Persona and SMT are both great examples of turn based combat being interesting and both are good series fite me
But yeah Persona is more of an interactive anime, not that this is a bad thing, and SMT is more serious and plot focused. SMT 4 and 5 really went off the rails though. Devil Survivor 1 and 2 also have interesting and interactive plots that are highly worth checking out.
Persona 3 and 4 were good stories though, for different reasons. 4 actually hit on some interesting themes few other games i've played have.
@hybridial If Persona was "saccarihine", then what's a balanced narrative to you? Berserk?
One thing I'm aware of is Persona still tries to be about fairly serious subjects, but its like you put "balanced narrative." I consider what Persona does to be conflicted. It's inconsistent tone hurts it when it wants you to take it seriously. Shin Megami Tensei III and the Digital Devil Saga games were pretty consistently bleak in atmosphere because of the high concept they have basically requiring for it to work.
Berserk is pretty good, I've only seen the 1997 anime however, which I did like, I'm hesitant to really follow the manga because it really seems touch and go if it will ever be finished, but if it is I'd rather wait till then. I can point to works that affected my views on this moreso like Devilman, especially the 1998 Devilman Lady anime, or my general taste in movies, my favourites are like Blade Runner, Leon, Angel Heart, The Dead Zone, stuff like that. It doesn't mean I don't enjoy more upbeat stuff mind you but there's still ways to do that that won't offend me, you know, Big Trouble in Little China, or say Evil Dead 2 or ReAnimator which are two of the funniest movies I've seen even, or a good example with less gore, Heathers. I like black comedy. Heathers is easilly the best thing I've ever seen set in a school :P
I think I just want the presentation to match the subject matter. I suppose I could point to Black Lagoon, as an anime/manga which has different arcs which can have different tones, and sometimes it is having fun, but when its serious, it does it right. And it gets pretty dark. And nothing innate about its design is too far to one extreme that it hurts the ability to take it seriously. And I consider Persona 4 and 5 to be an extreme in this case.
But that is becoming off-topic. My main idea is that there's evidence BGIII should have its own personality and not look at BG 1&2 as a game model, because that game model, tried by PoE & PoE 2, showed it's not that good nowadays - listen to Josh in that video, he has a lot of insights about PoE 2 and today's gaming.
No, PoE 1 was marketed as an spiritual success of BG. And due changes on stats to "correct the min/maxing" and his solution lead to things that makes no sense according to own PoE's lore like low int wizards. People realized that despite PoE being an amazing game, it offers less options than BG
Pathfinder Kingmaker despite being make by an relative small team, and only 18,351 backers or $909,057 in total ( source : https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/owlcatgames/pathfinder-kingmaker ) Managed to deliver something that only "i can't kill an insect swarm with this poleaxe" journalists/press A for awesome gamers din't liked.
Chris Avellone, their narrative designer worked on the following games.
For Larian, all of this games have mechanics that "doesn't work on video games"...
I take some issues with Kingmaker but I am going to continue to try to play it. I will say if they are able to follow up on the game and refine it in a sequel they might very really deliver something truly excellent. I appreciate that there was a very serious attempt to make a classic RTwP RPG with very indepth gameplay. And it seems to have overdelivered on the expectations that Owlcat had in terms of sales which suggests there will be more to come from.
While I do read Black Lagoon, I can not really get that much invested in that world. Why? Because the world is bleak. I still think that a bright and colorfull world that is threatened makes it easier to be invested.
I also like to keep.. hope. If the best you can do is to return to prevent the destruction of the crappy world then I have troubles keeping my motivation on. Because sometimes it feels like I'm actually doing them a disservice by saving them. And they are ungrateful on top of it..
SMT 1 & 2.. have 3 bad/dark endings. Law and chaos which tend to be potrayed as inhospitable extremes and neutral which basicly restores everything to how it was before the games. You know, the situation that caused the games in the first place and was kinda crappy.
When a game about high school students killing each other out of despair ends on a happier note, than something is wrong with your game.
Maybe I'm just too ..sof-hearted and romantic for these kind of games, but this is *my* anoyence with current mainstream trends: Needlessly dark and bleak worlds full of jerks with a high chance of downer endings.
And yes, I'm still salty about Gaiders ending for Viconia, which is one of the reasons I never did that romance again.. -_-
While I do read Black Lagoon, I can not really get that much invested in that world. Why? Because the world is bleak.
I would be inclined to say that that is perhaps you being too extreme on the other end from where I am, and that I imagine there are people who would think I'm too much on one extreme and you the other. The reason I found Black Lagoon to be a good one to point to is because I feel it really isn't as bleak as a lot of other things I like. There's only one story (and I think you know what one I mean) that is essentially so horrific that it basically is a horror story with an ending that's very brutal and it was never going to end well, not with the subject matter it has. But that's one of its various arcs, one I liked, but I liked them all. Some are pretty much about making the best of the situation these characters find themselves in. I don't think its just a story about despair, Witch Hunter Robin and Devilman Lady are both much more 100% bleak throughout.
But there's still an art form to doing it well, like I can point to Hellsing as an example of something that has this really gothic style that has a terribly storyline that ruins it.
