a modern game cannot be the best when featuring gameplay from a previous game does imply that the gameplay of the previous game was inferior. You can certainly create a game that features gameplay, characters, and even musical and storytelling themes from an earlier game without it being a retread, surely you would agree. Or do you consider BG2 to be a retread of BG1 as well? You can be plenty creative with a video game sequel without iterating out several basic design concepts that partly constitute the essence of the original games.
As for the song cover metaphor, I don't think it fits. A song cover is the same song done with a different style, while a game sequel is—typically—a different game done with the same style. They're pretty much opposing concepts.
I'll concede that the music analogy didn't work, but I still don't think you're correct that saying what worked 20 years ago won't work today is saying the past is inferior. All forms of media progress in various ways, and are not meant to be value judgments, just changes in the collective flavor that appeals to society.
BG1 and 2 are a great example. While being similar in a lot of ways, they are also clearly VERY different from each other. The style and expectations of BG1 and BG2 companion interaction, including romances, are fundamentally different. That's not an indictment on the original system, but a change. Exploration is totally different as well. These are fundamental changes to the game made over only a year or two, much less 20 years and a whole new studio.
The last paragraph of this article clearly demonstrates that Larian is aware of how important and great the franchise is. Calling BG one of the most influential games of all time. They're clearly fans.
Ah, I guess it's time for another lecture to those of us who are totally legitimately disappointed and angry that we all need to put on a happy face and learn to love Larian's new game because it's the awesomest, don't you know?
Yeah, no. I'll be as angry as I want to be, I'll voice that anger as much as I want to, and I'll expect my feelings to be respected just as I'm expected to respect other people's feelings.
@SorcererV1ct0r I think you misunderstood my point with balance.
Fun fact: nearly all battles in BG1 can be won with web+fireball+ranged.
Also, if you try to melee at level 1, prepare to die. A lot.
If you play at level 1, use sleep to end nearly all early battles!
Aside from that mage at FAI, he is just there to show how this is a difficult game!
For you FF excursion: Having the abiltiy to move around does not mean combit is more engaging nor does it mean it has neccessarily more depth. (Having to fight every three steps is also a horrible decision, so yeah, FF is nto really that great either.)
The thing is, even if you disagree with the opinion I had back in the early 2000s, the problem is that the quality of games has actually gone up.
The graphic standards are higher, the system is expected to be more accessable, most old school stories are so often copied that their plotpoints have been overused.
Even if you think that BG2 was a near flawless (for its time) masterpiece - the expectations have evolved.
Even most of us, who have played the originals within their time have evolved and changed.
Maybe some of us have the exact same expectations they had 20 years ago, but most of us are used to the improving standards.
When NWN1 came out, I played it with high expectations and was completly disappointed, because it was not really another game like BG2. That experience and the games rpgs that came after it soured me towards western rpgs for a looong time. I can enjoy NWN and KotoR1 nowadays because they are good games. Even if they are not that much like BG2.
So, why did I say that last part? Because for a long time I would probably have said similiar things as you and @ThacoBell but nowadays I think it is unfair.
Baldurs Gate 1 and 2 exist, so Larian can not do that. Creating a carbon copy of BG2 will not make any one happy, but how can they *faithfully* improve the BG-formula if we can't even agree on what really *is* that formula?
How can they improve something if we can not agree on the flaws? On the strength?
On the heart of the game?
Give Larian a chance to make the game without damning them for attempting it.
It has been nearly 20 years, no one else will make the game.
If they fail, one way or the other, we do not lose anything.
If they succeed but the game does not feel enough like Baldurs Gate, then there is at least the chance that renewed interest in D&D games gives us new games that maybe come closer to the original feel.
We have *nothing* to lose, but everything to win.
Having a crappy new game will not erase our childhood, it will not erase our memories.
It will be just one more bad game among many, it will be forgotten.
Give it a fair chance and dismiss not a game that you might enjoy - even if it is not the sequel you wished for.
Ah, I guess it's time for another lecture to those of us who are totally legitimately disappointed and angry that we all need to put on a happy face and learn to love Larian's new game because it's the awesomest, don't you know?
Yeah, no. I'll be as angry as I want to be, I'll voice that anger as much as I want to, and I'll expect my feelings to be respected just as I'm expected to respect other people's feelings.
seriously, i dont understand why we are being treated like trash for not liking what larian is doing and then we express our opinion on it, and we are basically told to go pound sand *sigh*
Ah, I guess it's time for another lecture to those of us who are totally legitimately disappointed and angry that we all need to put on a happy face and learn to love Larian's new game because it's the awesomest, don't you know?
Yeah, no. I'll be as angry as I want to be, I'll voice that anger as much as I want to, and I'll expect my feelings to be respected just as I'm expected to respect other people's feelings.
seriously, i dont understand why we are being treated like trash for not liking what larian is doing and then we express our opinion on it, and we are basically told to go pound sand *sigh*
Yeah, honestly, it feels like there's a Larian cult in play here, and anyone who dares to disparage the Larian Cult shall be smote.
Ah, I guess it's time for another lecture to those of us who are totally legitimately disappointed and angry that we all need to put on a happy face and learn to love Larian's new game because it's the awesomest, don't you know?
Yeah, no. I'll be as angry as I want to be, I'll voice that anger as much as I want to, and I'll expect my feelings to be respected just as I'm expected to respect other people's feelings.
seriously, i dont understand why we are being treated like trash for not liking what larian is doing and then we express our opinion on it, and we are basically told to go pound sand *sigh*
....What are you talking about?
The people that argue against you are confused by your anger about the very idea of BG3 (and your interpretation of the miniscule info Larian gives us). They also don't treat you liek trash, but try to convince you that Larian deserves a chance.
How do you go from "Larian should get a chance because the game might be good" to "go and pound sand"?
Trying to convince someone that is is not going to be bad is not insulting.
Implied in this statement is the notion that Baldur's Gate 1 & 2, when viewed with a modern lens, have subpar storytelling, characters, music and gameplay. That's fine if you think that, and it would seem that the head honchos at Larian agree with you—at least partially.
I disagree with this. Implied in the statement is that Larian's doesn't want to remake an old game, but wants to put their own twist on it.
Every artist that covers a well known song and makes a few stylistic changes is not necessarily suggesting the original was inferior. Making a video game is, at its heart, equal parts creative and technical. Creative people want to put themselves into their work.rather than just recreating someone else's.
Saying that a modern game cannot be the best when featuring gameplay from a previous game does imply that the gameplay of the previous game was inferior. You can certainly create a game that features gameplay, characters, and even musical and storytelling themes from an earlier game without it being a retread, surely you would agree. Or do you consider BG2 to be a retread of BG1 as well? You can be plenty creative with a video game sequel without iterating out several basic design concepts that partly constitute the essence of the original games.
As for the song cover metaphor, I don't think it fits. A song cover is the same song done with a different style, while a game sequel is—typically—a different game done with the same style. They're pretty much opposing concepts.
I'll concede that the music analogy didn't work, but I still don't think you're correct that saying what worked 20 years ago won't work today is saying the past is inferior. All forms of media progress in various ways, and are not meant to be value judgments, just changes in the collective flavor that appeals to society.
BG1 and 2 are a great example. While being similar in a lot of ways, they are also clearly VERY different from each other. The style and expectations of BG1 and BG2 companion interaction, including romances, are fundamentally different. That's not an indictment on the original system, but a change. Exploration is totally different as well. These are fundamental changes to the game made over only a year or two, much less 20 years and a whole new studio.
Time doesn't change what good game design is, and gaming society as a whole doesn't need to enter the equation. Not every newly released game has to appeal to all current gamers. The gaming industry is huge, and it has plenty of niche areas with games that most people wouldn't find satisfying to play, because different people have different sensibilities. A game like Baldur's Gate would indeed find a loving fan base today, provided it isn't overproduced with a massive budget that requires general audience appeal to ensure a return on the studio's investment.
This is just me, but I personally don't enjoy it when a major studio comes to visit a niche I love, snatches up a franchise, and drags it out under the sun as a marketable title for their next mass appeal game that bears only the most superficial resemblance to anything else that was previously known by the same name.
We've yet to see if BG3 gets the same treatment, but to quote Han, I have a bad feeling about this.
The last paragraph of this article clearly demonstrates that Larian is aware of how important and great the franchise is. Calling BG one of the most influential games of all time. They're clearly fans.
Swen Vincke saying that Baldur's Gate is one of the most influential games of all time is like saying Donald Trump is one of the most famous people alive. It's not a value judgment, nor an endorsement. It's just a factual statement.
I can't see into Vincke's mind, but I'm sure he has lots of fond memories playing Baldur's Gate. It's just that the statement you've referenced sounds to me like lip service when paired with other statements where he describes how his team removed or adjusted several fundamental aspects of the previous games for BG3.
Ah, I guess it's time for another lecture to those of us who are totally legitimately disappointed and angry that we all need to put on a happy face and learn to love Larian's new game because it's the awesomest, don't you know?
Yeah, no. I'll be as angry as I want to be, I'll voice that anger as much as I want to, and I'll expect my feelings to be respected just as I'm expected to respect other people's feelings.
seriously, i dont understand why we are being treated like trash for not liking what larian is doing and then we express our opinion on it, and we are basically told to go pound sand *sigh*
....What are you talking about?
The people that argue against you are confused by your anger about the very idea of BG3 (and your interpretation of the miniscule info Larian gives us). They also don't treat you liek trash, but try to convince you that Larian deserves a chance.
How do you go from "Larian should get a chance because the game might be good" to "go and pound sand"?
Trying to convince someone that is is not going to be bad is not insulting.
when i voiced my opinion i got responses like this:
So, they back up their claims with a whole lot of money of their own. Which I find more impressive than some aspies who are convinced that nothing will top their precious precious.
i didnt know what aspies meant so i had to google it up and see what it means and this is the definition:
a person with Asperger's syndrome.
so based on that remark, i must have asperger's syndrome because i dont like the name of BG being soiled
and then i made another post expressing my concerns about it, and even ADMITTING that if they didnt use the BG name, i would have been 100% fine with it, but then i was nit picked and was given this:
sarevok57 wrote: »
...but taking a beloved classic and running it through the mud claiming that their version is better, nah bra
... insinuating that this is a sequel to BG 2
what they should have done ...
... there would be millions of half-life fans raising their pitch fork and torches and would burn that company down to the ground for its sacrilege
... come in and shit all over games ...
... a nail in the coffin for the BG series
... more AAA fodder thrown to the side once its complete
Oh, man, you have issues.
why do i have issues? because im not a mindless sheep, who just accepts what people tell me? if the game industry says; THIS IS WHAT FUN IS AND IF YOU DONT AGREE WITH US, THEN YOU HAVE ISSUES AND HAVE ASPERGERS is basically what is sounds like im being told
there is a reason why people voice their opinion on games, because we the people actually buy them, and we want to buy games that we want to play, if the industry makes games that we dont want to play, then we should be able to voice our opinion so then the industry knows what we want and what we dont want, but i guess having an opinion these days against the masses is taboo and i should just go pound sand i suppose
Fun fact: nearly all battles in BG1 can be won with web+fireball+ranged.
Also, if you try to melee at level 1, prepare to die. A lot.
1 - Nearly all battles on modern RPG's could be ended by spam the same rotation for 30 minutes
2 - Takes an very long time to get fireball on BG1 with 6 party members
3 - A lot of enemies can "resist" web
4 - Melee at lv 1 is risk and it makes sense. Hunt an Boar with an longbow is far easier than with an spear and with the spear, far easier than with an sword.
For you FF excursion: Having the abiltiy to move around does not mean combit is more engaging nor does it mean it has neccessarily more depth. (Having to fight every three steps is also a horrible decision, so yeah, FF is nto really that great either.)
No, but everyone in a "line" is the worst possible system. Something that even DOS era games managed to improve upon.
When NWN1 came out, I played it with high expectations and was completly disappointed, because it was not really another game like BG2.
No, NWN1 is FAR DIFFERENT than BG2.
1 - You control only one party member
2 - The ruleset is 3e.
3 - The game focus much more on MP and player made modules/premium modules
4 - The 3D engine
And maybe NWN was a disappointment for you, but for everyone else, but NWN 1 :
Creating a carbon copy of BG2 will not make any one happy, but how can they *faithfully* improve the BG-formula if we can't even agree on what really *is* that formula?
How Larien should improve upon BG2?
More races, more classes, new ruleset
Verticality, implement climb and fly rules
Easy toolset to create custom made spells, classes, adventures, etc
Any "homebrew" rule made for then completely optional
More choices and consequences on the story
(...)
This is how you are picking an "formula" and trying to improve. Put mmoish mechanics into BG is not improve.
The very simple point is if the final game is something you like then buy it. If it isn't don't buy it.
It's not that simple. If you are a hardcore BG fan, and you've been desperately waiting twenty years for another BG game, to then have someone come along and finally actually make that game but you have to pass on that game because it's a shitty game is not an easy and simple thing. This is not an issue of making a rational decision to buy or not buy a game. It is an emotionally heavy and even heartbreaking position you've been put in. You want to be able to buy and enjoy the game, but you are being denied that option because of the game being (from your pov) shitty.
The very simple point is if the final game is something you like then buy it. If it isn't don't buy it.