But that is becoming off-topic. My main idea is that there's evidence BGIII should have its own personality and not look at BG 1&2 as a game model, because that game model, tried by PoE & PoE 2, showed it's not that good nowadays - listen to Josh in that video, he has a lot of insights about PoE 2 and today's gaming.
No, PoE 1 was marketed as an spiritual success of BG. And due changes on stats to "correct the min/maxing" and his solution lead to things that makes no sense according to own PoE's lore like low int wizards. People realized that despite PoE being an amazing game, it offers less options than BG
Pathfinder Kingmaker despite being make by an relative small team, and only 18,351 backers or $909,057 in total ( source : https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/owlcatgames/pathfinder-kingmaker ) Managed to deliver something that only "i can't kill an insect swarm with this poleaxe" journalists/press A for awesome gamers din't liked.
Chris Avellone, their narrative designer worked on the following games.
For Larian, all of this games have mechanics that "doesn't work on video games"...
If your point is BGIII should be a new Pathfinder: Kingmaker, then it won't work - we already have Pathfinder: Kingmaker, so everything similar will be a clone. Moreover, DnD and Pathfinder have their differences.
If your point is BGIII should be a new Pathfinder: Kingmaker, then it won't work - we already have Pathfinder: Kingmaker, so everything similar will be a clone. Moreover, DnD and Pathfinder have their differences.
Avellone worked on D:OS 2 as well, btw.
Minor differences on how some skills works because they depend upon an human DM and minor differences on fly due engine limitations are fine. The problem is that looks that Larian will change much more...
And at this moment, they have more knowledge about the details of it, about the context, about the need for those changes, as they're working on the game, they've tried different approaches, they've made decisions, while we (aka everyone else) can just read the interviews. They want to introduce a few innovations in the genre, and of course, that will mean innovations if compared to existing games.
@hybridial
Mhm, we will not come any closer for our preferences/expectations are way to different..
Still I hope you find neat games and stories that fulfill yours!
If you are willing to try out another type of games, Visual Novel with mini-games, you should take a look at Danganronpa after all. Try out the demo, because the dissonance between artwork and story is actually part of what makes it so good. And disturbing.
But, before I stop that track before I derail the topic even further, I should stop here.
Back on the main topic:
Has Larian given us any gameplay footage or are we still discussing Larians & WotCs PR talk?
And at this moment, they have more knowledge about the details of it, about the context, about the need for those changes, as they're working on the game, they've tried different approaches, they've made decisions, while we (aka everyone else) can just read the interviews. They want to introduce a few innovations in the genre, and of course, that will mean innovations if compared to existing games.
What is innovation for you?
IMO bring a lot of mmoish mechanics that the market is saturated like D3 did after D2 is not innovation and seeing the interview, looks like is what he wanna do with BG3.
Swordcoast Legends was a HUGE failure because it deviated so far from 5e rules as to not resemble them at all. And WotC and Larian know this. They will not be making Swordcoast Legends, no one wants to double down on failure and Nathan Stewart VP of D&D Franchise of WotC made it clear that this game had to be 5e rules (or as close as the tech/medium allows). Larian is adapting almost everything 5e that it can, especially from the PHB.
And I am positive that there will be no loot boxes, or MMO style garabage in this game.
When i mean MMO garbage, i mean things that are present on Larian's games but luckily aren't present on Pillars of Eternity, on Pathfinder Kingmaker and other cRPG's :
Cooldowns - I an fine with any other way to balance skills. Casts/rest like DkS, very long casting time on Dragon's Dogma, require high resources like most games, but in general mmo's tends to have a lot of cooldowns. Kotor 1 and 2 has not cooldown but swtor has. Same happens to neverwinter nights. NWN1 and 2 has no cooldowns. neverwinter online has.
Stats linked on gear. On a RPG stats should measure your character capabilities, i can't fell immersed in a world where everyone is the same without the gear but can easily change everything about then by changing the cloths. On older fallout games, if you try play with very low int, you barely can talk. Requirements are good for very action focused games. For example, on demon souls to use Long Bow you need 15 STR. Fully draw an longbow requires a lot of strength, that makes sense. Some type of small bonus to not defense coming for armor is fine. But most of stats should be chooses by the player and heavily impact what the player can and cannot do.
Very long repetitive fights. Like 40 people spamming the same rotation for many minutes to kill an mob. The challenge should be by putting heavy hitting enemies, punishing traps, etc. I don't mind get some one hit killed, if i can ohk certain enemies.
No choices and consequences. For example, if you decide to become an vampire, it should give a lot of power, but make you much more weaker to fire and take sun damage. I can understand why an mmo will not allow this, it will make the player OP in certain situations and useless in another, but IMO the immersion and choices/consequences are far more important than the game balance. If you decided to heavily specialize on fire skills, then you should have an very hard time against fire resistant/immune mobs.On my pyromancer Dark Souls 2 run, Iron Keep is being very hard by it. If you decided to be an paladin, you should ve very powerful against undead but should have some weakness to compensate it.
As for "adapting almost everything 5e that it can", i strongly disagree.