It's not that simple. If you are a hardcore BG fan, and you've been desperately waiting twenty years for another BG game, to then have someone come along and finally actually make that game but you have to pass on that game because it's a shitty game is not an easy and simple thing. This is not an issue of making a rational decision to buy or not buy a game. It is an emotionally heavy and even heartbreaking position you've been put in. You want to be able to buy and enjoy the game, but you are being denied that option because of the game being (from your pov) shitty.
Not to mention the factor of the franchise going down a road that you don't find appealing, making it unlikely that it will ever again receive a sequel that you'll actually like, with the new direction now being the norm.
why do i have issues? because im not a mindless sheep, who just accepts what people tell me? if the game industry says; THIS IS WHAT FUN IS AND IF YOU DONT AGREE WITH US, THEN YOU HAVE ISSUES AND HAVE ASPERGERS is basically what is sounds like im being told
Um, I feel you exaggerate a little. Industry doesn't tell you who you are based on your tastes, only offers you new products you may choose to buy.
Insisting that world will come to an end if BG3 won't match your vision, however, does sound very much... clinging, shall we say. Should other people be, as you say, mindless sheep and just accept what you tell them?
Implied in this statement is the notion that Baldur's Gate 1 & 2, when viewed with a modern lens, have subpar storytelling, characters, music and gameplay. That's fine if you think that, and it would seem that the head honchos at Larian agree with you—at least partially.
I disagree with this. Implied in the statement is that Larian's doesn't want to remake an old game, but wants to put their own twist on it.
Every artist that covers a well known song and makes a few stylistic changes is not necessarily suggesting the original was inferior. Making a video game is, at its heart, equal parts creative and technical. Creative people want to put themselves into their work.rather than just recreating someone else's.
Saying that a modern game cannot be the best when featuring gameplay from a previous game does imply that the gameplay of the previous game was inferior. You can certainly create a game that features gameplay, characters, and even musical and storytelling themes from an earlier game without it being a retread, surely you would agree. Or do you consider BG2 to be a retread of BG1 as well? You can be plenty creative with a video game sequel without iterating out several basic design concepts that partly constitute the essence of the original games.
As for the song cover metaphor, I don't think it fits. A song cover is the same song done with a different style, while a game sequel is—typically—a different game done with the same style. They're pretty much opposing concepts.
I'll concede that the music analogy didn't work, but I still don't think you're correct that saying what worked 20 years ago won't work today is saying the past is inferior. All forms of media progress in various ways, and are not meant to be value judgments, just changes in the collective flavor that appeals to society.
BG1 and 2 are a great example. While being similar in a lot of ways, they are also clearly VERY different from each other. The style and expectations of BG1 and BG2 companion interaction, including romances, are fundamentally different. That's not an indictment on the original system, but a change. Exploration is totally different as well. These are fundamental changes to the game made over only a year or two, much less 20 years and a whole new studio.
Time doesn't change what good game design is, and gaming society as a whole doesn't need to enter the equation. Not every newly released game has to appeal to all current gamers. The gaming industry is huge, and it has plenty of niche areas with games that most people wouldn't find satisfying to play, because different people have different sensibilities. A game like Baldur's Gate would indeed find a loving fan base today, provided it isn't overproduced with a massive budget that requires general audience appeal to ensure a return on the studio's investment.
This is just me, but I personally don't enjoy it when a major studio comes to visit a niche I love, snatches up a franchise, and drags it out under the sun as a marketable title for their next mass appeal game that bears only the most superficial resemblance to anything else that was previously known by the same name.
We've yet to see if BG3 gets the same treatment, but to quote Han, I have a bad feeling about this.
The last paragraph of this article clearly demonstrates that Larian is aware of how important and great the franchise is. Calling BG one of the most influential games of all time. They're clearly fans.
Swen Vincke saying that Baldur's Gate is one of the most influential games of all time is like saying Donald Trump is one of the most famous people alive. It's not a value judgment, nor an endorsement. It's just a factual statement.
I can't see into Vincke's mind, but I'm sure he has lots of fond memories playing Baldur's Gate. It's just that the statement you've referenced sounds to me like lip service when paired with other statements where he describes how his team removed or adjusted several fundamental aspects of the previous games for BG3.
In that same article he says his team would never need to be motivated again because they were working on the successor to one of the most important games in crpg history. That's another example of them showing deference to the greatness of BG.
Deciding that they want to change/innovate/alter the formula somewhat is not a judgement of the formula itself.
It seems to me that everyone who thinks that Vincke hates BG3 or thinks it's inferior is having to read between the lines, where as there are direct quotes in which he glorifies BG.
As a personal aside - I don't really know why people care about this so much. Vincke's first and foremost intent is to talk about his game - not the past. The rational and best way to do that is to try to compare it against the previous games to explain your vision.
@sarevok57 Mhm, I need to apologize. I seem to have some sort of autofilter for not seeing these lines.
There is no reason for any personal attacks from any side.
...Seriously how did I miss that? oô
Fun fact: nearly all battles in BG1 can be won with web+fireball+ranged.
Also, if you try to melee at level 1, prepare to die. A lot.
1 - Nearly all battles on modern RPG's could be ended by spam the same rotation for 30 minutes
2 - Takes an very long time to get fireball on BG1 with 6 party members
3 - A lot of enemies can "resist" web
4 - Melee at lv 1 is risk and it makes sense. Hunt an Boar with an longbow is far easier than with an spear and with the spear, far easier than with an sword.
1 - You play different games than I do (which is not surprising). The few mainstream rpgs I actually play do require you from updating and modifying your rotation though. Not that BG requires you to switch up your method outside from leveling up and "bosses"..
2 - True, you use sleep to kill everyone before that. That spell is still ridicoulus in later editions though.
3 - Spiders and Ettercaps of the top of my hat. For the rest? just stack 2 webs on top of each others and few make their saves (in BG1). Same with silence.
4 - Hunting a boar with any of these weapons is not that great. Build a trap to make fall down and then poke 'em to death. Putting RL aside, that is just.. stupid. Aside from it making DEX even more important it saves little purpose. Runing around in circles and having a party member shot at the enemy till he hits the floor is not fun. It also is not a deep tactic.
For you FF excursion: Having the abiltiy to move around does not mean combit is more engaging nor does it mean it has neccessarily more depth. (Having to fight every three steps is also a horrible decision, so yeah, FF is nto really that great either.)
No, but everyone in a "line" is the worst possible system. Something that even DOS era games managed to improve upon.
I'm pretty sure that was a stylistic decision. Some modern game still use a modified version of that.
Changes the approach you have to take for party management and your tactics.
I'm pretty sure we go into the "personal preference" territory here.
The thing is, even if you disagree with the opinion I had back in the early 2000s, the problem is that the quality of games has actually gone up.
I din't just disagreed. I showed other games launched in the same time and why BG2 din't had dated graphics on 2000s.
I may have worded badly here. You can read it as "Even if you disregard the opinion I had ..." or "Even if you disproven the opinion I had.." I'm honestly not that investe in defending an nearly 2 decades old opinion here.. ^^
Even if you think that BG2 was a near flawless (for its time) masterpiece - the expectations have evolved.
Correction DEvolved. People are expecting handholding, BS mechanics(CD, stat/gear linked/etc) and political correctness.
Oooh, boy, I think this is the hardest one for me to answer to. I hope I manage to bring my point across neutraly..
Evolved/devolved is completly subjective. I personally think some points are better and others are worse.
Mixed bag, really. Not sure what mechanics you mean with yoru examples there, don't recognize the terms at the moment, sorry.
But handholding and "political correctness" are two things I *strongly* disagree with.
First, handholding: Nowadays, manuals are a rarity and thus the info of that needs to be in the game, yes.
But aside from having integrated tutorials, the only difference I see is that modern games try to not force their players to a lot of trial and error. And having to restart the same combat over and over again to find a way that works is not only a anoying and depressive way to create fake difficulty, it is also immersion breaking. A problem should be solvable without knowing what may happen. Reloading should *never* be a integral part to finding a solution.
Secondly, the political correctness. I hate that term. Most of the time it is used, it is nothing more than a fancy modern word for manners and general decency. Or in other words, we always had that, we just didn't call it political correctnes. Sure some elements changed, but that is because societies change.
I will stop here, because a lengthy explanation of my position here is probably not a good idea. Feel free to pm me if you want a longer and (hopefully) better thought out version.
When NWN1 came out, I played it with high expectations and was completly disappointed, because it was not really another game like BG2.
No, NWN1 is FAR DIFFERENT than BG2.
1 - You control only one party member
2 - The ruleset is 3e.
3 - The game focus much more on MP and player made modules/premium modules
4 - The 3D engine
And maybe NWN was a disappointment for you, but for everyone else, but NWN 1 :
...That was my point. I disliked a good game because it was not what I wanted.
I wanted a game that was basicly BG2 2. I have played BG2 so much that it became my definition of western rpg. And I thought every other WRPG sucked. Which was kinda of stupid of me.
Also, Trent? Make NWN3. If you have to, wait till BG3 has increased the demand, but make the game!
Creating a carbon copy of BG2 will not make any one happy, but how can they *faithfully* improve the BG-formula if we can't even agree on what really *is* that formula?
How Larien should improve upon BG2?
More races, more classes, new ruleset
Verticality, implement climb and fly rules
Easy toolset to create custom made spells, classes, adventures, etc
Any "homebrew" rule made for then completely optional
More choices and consequences on the story
(...)
This is how you are picking an "formula" and trying to improve. Put mmoish mechanics into BG is not improve.
... I actually honestly disagree. The following is my personal opionion and probably not shared by many people here, even those who are looking forward to BG3.
The new rulest I agree with. Races & classes are not that important (I think we get maybe 2 new of each if they use the PHB)
Climb and fly rules.. I can do without. I won't be anoyed if there are there, I won't be anoyed if they are not.
Toolset? Easy amde adventures are neat. The rest.. not so much. Bat experience for me there, but maybe I'm overly cautious here.
Hombrew rules have to be made to implement the game. According to either the PHB or the DMG every DM is encouraged to homebrew stuff for the group. So why shouldn't the DM (Larian) do the exact same for their "group" (The BG players)? BG and NWN is full of homebrew stuff..
Choices. Actually I don't really like choices that much. They *can* be nice.
But often enough I actually prefer an approach like Baldurs Gate: The main story is linear, with small choices that don't matter that much overall. Sidequests have more leeway, who your pc befriends/romances has the most ammount of choices.
Or another example: Persona 4&5. Main story is mostly linear (ending variations are there) but you have freedom with who you create a personal connection with and maybe romance.
(Yes, I like romances in my game.)
But the choice modern games like to promise? It never really turns out that well. If you make too many choices, they end up prominent *and* meaningless, which hurts even more.
When I playe BG I felt like I could play out my character, have real choices even if the main story was mostly linear.
And the BG formula thing. For me the heart of BG are the characters, the banters. Not so much the actual Bhalspawn story or even the sidequest. BioWare managed to chreate personalities that felt ..real.
Irenicus was a person, a personality consumed by his failed ambitions blinded by his power and arrogance.
The companions where memoriable and full of personality. That is what BG is to me.
The best p&p game to this day, because it made me feel like Imoen, Minsc, Aerie where played by other people and not just characters of a story.
To this day I remember who I liked to befriend in the game, who I liked to dislike and I still remember who the first romance was I played (Aerie, if you are curious. Still my favorite of the original options).
I have little memory of the actual combats and I never found the main story that gripping, because for me, it was always about the characters.
Implied in this statement is the notion that Baldur's Gate 1 & 2, when viewed with a modern lens, have subpar storytelling, characters, music and gameplay. That's fine if you think that, and it would seem that the head honchos at Larian agree with you—at least partially.
I disagree with this. Implied in the statement is that Larian's doesn't want to remake an old game, but wants to put their own twist on it.
Every artist that covers a well known song and makes a few stylistic changes is not necessarily suggesting the original was inferior. Making a video game is, at its heart, equal parts creative and technical. Creative people want to put themselves into their work.rather than just recreating someone else's.
Saying that a modern game cannot be the best when featuring gameplay from a previous game does imply that the gameplay of the previous game was inferior. You can certainly create a game that features gameplay, characters, and even musical and storytelling themes from an earlier game without it being a retread, surely you would agree. Or do you consider BG2 to be a retread of BG1 as well? You can be plenty creative with a video game sequel without iterating out several basic design concepts that partly constitute the essence of the original games.
As for the song cover metaphor, I don't think it fits. A song cover is the same song done with a different style, while a game sequel is—typically—a different game done with the same style. They're pretty much opposing concepts.
I'll concede that the music analogy didn't work, but I still don't think you're correct that saying what worked 20 years ago won't work today is saying the past is inferior. All forms of media progress in various ways, and are not meant to be value judgments, just changes in the collective flavor that appeals to society.
BG1 and 2 are a great example. While being similar in a lot of ways, they are also clearly VERY different from each other. The style and expectations of BG1 and BG2 companion interaction, including romances, are fundamentally different. That's not an indictment on the original system, but a change. Exploration is totally different as well. These are fundamental changes to the game made over only a year or two, much less 20 years and a whole new studio.
Time doesn't change what good game design is, and gaming society as a whole doesn't need to enter the equation. Not every newly released game has to appeal to all current gamers. The gaming industry is huge, and it has plenty of niche areas with games that most people wouldn't find satisfying to play, because different people have different sensibilities. A game like Baldur's Gate would indeed find a loving fan base today, provided it isn't overproduced with a massive budget that requires general audience appeal to ensure a return on the studio's investment.