He :
Criticized "missing" and said that D20 that worked on tons of games, including non D&D related games like KOTOR "doesn't work on video games"
I don't think cool downs will be in the game much if at all. They really aren't in 5e at all and nothing he has said indicates he plans on adding it.
OS 1 & 2 use a very different system from D&D 5e. It's like expecting someone who use the VATS system from Fallout in Planescape Torment just because they worked on Fallout previously, it rides on assumption that the Dev is incapable of trying a different approach.
Stats will no doubt work like in 5e, no reason to change it, although some magic items in 5e do boost stats.
I have no doubt there will be consequences for actions in this game, he keeps talking about Player agency being important, but with consequences that is not meaningful.
The fights will be dictated by 5e rules pretty much, which don't last that long and don't get repetitive.
Yes he critized miss chance, but that could mean just an optional gaze rule you can click off before starting a game.
He critized leveling, but also said he is going to keep it.
He said spell slots are not initiative, but also said he's trying to figure the best way to explain to newbs, which means it's still there. He also said most of the PHB spells will be in the game.
Most of the stuff he adds system wise that is not present in D&D 5e are on the DM side of things, because they have make up for the lack of a human DM, they are creating systems for things that in 5e TTRPG would just be DM fiat.
And some classes that people complain alot about in 5e will get alternate class features, but this is something WotC was already planning, for example for the Ranger.
He's made it clear that he wants the experience to be as authentic to D&D 5e as he can. It also invovles adding alot of systems from 5e that have never been in an CRPG before, like hypothetically the Downtime System, Infernal Deals rules, and more. D&D 5e are alot of unique, small systems within it.
He has said stuff from 5e was put in three catagories, Green which didn't need any changes, orange that needed some change (like limiting the forms Illusions can take for example),and red which were no goes (but reds were very rare, only a few).
because that game model, tried by PoE & PoE 2, showed it's not that good nowadays
Yeah, I despise today's gaming. I look down on it. I think its shallow, superficial and inferior to much of what came before. I think videogame design has devolved in the last two decades. I think most people simply want to be wowed by cinematics and visuals and don't genuinely care one bit about things that mean anything like genuinely rewarding game design and genuinely well written stories. And I do think game critics today are completely unworthy of talking about games. Josh Sawyer's video is ultimately more about why the game didn't sell well, not on its failings as a game (although in terms of that game in particular it doesn't seem as strong as the first game due to having different goals that didn't follow on that well from the first game)
And that's the bitter truth. The Baldur's Gate that would sell well today, is not a game with the soul of the prior games, it would trade that entirely away and become something entirely different, not something I would want, simply to please an audience I think is incapable of appreciating real quality. That's what sucks about being the kind of person who really cares about the quality of things, since this applies to all mediums, not just videogames. Most people don't care, they just want entertained. I get that, but its kind of soul crushing for someone who really looks for artistic satisfaction.
That's mainly why indy games tend to be the only ones I consider anymore, because at that level game developers in terms of their goals are a bit more balanced, they do want to make money but as they're not pouring millions into something to try and make billions back, they are more free to try their own things. Its possible to make a living and worry about the quality of the product but its a lot easier to do with lower budget projects.
And this position I have isn't based on rationality. Being rational is just doing the minimum you have to do for maximum output. I get why things work the way they do. I don't need it explained for me, and if you want to call me whatever term you want to ridicule or undermine me, whatever. I'm not winning this debate, because I fully expect to hate Baldur's Gate 3, because I know realistically it's going to be a game I hate. Its fine, I'll go play Realms Beyond or ATOM RPG. Those are projects more likely to be what I want. I'm just disappointed its "Baldur's Gate 3" we're talking about because of how much I loved the prior games.
Larian publishes there own games now specifically so they could have more freedom to design the games they want and not answer to a publisher. That is why Divinity: OS 1 and 2 went through kickstarters. An interesting side effect of this is that getting the publishers out of the way meant Larian could keep more of the profits, which is one of the reasons they made a ton of money on those games, which allowed them to greatly boost resources for BG 3.
If you listen to the CEO of Larian, he is a visionary, not just a greedy suit, he is the Elon Musk of CRPGs.
I think people far too often equate "new" with "better" even though this is not always, or possibly even most of the time true. People also far too often consider change to automatically mean "for the better" when change can just as much be "for the worse."
Re. the Pillars games, the main reason why PoE2 didn't sell as well was because old-school gamers tend to be quite traditional and the pirate theme and South Pacific Islander style culture setting for PoE2 turned many of them off. The whole ship combat and management sub-game also was a turn-off for many. In other words, if they had kept the second game thematically the same as the first one and only improved gameplay systems (for example bringing in multiclassing, sub-classes, and the like), it would've been a success. This is precisely how Larian approached going from D:OS1 to D:OS2, and how BG2 built on BG1. But Obsidian specifically among smaller RPG studios seems to have a mentality of not wanting to repeat the same game formula from one game to another (their approach to NwN2 being a good example of this as well). I think from a creativity standpoint this is a very good thing. But from a marketing and sales standpoint it's probably not the best way to do things.