This is just me, but I personally don't enjoy it when a major studio comes to visit a niche I love, snatches up a franchise, and drags it out under the sun as a marketable title for their next mass appeal game that bears only the most superficial resemblance to anything else that was previously known by the same name.
We've yet to see if BG3 gets the same treatment, but to quote Han, I have a bad feeling about this.
The last paragraph of this article clearly demonstrates that Larian is aware of how important and great the franchise is. Calling BG one of the most influential games of all time. They're clearly fans.
Swen Vincke saying that Baldur's Gate is one of the most influential games of all time is like saying Donald Trump is one of the most famous people alive. It's not a value judgment, nor an endorsement. It's just a factual statement.
I can't see into Vincke's mind, but I'm sure he has lots of fond memories playing Baldur's Gate. It's just that the statement you've referenced sounds to me like lip service when paired with other statements where he describes how his team removed or adjusted several fundamental aspects of the previous games for BG3.
In that same article he says his team would never need to be motivated again because they were working on the successor to one of the most important games in crpg history. That's another example of them showing deference to the greatness of BG.
Deciding that they want to change/innovate/alter the formula somewhat is not a judgement of the formula itself.
It seems to me that everyone who thinks that Vincke hates BG3 or thinks it's inferior is having to read between the lines, where as there are direct quotes in which he glorifies BG.
As a personal aside - I don't really know why people care about this so much. Vincke's first and foremost intent is to talk about his game - not the past. The rational and best way to do that is to try to compare it against the previous games to explain your vision.
That's fine, as I said I'm no mind reader, I can only go by what he said in interviews, as vague as they are. It doesn't actually matter to me what anyone in his team thinks of BG 1 & 2, I only responded to that part because I wanted to relay that calling BG "influential" is not an endorsement. Otherwise I only care about where they're taking BG3, and what information we have so far doesn't fill me with confidence of the direction they seem to be taking it. You're fine with their implied alterations to the formula, and I'm not. That's about the whole extent of it.
Arcanis, i will not awnser everything, but if this """RPG's""" that are more gear playing game aka barbie dressing game where everyone is a clone wearing different clothing that determines the character IQ/muscle mass and that an archer can't hit an target at 15m and can't fire in the same way to times in the roll(cooldown), why not make an continuation of this modern games?????? Is like "ArmA 2/3 are the best shooters, but lets put a lot of cod mechanics, lootbox, weapons without recoil, remove realistic balistic penetration because i don't like to die behind armored cover/vehicle to GM6 Lynx, put paintball like small maps, remove the modding capabilities, etc" , if you game will not play like ArmA, not feel like ArmA, not have the same deph and feature as ArmA, why call it ArmA? If is more similar to CoD? Same with BG. If BG3 will be more similar to SCL2(sword coast legends), why call it BG3??? Why not call it Sword Coast Legends 2???
About "running in circles while an archer shot the animal", this is because the IA is bad made, not because the system is bad. Same with exploits that allow you to have powerful equipment on earlier game
About political correctness, i mean the guys "Witcher needs more afropolish and is a misogynistic game", note that W1 and W2 din't received the same complains. Or in VtMB, the game would be extremely controversy nowdays. Your female ghoul kidnaps an guy to be your blood doll. He threatens to call the police. You can argue saying that your ghoul would accuse him of trying to rape her to get away with this situation. This is just one example that would lead to a big controversy today.
About fly and climb, is an rule that no D&D based game implemented. Even Pathfinder Kingmaker, the best modern cRPG, wings only allow you to ignore difficulty terrain. When 3D started on 90s, the first thing that Might & Magic devs did on M&M VI was to add flying spell/mechanics. DOS era games like Daggerfall offers way more vertiicality than modern games.
About homebrew rules, there are an HUGE different in a group and in a cRPG. For eg, the Dragon Disciple on BG:EE and Sword Coast Legends.
Comments
I see absolutely 0 sense in all this criticism of a new game based on the argument "it doesn't follow the legacy of classic BG". 20 years passed. 20 years. It'll be more when BGIII is released. Gaming has changed. The world has changed.
I - from the start - before we even got an announcement - said the following:
It should be right there - among top RPGs of all times, if not the top one. And for that, you'd want everything "best" in the category. Best storytelling, best cinematics, best characters, best music, best gameplay, best everything. You can't be the best if you use something from 20 years ago. If BG1 tried to use something from 20 years - ok, even from 5 years - before it was released...
This game should define the genre, not trail at the end of it. This game should impress, it should blow your mind. It should blow minds of millions of gamers. It's impossible to do with an old engine, it's impossible to do with an approach of "this is our spiritual successor to the classics" only.
Come on, people. Lots of gamers didn't try BG1 or BG2. There are many more gamers nowadays than there were 20 years ago. And I hope all you would agree that the more people learn D&D and become charmed by its magic, the better. That is the aim the company behind such a game should take, IMHO.
If you're not interested in the Dragon Age - type (and here I mention it only from the popularity, only from the genre-defining standpoint) - it's your choice. But how many people will be inspired and absolutely captured by something as incredible as BG1, but for today's world. For today's gaming world. When you see such games as Death Stranding going out in the same (or nearly the same) year, you want to provide quality, you want to impress, you want to be beautiful.
I don't want Vampire: The Masquerade Bloodlines 2 look like Vampire: The Masquerade Bloodlines, I want it to look modern and to be cool - while staying modern. There's nothing bad in being from today's world, living in the past is not the only way.
I don't want BG3 look like BG1. I don't want it look like PoE. I don't want it look like DOS. I don't want it look like DAO. I want more, and I have every right to demand more from such an iconic title.
And so far every bit of information released about the game assures me in my expectations.
Yes! This 100%.
Agreed, though we do have statements from the developers that some people may find worrying for the prospects of the game. And it's understandable if the people who are massive fans of the first two games find it disappointing if the official sequel goes in a new direction that doesn't appeal to them.
Implied in this statement is the notion that Baldur's Gate 1 & 2, when viewed with a modern lens, have subpar storytelling, characters, music and gameplay. That's fine if you think that, and it would seem that the head honchos at Larian agree with you—at least partially. In my opinion, however, BG 1 & 2 would be the best RPGs on the market even if they came out today.
If a game I like becomes popular, that's great, but if a series I like gets simplified and saturated to the point where it loses much of its appeal in an effort to chase higher sales numbers (a phenomenon I dub the "TES effect"), then frankly I don't care about how many people end up playing it.
(Nor do I care about D&D in general. They lost me due to their business practices a long time ago.)
The problem is. This gamers will probably believe that Baldur's Gate is something completely different. More Larian changes about BG, more this problem will happens. And i already saw people mentioning dos as "modern bg" despite BG and D:OS having nothing in common.
I saw a lot of people that because can play Larian games on hardest difficulty, tried Pathfinder Kingmaker on "unfair", failed miserably and instead of lowering the difficulty or reading the rules, they blamed the game by the worst possible reasons. The normal difficulty was balanced around Pathfinder veterans.
VtMB2 will not be good as the first one due a lot of reasons. Come on, Tremere without domination? Only two powers/discipline? Temp guns? But VtMB2 devs din't said loud and clear that having dots as you have in pnp, doesn't work. And the best aspect of VtMB 2 is the investigation, conversations, etc. Not the combat and looking for the E3 gameplay, the game is at least decent on it.
IMO VtMB2 will be better than other recent vampire games like vampyr but far worse than vtmb1.
BG3 in other hands, will probably be an D:OS clone.
I strongly agree but remember that many journalists today decides what is an good game and that fully voice acting is viewed as a necessity. And that journalists took away scores from pathfinder kingmaker because "i can't kill an insect swarm with my poleaxe, this game is broken"
This not mentioning political controversy. Be able to purchase slaves on the underdard would lead to an controversy nowdays.
It does seem to be the case that a considerable portion of game journalists these days have an agenda to push and a chip on their shoulders regarding games that dare challenge their players. Luckily gaming journalists are less relevant now than they've ever been. Word of mouth rules.
I disagree with this. Implied in the statement is that Larian's doesn't want to remake an old game, but wants to put their own twist on it.
Every artist that covers a well known song and makes a few stylistic changes is not necessarily suggesting the original was inferior. Making a video game is, at its heart, equal parts creative and technical. Creative people want to put themselves into their work.rather than just recreating someone else's.
This seems especially apparent because Larian has spoken *glowingly* of BG1 and 2. They're clearly fans.
And who said that this is a good idea??? Bliz putted his own twist "wow" on D3 instead of making an proper diablo. I don't wanna modern gaming BS on any D&D game. Like :
Can you quote they saying anything good about BG?
I only found comments criticizing
Saying that a modern game cannot be the best when featuring gameplay from a previous game does imply that the gameplay of the previous game was inferior. You can certainly create a game that features gameplay, characters, and even musical and storytelling themes from an earlier game without it being a retread, surely you would agree. Or do you consider BG2 to be a retread of BG1 as well? You can be plenty creative with a video game sequel without iterating out several basic design concepts that partly constitute the essence of the original games.
As for the song cover metaphor, I don't think it fits. A song cover is the same song done with a different style, while a game sequel is—typically—a different game done with the same style. They're pretty much opposing concepts.
I still think BioWare can not make interesting combat to save their lives. (Aside from copying shooter-combat)
I really like BG and it is to this day one of my favorite games - but it is not flawless.
The combat is not that great, held back partly by decisions AD&D made.
The Graphics were dated when BG2 came out (I read the articles and the test back when it came out in GameStar and they noted that as one of the flaws, still topepd their rpg charts for a decade).
The story is, even by the standarts of the 90s, full of cliches and some weird cameos.
The strength of the game is its characters, Sarevok was well done and when they went into BG2 they have made the npcs fully come to life!
BioWares mastery of creating good and memoriable characters, no persons is what made the game good - not the clunky GUI, the weirdly balanced* combat, nor the servicable but not groundbreaking main story.
* with balanced I mean that early combat was murderous and highly luck dependent, mid combat was usually ok and late combat was completly absurd. Also, quicksave and 2hour workdays messed up the combat-balance further.
No, compared to other famous games of the 90s, BG has an amazin in depth combat. Compare to FF VII, everyone in a line, clicking on menus and watching and you can even decide what you will be. Their combat is far better than most modern """rpgs'""" where the combat is spam the same rotation over and over for 30 minutes to kill an boss.
I strongly disagree. The Graphics are on par with Diablo 2 and both are launched on 2000.
No, the story was praised for everybody. The idea of the MC being the baalspawn and that he can explore regions like the underdark is an amazing idea
I don't care about balance. Balance is only an excuse to bring homogenization and make an paladin as effective against undead as a sorcerer that only knows cold spells. As for UI, i agree that could be improved.
But the "luck dependent", life is very lucky dependent. It makes the fight more intense and immersive. Know that someone can crit your cleric with an poisoned arrow and it can affect the encounter is what make the battles interesting. This is not supposed to be an strategy game. And i like strategy game likes HoMM, but rpg's have another focus.
Even on Mount & Blade, an game without fantasy nor magic(not counting mods), i got OHKilled by an "sniper" archer during an failed cavalry charge attempt who hit my head, is very unlikely that someone can hit you while you are moving at very far way, but can happen. If was on a generic mmoish game where bows has 13m range, everyone is a bullet spongee and my cavalry charge are on cooldown, the game would not be as good as was.
_________________________________
edit :
About the graphics. BG2 VS D2 and M&M 8. all games launched on 2000
d2
mm8
Some people prefer the cartoonish graphics but is a matter of taste. BG2 din't had bad graphics for his time.
Voice acting is also highly overrated, the BG series hit the perfect amount of voice acting, a few voiced lines from the important characters so we have an idea of what they sound like, and the rest is text. Going from no voice acting or partial voice acting to voice acting everything has almost always led to a major decline in dialogue variety.
It would be nice if Larian kept the partial voice acting model and instead focused on compelling dialogue, but let's face it, they almost certainly won't. It's not "modern" enough.
I'll concede that the music analogy didn't work, but I still don't think you're correct that saying what worked 20 years ago won't work today is saying the past is inferior. All forms of media progress in various ways, and are not meant to be value judgments, just changes in the collective flavor that appeals to society.
BG1 and 2 are a great example. While being similar in a lot of ways, they are also clearly VERY different from each other. The style and expectations of BG1 and BG2 companion interaction, including romances, are fundamentally different. That's not an indictment on the original system, but a change. Exploration is totally different as well. These are fundamental changes to the game made over only a year or two, much less 20 years and a whole new studio.
Also - https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2019/06/06/baldurs-gate-3-announced-from-the-creators-of-divinity-original-sin/
The last paragraph of this article clearly demonstrates that Larian is aware of how important and great the franchise is. Calling BG one of the most influential games of all time. They're clearly fans.
Yeah, no. I'll be as angry as I want to be, I'll voice that anger as much as I want to, and I'll expect my feelings to be respected just as I'm expected to respect other people's feelings.
Fun fact: nearly all battles in BG1 can be won with web+fireball+ranged.
Also, if you try to melee at level 1, prepare to die. A lot.
If you play at level 1, use sleep to end nearly all early battles!
Aside from that mage at FAI, he is just there to show how this is a difficult game!
For you FF excursion: Having the abiltiy to move around does not mean combit is more engaging nor does it mean it has neccessarily more depth. (Having to fight every three steps is also a horrible decision, so yeah, FF is nto really that great either.)
The thing is, even if you disagree with the opinion I had back in the early 2000s, the problem is that the quality of games has actually gone up.