Re. the Pillars games, the main reason why PoE2 didn't sell as well was because old-school gamers tend to be quite traditional and the pirate theme and South Pacific Islander style culture setting for PoE2 turned many of them off. The whole ship combat and management sub-game also was a turn-off for many. In other words, if they had kept the second game thematically the same as the first one and only improved gameplay systems (for example bringing in multiclassing, sub-classes, and the like), it would've been a success. This is precisely how Larian approached going from D:OS1 to D:OS2, and how BG2 built on BG1. But Obsidian specifically among smaller RPG studios seems to have a mentality of not wanting to repeat the same game formula from one game to another (their approach to NwN2 being a good example of this as well). I think from a creativity standpoint this is a very good thing. But from a marketing and sales standpoint it's probably not the best way to do things.
If they had made the same game with an STEAMPUNK theme(instead of "colonial ships", steampunk airships), they probably will have much more success. Mainly because all pirate games that we have are awful ones. Anyone believe that Risen 2 is better than Gothic 1/2/3?
I really liked that finally an company made an game focused on "new world" and realized that just like the extreme north is cold, the extreme south is also cold and not every place is just tropical islands, but there are an big bias against this theme with a reason.
And one critique that i have against PoE is that the game is inferior to even own obsidian games
- Has Spells that are more limited in number and do less things than NWN2
- Has keep management but is far inferior to NWN2
- Has stats but are far inferior to NWN2
- Has humor, but is far inferior to south park
- Has firearms, but their ammo/gun system is far inferior to FNV
(...)
PoE is an good game but Obsidian did an better job on his previous titles
@Adul I'm just a bit curious how many of those who prefer BG1 over BG2 are pessimistic towards BG3 and how many of those who are pessimistic prefer BG1. Not sure if there is really a connection, but I'm still curious.
@Adul I'm just a bit curious how many of those who prefer BG1 over BG2 are pessimistic towards BG3 and how many of those who are pessimistic prefer BG1. Not sure if there is really a connection, but I'm still curious.
I prefer BG1 to BG2.
I prefer the exploration and dungeon design of BG1 but prefer the battles of BG2(except ToB).
I am excited to see BG3 but I am worried about them using an "interpretation of the 5th edition rules" especially when they go on to say the "core rules do not adapt well"
I love the 5th edition rules on P+P. I've been playing since AD&D and 5th edition is the best. However Sword Coast Legends used an "interpretation of 5th edition rules" a few years back and that game was awful. It was not like the P+P mechanics at all and wasn't even recognizable as D&D.
I think 2e adapts best to a video game and 3/3.5 adapted well too.
I am excited to see BG3 but I am worried about them using an "interpretation of the 5th edition rules" especially when they go on to say the "core rules do not adapt well"
I love the 5th edition rules on P+P. I've been playing since AD&D and 5th edition is the best. However Sword Coast Legends used an "interpretation of 5th edition rules" a few years back and that game was awful. It was not like the P+P mechanics at all and wasn't even recognizable as D&D.
I think 2e adapts best to a video game and 3/3.5 adapted well too.
Because THACO screams CRPG?
The one edition that was actually designed to be played as CRPG was 4e, but even that got messed up.
No thank you to racial class restrictions, dual classing, no at will cantrips, the issues between wizards at low level and fighters at high level, and so on. It was good for its time, but it was a sloppy mess compared to 5e. Even 3.5e was better (controvial idea, in many ways NWN2 and it's expansions was better then BG 1 & 2 and Throne of Bhaal). 2e had great lore (especially in depth), great book support, even have some cool ideas, but at it's core it's mechanics were bad. That is why I didn't buy BG: EE, but did buy NWN 1: EE (so far disappointing, I mean no party, really?) and would buy the much better NWN 2: EE if they ever made it inba heart beat.
No, I've been dying for a proper 5e CRPG with it much better rule system and cool flavour, so it's really great news BG 3 is in a sense running on 5.5e rules (modified 5e rules).
I am excited to see BG3 but I am worried about them using an "interpretation of the 5th edition rules" especially when they go on to say the "core rules do not adapt well"
I love the 5th edition rules on P+P. I've been playing since AD&D and 5th edition is the best. However Sword Coast Legends used an "interpretation of 5th edition rules" a few years back and that game was awful. It was not like the P+P mechanics at all and wasn't even recognizable as D&D.
I think 2e adapts best to a video game and 3/3.5 adapted well too.
That SCL called itself an interpretation of 5e rules was out right fraud, they had almost nothing in common. You might as well call the Witcher 3 or Skyrim or Cyberpunk 2077 or Fallout 4 an interpretation of 5e rules.
Re. the Pillars games, the main reason why PoE2 didn't sell as well was because old-school gamers tend to be quite traditional and the pirate theme and South Pacific Islander style culture setting for PoE2 turned many of them off. The whole ship combat and management sub-game also was a turn-off for many. In other words, if they had kept the second game thematically the same as the first one and only improved gameplay systems (for example bringing in multiclassing, sub-classes, and the like), it would've been a success. This is precisely how Larian approached going from D:OS1 to D:OS2, and how BG2 built on BG1. But Obsidian specifically among smaller RPG studios seems to have a mentality of not wanting to repeat the same game formula from one game to another (their approach to NwN2 being a good example of this as well). I think from a creativity standpoint this is a very good thing. But from a marketing and sales standpoint it's probably not the best way to do things.