The graphic standards are higher, the system is expected to be more accessable, most old school stories are so often copied that their plotpoints have been overused.
Even if you think that BG2 was a near flawless (for its time) masterpiece - the expectations have evolved.
Even most of us, who have played the originals within their time have evolved and changed.
Maybe some of us have the exact same expectations they had 20 years ago, but most of us are used to the improving standards.
When NWN1 came out, I played it with high expectations and was completly disappointed, because it was not really another game like BG2. That experience and the games rpgs that came after it soured me towards western rpgs for a looong time. I can enjoy NWN and KotoR1 nowadays because they are good games. Even if they are not that much like BG2.
So, why did I say that last part? Because for a long time I would probably have said similiar things as you and @ThacoBell but nowadays I think it is unfair.
Baldurs Gate 1 and 2 exist, so Larian can not do that. Creating a carbon copy of BG2 will not make any one happy, but how can they *faithfully* improve the BG-formula if we can't even agree on what really *is* that formula?
How can they improve something if we can not agree on the flaws? On the strength?
On the heart of the game?
Give Larian a chance to make the game without damning them for attempting it.
It has been nearly 20 years, no one else will make the game.
If they fail, one way or the other, we do not lose anything.
If they succeed but the game does not feel enough like Baldurs Gate, then there is at least the chance that renewed interest in D&D games gives us new games that maybe come closer to the original feel.
We have *nothing* to lose, but everything to win.
Having a crappy new game will not erase our childhood, it will not erase our memories.
It will be just one more bad game among many, it will be forgotten.
Give it a fair chance and dismiss not a game that you might enjoy - even if it is not the sequel you wished for.
seriously, i dont understand why we are being treated like trash for not liking what larian is doing and then we express our opinion on it, and we are basically told to go pound sand *sigh*
Yeah, honestly, it feels like there's a Larian cult in play here, and anyone who dares to disparage the Larian Cult shall be smote.
....What are you talking about?
The people that argue against you are confused by your anger about the very idea of BG3 (and your interpretation of the miniscule info Larian gives us). They also don't treat you liek trash, but try to convince you that Larian deserves a chance.
How do you go from "Larian should get a chance because the game might be good" to "go and pound sand"?
Trying to convince someone that is is not going to be bad is not insulting.
Time doesn't change what good game design is, and gaming society as a whole doesn't need to enter the equation. Not every newly released game has to appeal to all current gamers. The gaming industry is huge, and it has plenty of niche areas with games that most people wouldn't find satisfying to play, because different people have different sensibilities. A game like Baldur's Gate would indeed find a loving fan base today, provided it isn't overproduced with a massive budget that requires general audience appeal to ensure a return on the studio's investment.
This is just me, but I personally don't enjoy it when a major studio comes to visit a niche I love, snatches up a franchise, and drags it out under the sun as a marketable title for their next mass appeal game that bears only the most superficial resemblance to anything else that was previously known by the same name.
We've yet to see if BG3 gets the same treatment, but to quote Han, I have a bad feeling about this.
Swen Vincke saying that Baldur's Gate is one of the most influential games of all time is like saying Donald Trump is one of the most famous people alive. It's not a value judgment, nor an endorsement. It's just a factual statement.
I can't see into Vincke's mind, but I'm sure he has lots of fond memories playing Baldur's Gate. It's just that the statement you've referenced sounds to me like lip service when paired with other statements where he describes how his team removed or adjusted several fundamental aspects of the previous games for BG3.
when i voiced my opinion i got responses like this:
So, they back up their claims with a whole lot of money of their own. Which I find more impressive than some aspies who are convinced that nothing will top their precious precious.
i didnt know what aspies meant so i had to google it up and see what it means and this is the definition:
a person with Asperger's syndrome.
so based on that remark, i must have asperger's syndrome because i dont like the name of BG being soiled
and then i made another post expressing my concerns about it, and even ADMITTING that if they didnt use the BG name, i would have been 100% fine with it, but then i was nit picked and was given this:
sarevok57 wrote: »
...but taking a beloved classic and running it through the mud claiming that their version is better, nah bra
... insinuating that this is a sequel to BG 2
what they should have done ...
... there would be millions of half-life fans raising their pitch fork and torches and would burn that company down to the ground for its sacrilege
... come in and shit all over games ...
... a nail in the coffin for the BG series
... more AAA fodder thrown to the side once its complete
Oh, man, you have issues.
why do i have issues? because im not a mindless sheep, who just accepts what people tell me? if the game industry says; THIS IS WHAT FUN IS AND IF YOU DONT AGREE WITH US, THEN YOU HAVE ISSUES AND HAVE ASPERGERS is basically what is sounds like im being told
there is a reason why people voice their opinion on games, because we the people actually buy them, and we want to buy games that we want to play, if the industry makes games that we dont want to play, then we should be able to voice our opinion so then the industry knows what we want and what we dont want, but i guess having an opinion these days against the masses is taboo and i should just go pound sand i suppose
1 - Nearly all battles on modern RPG's could be ended by spam the same rotation for 30 minutes
2 - Takes an very long time to get fireball on BG1 with 6 party members
3 - A lot of enemies can "resist" web
4 - Melee at lv 1 is risk and it makes sense. Hunt an Boar with an longbow is far easier than with an spear and with the spear, far easier than with an sword.
No, but everyone in a "line" is the worst possible system. Something that even DOS era games managed to improve upon.
I din't just disagreed. I showed other games launched in the same time and why BG2 din't had dated graphics on 2000s.
Correction DEvolved. People are expecting handholding, BS mechanics(CD, stat/gear linked/etc) and political correctness.
No, NWN1 is FAR DIFFERENT than BG2.
1 - You control only one party member
2 - The ruleset is 3e.
3 - The game focus much more on MP and player made modules/premium modules
4 - The 3D engine
And maybe NWN was a disappointment for you, but for everyone else, but NWN 1 :
#5 Best PC Game of 2002
#4 Most Discussed PC Game of 2002
#9 Most Shared PC Game of 2002
source https://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/neverwinter-nights
How Larien should improve upon BG2?
This is how you are picking an "formula" and trying to improve. Put mmoish mechanics into BG is not improve.
It's not that simple. If you are a hardcore BG fan, and you've been desperately waiting twenty years for another BG game, to then have someone come along and finally actually make that game but you have to pass on that game because it's a shitty game is not an easy and simple thing. This is not an issue of making a rational decision to buy or not buy a game. It is an emotionally heavy and even heartbreaking position you've been put in. You want to be able to buy and enjoy the game, but you are being denied that option because of the game being (from your pov) shitty.
Not to mention the factor of the franchise going down a road that you don't find appealing, making it unlikely that it will ever again receive a sequel that you'll actually like, with the new direction now being the norm.
Insisting that world will come to an end if BG3 won't match your vision, however, does sound very much... clinging, shall we say. Should other people be, as you say, mindless sheep and just accept what you tell them?