If they had made the same game with an STEAMPUNK theme(instead of "colonial ships", steampunk airships), they probably will have much more success. Mainly because all pirate games that we have are awful ones. Anyone believe that Risen 2 is better than Gothic 1/2/3?
I really liked that finally an company made an game focused on "new world" and realized that just like the extreme north is cold, the extreme south is also cold and not every place is just tropical islands, but there are an big bias against this theme with a reason.
And one critique that i have against PoE is that the game is inferior to even own obsidian games
- Has Spells that are more limited in number and do less things than NWN2
- Has keep management but is far inferior to NWN2
- Has stats but are far inferior to NWN2
- Has humor, but is far inferior to south park
- Has firearms, but their ammo/gun system is far inferior to FNV
(...)
PoE is an good game but Obsidian did an better job on his previous titles
Agreed NWN2 was a way better game, I never bothered to finish PoE or buy PoE2.
The one edition that was actually designed to be played as CRPG was 4e, but even that got messed up.
No thank you to racial class restrictions, dual classing, no at will cantrips, the issues between wizards at low level and fighters at high level, and so on. It was good for its time, but it was a sloppy mess compared to 5e. Even 3.5e was better (controvial idea, in many ways NWN2 and it's expansions was better then BG 1 & 2 and Throne of Bhaal). 2e had great lore (especially in depth), great book support, even have some cool ideas, but at it's core it's mechanics were bad. That is why I didn't buy BG: EE, but did buy NWN 1: EE (so far disappointing, I mean no party, really?) and would buy the much better NWN 2: EE if they ever made it inba heart beat.
No, I've been dying for a proper 5e CRPG with it much better rule system and cool flavour, so it's really great news BG 3 is in a sense running on 5.5e rules (modified 5e rules).
THAC0 = To hit armor class zero. This is not complex. Even Pokemon, an children's game has more complex "formulas"
About 4e, depends what is "designed to be played as a CRPG" 4e was designed to be more akin to an GENERIC PNP MMO and thanks to 4e, we have pathfinder. The unique good thing about 4e is that allowed another RPG for the first time in almost 50 years to become the most played tabletop game. And i wish that WotC make the same thing, so Pathfinder that IMO has an better ruleset than 5e can become more relevant.
About NWN1:EE, i recommend. Is not that there are no party. Is just that you can't control party members. You can have your charname, an familiar, two henchman and a summon and there are mods that make summoning more pnp like allowing specializations like necromancer and conjurator to be actually playable instead of huge nerfs.
About casters VS fighters at high level, depends the class in question
Talking about high level monks, on nwn1, an lv 20 monk can deal 5 attacks per round, each one dealing 2D10 damage + attribute mod. An sorcerer with 12 CON(+1) at lv 20 even with max hp per roll will have 100 hp, in other words, can be OHKilled in one round by an monk that will have a lot of SR and can knockdown the sorcerer easily. This not mentioning that Monks has the best saves on the game, is amazing at disarming, knocking out, etc and on nwn1, monks are nerfed compared to pnp. They don't get the outsider template, nor the ethereal ability(lv 19) > http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/monk.htm#perfectSelf
As for fighters, they are much more gear dependent than the monk. But even then can outDPS any caster if they have for eg +5 axe that deals +2D6 fire and +2D6 cold damage. And believe or not, this ludicrous OP weapons exists on NWN2 a lot. And note that on 3.0e, spell reistence works in a different way than 3.5e/pathfinder, spells like incendiary cloud that allow SR on 3e won't allow on 3.5e. It helped to make conjuration more viable, since conjuration deals in general less damage than evokation.
What makes casters special on D&D is exactly that they can do more than trow fireballs and clerics more than heal. If the DM allow your sorc charname to pick the strongest spells, allowed wiz to find the storngest scrolls but din't gave an powerful weapon to the fighter, then is a balance problem caused by the DM, not by the rules. And on NWN1 is possible to have above god stats > http://world-of-greyhawk.github.io/builds/data/build312774.html
PS : 5.5e rules will probably be D:OS2 rules and i honestly don't like D:OS mechanics.
Re. the Pillars games, the main reason why PoE2 didn't sell as well was because old-school gamers tend to be quite traditional and the pirate theme and South Pacific Islander style culture setting for PoE2 turned many of them off. The whole ship combat and management sub-game also was a turn-off for many. In other words, if they had kept the second game thematically the same as the first one and only improved gameplay systems (for example bringing in multiclassing, sub-classes, and the like), it would've been a success. This is precisely how Larian approached going from D:OS1 to D:OS2, and how BG2 built on BG1. But Obsidian specifically among smaller RPG studios seems to have a mentality of not wanting to repeat the same game formula from one game to another (their approach to NwN2 being a good example of this as well). I think from a creativity standpoint this is a very good thing. But from a marketing and sales standpoint it's probably not the best way to do things.
If they had made the same game with an STEAMPUNK theme(instead of "colonial ships", steampunk airships), they probably will have much more success. Mainly because all pirate games that we have are awful ones. Anyone believe that Risen 2 is better than Gothic 1/2/3?
I really liked that finally an company made an game focused on "new world" and realized that just like the extreme north is cold, the extreme south is also cold and not every place is just tropical islands, but there are an big bias against this theme with a reason.
And one critique that i have against PoE is that the game is inferior to even own obsidian games
- Has Spells that are more limited in number and do less things than NWN2
- Has keep management but is far inferior to NWN2
- Has stats but are far inferior to NWN2
- Has humor, but is far inferior to south park
- Has firearms, but their ammo/gun system is far inferior to FNV
(...)
PoE is an good game but Obsidian did an better job on his previous titles
There split screen multi-player mode for a turn based CRPG, the way the did origins, the way they handled playable undead, the way they interacted with the enviroment.
But none of those things are why I said that, it wasn't based on passed games as I never played them, no it was based on reading and watching every interview I could for every grain of info and getting a sense of his passion for the project, his goals for it, what his basic plans for it are, and so on.
There split screen multi-player mode for a turn based CRPG, the way the did origins, the way they handled playable undead, the way they interacted with the enviroment.
But none of those things are why I said that, it wasn't based on passed games as I never played them, no it was based on reading and watching every interview I could for every grain of info and getting a sense of his passion for the project, his goals for it, what his basic plans for it are, and so on.
Well, the MP mode is not that innovative. NWN1 had MP mode long time ago. Split screen i agree, but honestly always hated split screen
About undead, there are countless of games that allow you to be an undead. M&M VII-VIII-IX allow you to become a lich and you can be a vampire on VIII, and become undead is not like "immune to critical, immune to poison, no need to eat food and drink water, be shunned by mortals, paladins can "turn" you, etc", be an undead changes so little...
About the environment, is relative new on cRPG's, but exist a long time on more action games, DmMM see at 1:10, the guy cutting an bridge to kill a lot of enemies, at 1:28, an barrel + gravity kill followed by an wall kill
Inovation does not mean that someone invented it per se.
Sometimes it is refining a formula, sometimes it is poplarizing an idea. (i.e. Apple are hailed as inovaters, even though most of their inovations where made by other companeis before them).
But one thing is the dual-protagonist idea Larian had in Beyond Divinity. D:OS combined that one with a coop mode creating a story where two people where the hero of it.
That was an inovative idea. It may not one you care much for (I.. don't rally tbh) but it *is* innovative.
Or another example, WoW is often hailed as a revolution of mmorpgs. It made the genre popular, yes, but there where good mmorpgs before that which are somehow forgotten by the modern generation.
(On that note, Beamdog could make an enhanced edition of the old AOL Neverwinter Night next )
A last example: Warlords Battlecry was a RTS game with RPG elements and a full RPG-style hero.
Most people believe that RPG-RTS mix was invented by WC3.
Similiar, many people believe Heroes of Might and Magic invented the idea of RPG elements in a TBS, disregarding the existence of Warlords and Kings Bounty.
But it is the more succesfull game that sets new standards and thus get called innovative.
Even if that game is not really as good as the odler game (WC3 is not as good as WBC2 or even WC2!)
About split-screen: I always found splitscreen not really a good idea, because too often the monitor size is not really large enough... Give me back HotSeat mutiplayer!
This is how you play multiplayer: One pc, two seats and a nice turn based game! That was great in the late 90s and early 00s and so it is good enough for today!
(Sorry, this thread reminded me that I havn't played a good old TBS game in yeears )
"Many assumed Baldur’s Gate 3 would the sequel to Baldur’s Gate 2: Shadows of Amn, developed by BioWare and published in 2000 for Windows PC. It won’t be. Instead, it will be the sequel to an upcoming module for the modern D&D tabletop RPG. Called Baldur’s Gate: Descent into Avernus, that module takes place about 100 years before Baldur’s Gate 3 even begins.
Folks on social media and here in the comments at Polygon were understandably puzzled by this. So, I cornered Wizards of the Coast franchise creative director Mike Mearls — who also happens to be the co-creator of D&D’s 5th edition ruleset — in a Los Angeles hotel room and put the screws to him about the timeline."
Just to follow up what I said about liking BG1 more than BG2 (and being optimistic and welcoming about whatever change BG3 will bring), For BG2 I do feel that Athkatla is well realized. And I love the dragon fights.* But combat with the higher level spells actually feels tedious to me. Too much counterspell strategy for my taste. I prefer spells at character levels 1-9. And for combat in general especially early on in BG1 when you can die so easily. For me BG1 with SCS installed hits the sweet spot for Infinity engine games for how satisfying the battles are. Also, magical items in BG1 really feel important, whereas they're falling off the trees in SoA/ToB.
* I have yet to play the Dark Side of the Sword Coast mod with a BG2 dragon, I only ever played it long ago with the wyvern sprite representing a dragon. But a properly scaled dragon fight for a level 1-9 party (has to be a pretty young dragon) sounds like a total blast.
Comments
But yeah Persona is more of an interactive anime, not that this is a bad thing, and SMT is more serious and plot focused. SMT 4 and 5 really went off the rails though. Devil Survivor 1 and 2 also have interesting and interactive plots that are highly worth checking out.