In that same article he says his team would never need to be motivated again because they were working on the successor to one of the most important games in crpg history. That's another example of them showing deference to the greatness of BG.
Deciding that they want to change/innovate/alter the formula somewhat is not a judgement of the formula itself.
It seems to me that everyone who thinks that Vincke hates BG3 or thinks it's inferior is having to read between the lines, where as there are direct quotes in which he glorifies BG.
As a personal aside - I don't really know why people care about this so much. Vincke's first and foremost intent is to talk about his game - not the past. The rational and best way to do that is to try to compare it against the previous games to explain your vision.
There is no reason for any personal attacks from any side.
...Seriously how did I miss that? oô
1 - You play different games than I do (which is not surprising). The few mainstream rpgs I actually play do require you from updating and modifying your rotation though. Not that BG requires you to switch up your method outside from leveling up and "bosses"..
2 - True, you use sleep to kill everyone before that. That spell is still ridicoulus in later editions though.
3 - Spiders and Ettercaps of the top of my hat. For the rest? just stack 2 webs on top of each others and few make their saves (in BG1). Same with silence.
4 - Hunting a boar with any of these weapons is not that great. Build a trap to make fall down and then poke 'em to death. Putting RL aside, that is just.. stupid. Aside from it making DEX even more important it saves little purpose. Runing around in circles and having a party member shot at the enemy till he hits the floor is not fun. It also is not a deep tactic.
I'm pretty sure that was a stylistic decision. Some modern game still use a modified version of that.
Changes the approach you have to take for party management and your tactics.
I'm pretty sure we go into the "personal preference" territory here.
I may have worded badly here. You can read it as "Even if you disregard the opinion I had ..." or "Even if you disproven the opinion I had.." I'm honestly not that investe in defending an nearly 2 decades old opinion here.. ^^
Oooh, boy, I think this is the hardest one for me to answer to. I hope I manage to bring my point across neutraly..
Evolved/devolved is completly subjective. I personally think some points are better and others are worse.
Mixed bag, really. Not sure what mechanics you mean with yoru examples there, don't recognize the terms at the moment, sorry.
But handholding and "political correctness" are two things I *strongly* disagree with.
First, handholding: Nowadays, manuals are a rarity and thus the info of that needs to be in the game, yes.
But aside from having integrated tutorials, the only difference I see is that modern games try to not force their players to a lot of trial and error. And having to restart the same combat over and over again to find a way that works is not only a anoying and depressive way to create fake difficulty, it is also immersion breaking. A problem should be solvable without knowing what may happen. Reloading should *never* be a integral part to finding a solution.
Secondly, the political correctness. I hate that term. Most of the time it is used, it is nothing more than a fancy modern word for manners and general decency. Or in other words, we always had that, we just didn't call it political correctnes. Sure some elements changed, but that is because societies change.
I will stop here, because a lengthy explanation of my position here is probably not a good idea. Feel free to pm me if you want a longer and (hopefully) better thought out version.
...That was my point. I disliked a good game because it was not what I wanted.
I wanted a game that was basicly BG2 2. I have played BG2 so much that it became my definition of western rpg. And I thought every other WRPG sucked. Which was kinda of stupid of me.
Also, Trent? Make NWN3. If you have to, wait till BG3 has increased the demand, but make the game!
... I actually honestly disagree. The following is my personal opionion and probably not shared by many people here, even those who are looking forward to BG3.
The new rulest I agree with. Races & classes are not that important (I think we get maybe 2 new of each if they use the PHB)
Climb and fly rules.. I can do without. I won't be anoyed if there are there, I won't be anoyed if they are not.
Toolset? Easy amde adventures are neat. The rest.. not so much. Bat experience for me there, but maybe I'm overly cautious here.
Hombrew rules have to be made to implement the game. According to either the PHB or the DMG every DM is encouraged to homebrew stuff for the group. So why shouldn't the DM (Larian) do the exact same for their "group" (The BG players)? BG and NWN is full of homebrew stuff..
Choices. Actually I don't really like choices that much. They *can* be nice.
But often enough I actually prefer an approach like Baldurs Gate: The main story is linear, with small choices that don't matter that much overall. Sidequests have more leeway, who your pc befriends/romances has the most ammount of choices.
Or another example: Persona 4&5. Main story is mostly linear (ending variations are there) but you have freedom with who you create a personal connection with and maybe romance.
(Yes, I like romances in my game.)
But the choice modern games like to promise? It never really turns out that well. If you make too many choices, they end up prominent *and* meaningless, which hurts even more.
When I playe BG I felt like I could play out my character, have real choices even if the main story was mostly linear.
And the BG formula thing. For me the heart of BG are the characters, the banters. Not so much the actual Bhalspawn story or even the sidequest. BioWare managed to chreate personalities that felt ..real.
Irenicus was a person, a personality consumed by his failed ambitions blinded by his power and arrogance.
The companions where memoriable and full of personality. That is what BG is to me.
The best p&p game to this day, because it made me feel like Imoen, Minsc, Aerie where played by other people and not just characters of a story.
To this day I remember who I liked to befriend in the game, who I liked to dislike and I still remember who the first romance was I played (Aerie, if you are curious. Still my favorite of the original options).
I have little memory of the actual combats and I never found the main story that gripping, because for me, it was always about the characters.
That's fine, as I said I'm no mind reader, I can only go by what he said in interviews, as vague as they are. It doesn't actually matter to me what anyone in his team thinks of BG 1 & 2, I only responded to that part because I wanted to relay that calling BG "influential" is not an endorsement. Otherwise I only care about where they're taking BG3, and what information we have so far doesn't fill me with confidence of the direction they seem to be taking it. You're fine with their implied alterations to the formula, and I'm not. That's about the whole extent of it.
About "running in circles while an archer shot the animal", this is because the IA is bad made, not because the system is bad. Same with exploits that allow you to have powerful equipment on earlier game
About political correctness, i mean the guys "Witcher needs more afropolish and is a misogynistic game", note that W1 and W2 din't received the same complains. Or in VtMB, the game would be extremely controversy nowdays. Your female ghoul kidnaps an guy to be your blood doll. He threatens to call the police. You can argue saying that your ghoul would accuse him of trying to rape her to get away with this situation. This is just one example that would lead to a big controversy today.
About fly and climb, is an rule that no D&D based game implemented. Even Pathfinder Kingmaker, the best modern cRPG, wings only allow you to ignore difficulty terrain. When 3D started on 90s, the first thing that Might & Magic devs did on M&M VI was to add flying spell/mechanics. DOS era games like Daggerfall offers way more vertiicality than modern games.
About homebrew rules, there are an HUGE different in a group and in a cRPG. For eg, the Dragon Disciple on BG:EE and Sword Coast Legends.