Persona 3 and 4 were good stories though, for different reasons. 4 actually hit on some interesting themes few other games i've played have.
One thing I'm aware of is Persona still tries to be about fairly serious subjects, but its like you put "balanced narrative." I consider what Persona does to be conflicted. It's inconsistent tone hurts it when it wants you to take it seriously. Shin Megami Tensei III and the Digital Devil Saga games were pretty consistently bleak in atmosphere because of the high concept they have basically requiring for it to work.
Berserk is pretty good, I've only seen the 1997 anime however, which I did like, I'm hesitant to really follow the manga because it really seems touch and go if it will ever be finished, but if it is I'd rather wait till then. I can point to works that affected my views on this moreso like Devilman, especially the 1998 Devilman Lady anime, or my general taste in movies, my favourites are like Blade Runner, Leon, Angel Heart, The Dead Zone, stuff like that. It doesn't mean I don't enjoy more upbeat stuff mind you but there's still ways to do that that won't offend me, you know, Big Trouble in Little China, or say Evil Dead 2 or ReAnimator which are two of the funniest movies I've seen even, or a good example with less gore, Heathers. I like black comedy. Heathers is easilly the best thing I've ever seen set in a school :P
I think I just want the presentation to match the subject matter. I suppose I could point to Black Lagoon, as an anime/manga which has different arcs which can have different tones, and sometimes it is having fun, but when its serious, it does it right. And it gets pretty dark. And nothing innate about its design is too far to one extreme that it hurts the ability to take it seriously. And I consider Persona 4 and 5 to be an extreme in this case.
No, PoE 1 was marketed as an spiritual success of BG. And due changes on stats to "correct the min/maxing" and his solution lead to things that makes no sense according to own PoE's lore like low int wizards. People realized that despite PoE being an amazing game, it offers less options than BG
Pathfinder Kingmaker despite being make by an relative small team, and only 18,351 backers or $909,057 in total ( source : https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/owlcatgames/pathfinder-kingmaker ) Managed to deliver something that only "i can't kill an insect swarm with this poleaxe" journalists/press A for awesome gamers din't liked.
Chris Avellone, their narrative designer worked on the following games.
For Larian, all of this games have mechanics that "doesn't work on video games"...
While I do read Black Lagoon, I can not really get that much invested in that world. Why? Because the world is bleak. I still think that a bright and colorfull world that is threatened makes it easier to be invested.
I also like to keep.. hope. If the best you can do is to return to prevent the destruction of the crappy world then I have troubles keeping my motivation on. Because sometimes it feels like I'm actually doing them a disservice by saving them. And they are ungrateful on top of it..
SMT 1 & 2.. have 3 bad/dark endings. Law and chaos which tend to be potrayed as inhospitable extremes and neutral which basicly restores everything to how it was before the games. You know, the situation that caused the games in the first place and was kinda crappy.
When a game about high school students killing each other out of despair ends on a happier note, than something is wrong with your game.
Maybe I'm just too ..sof-hearted and romantic for these kind of games, but this is *my* anoyence with current mainstream trends: Needlessly dark and bleak worlds full of jerks with a high chance of downer endings.
And yes, I'm still salty about Gaiders ending for Viconia, which is one of the reasons I never did that romance again.. -_-
I would be inclined to say that that is perhaps you being too extreme on the other end from where I am, and that I imagine there are people who would think I'm too much on one extreme and you the other. The reason I found Black Lagoon to be a good one to point to is because I feel it really isn't as bleak as a lot of other things I like. There's only one story (and I think you know what one I mean) that is essentially so horrific that it basically is a horror story with an ending that's very brutal and it was never going to end well, not with the subject matter it has. But that's one of its various arcs, one I liked, but I liked them all. Some are pretty much about making the best of the situation these characters find themselves in. I don't think its just a story about despair, Witch Hunter Robin and Devilman Lady are both much more 100% bleak throughout.
But there's still an art form to doing it well, like I can point to Hellsing as an example of something that has this really gothic style that has a terribly storyline that ruins it.
What is your point, though? Pathfinder: Kingmaker is mentioned (and their developers quoted) in the same article as BGIII in terms of the PnP rules being adjusted for a videogame
https://www.pcgamer.com/how-baldurs-gate-3-and-bloodlines-2-are-rewriting-the-rules-of-the-tabletop-games-theyre-adapting/
If your point is BGIII should be a new Pathfinder: Kingmaker, then it won't work - we already have Pathfinder: Kingmaker, so everything similar will be a clone. Moreover, DnD and Pathfinder have their differences.
Avellone worked on D:OS 2 as well, btw.
Minor differences on how some skills works because they depend upon an human DM and minor differences on fly due engine limitations are fine. The problem is that looks that Larian will change much more...
Mhm, we will not come any closer for our preferences/expectations are way to different..
Still I hope you find neat games and stories that fulfill yours!
If you are willing to try out another type of games, Visual Novel with mini-games, you should take a look at Danganronpa after all. Try out the demo, because the dissonance between artwork and story is actually part of what makes it so good. And disturbing.
But, before I stop that track before I derail the topic even further, I should stop here.
Back on the main topic:
Has Larian given us any gameplay footage or are we still discussing Larians & WotCs PR talk?
What is innovation for you?
IMO bring a lot of mmoish mechanics that the market is saturated like D3 did after D2 is not innovation and seeing the interview, looks like is what he wanna do with BG3.
I don't think cool downs will be in the game much if at all. They really aren't in 5e at all and nothing he has said indicates he plans on adding it.
Stats will no doubt work like in 5e, no reason to change it, although some magic items in 5e do boost stats.
I have no doubt there will be consequences for actions in this game, he keeps talking about Player agency being important, but with consequences that is not meaningful.
The fights will be dictated by 5e rules pretty much, which don't last that long and don't get repetitive.
Yes he critized miss chance, but that could mean just an optional gaze rule you can click off before starting a game.
He critized leveling, but also said he is going to keep it.
He said spell slots are not initiative, but also said he's trying to figure the best way to explain to newbs, which means it's still there. He also said most of the PHB spells will be in the game.
Most of the stuff he adds system wise that is not present in D&D 5e are on the DM side of things, because they have make up for the lack of a human DM, they are creating systems for things that in 5e TTRPG would just be DM fiat.
And some classes that people complain alot about in 5e will get alternate class features, but this is something WotC was already planning, for example for the Ranger.
He's made it clear that he wants the experience to be as authentic to D&D 5e as he can. It also invovles adding alot of systems from 5e that have never been in an CRPG before, like hypothetically the Downtime System, Infernal Deals rules, and more. D&D 5e are alot of unique, small systems within it.
He has said stuff from 5e was put in three catagories, Green which didn't need any changes, orange that needed some change (like limiting the forms Illusions can take for example),and red which were no goes (but reds were very rare, only a few).
Larian publishes there own games now specifically so they could have more freedom to design the games they want and not answer to a publisher. That is why Divinity: OS 1 and 2 went through kickstarters. An interesting side effect of this is that getting the publishers out of the way meant Larian could keep more of the profits, which is one of the reasons they made a ton of money on those games, which allowed them to greatly boost resources for BG 3.
If you listen to the CEO of Larian, he is a visionary, not just a greedy suit, he is the Elon Musk of CRPGs.
Please. name one inovation that he made. Just one.
If they had made the same game with an STEAMPUNK theme(instead of "colonial ships", steampunk airships), they probably will have much more success. Mainly because all pirate games that we have are awful ones. Anyone believe that Risen 2 is better than Gothic 1/2/3?
I really liked that finally an company made an game focused on "new world" and realized that just like the extreme north is cold, the extreme south is also cold and not every place is just tropical islands, but there are an big bias against this theme with a reason.
And one critique that i have against PoE is that the game is inferior to even own obsidian games
- Has Spells that are more limited in number and do less things than NWN2
- Has keep management but is far inferior to NWN2
- Has stats but are far inferior to NWN2
- Has humor, but is far inferior to south park
- Has firearms, but their ammo/gun system is far inferior to FNV
(...)
PoE is an good game but Obsidian did an better job on his previous titles
I prefer BG1 to BG2. Optimistic towards BG3.
I prefer the exploration and dungeon design of BG1 but prefer the battles of BG2(except ToB).
I am excited to see BG3 but I am worried about them using an "interpretation of the 5th edition rules" especially when they go on to say the "core rules do not adapt well"
I love the 5th edition rules on P+P. I've been playing since AD&D and 5th edition is the best. However Sword Coast Legends used an "interpretation of 5th edition rules" a few years back and that game was awful. It was not like the P+P mechanics at all and wasn't even recognizable as D&D.
I think 2e adapts best to a video game and 3/3.5 adapted well too.
Because THACO screams CRPG?
The one edition that was actually designed to be played as CRPG was 4e, but even that got messed up.
No thank you to racial class restrictions, dual classing, no at will cantrips, the issues between wizards at low level and fighters at high level, and so on. It was good for its time, but it was a sloppy mess compared to 5e. Even 3.5e was better (controvial idea, in many ways NWN2 and it's expansions was better then BG 1 & 2 and Throne of Bhaal). 2e had great lore (especially in depth), great book support, even have some cool ideas, but at it's core it's mechanics were bad. That is why I didn't buy BG: EE, but did buy NWN 1: EE (so far disappointing, I mean no party, really?) and would buy the much better NWN 2: EE if they ever made it inba heart beat.
No, I've been dying for a proper 5e CRPG with it much better rule system and cool flavour, so it's really great news BG 3 is in a sense running on 5.5e rules (modified 5e rules).
That SCL called itself an interpretation of 5e rules was out right fraud, they had almost nothing in common. You might as well call the Witcher 3 or Skyrim or Cyberpunk 2077 or Fallout 4 an interpretation of 5e rules.
Agreed NWN2 was a way better game, I never bothered to finish PoE or buy PoE2.
THAC0 = To hit armor class zero. This is not complex. Even Pokemon, an children's game has more complex "formulas"
About 4e, depends what is "designed to be played as a CRPG" 4e was designed to be more akin to an GENERIC PNP MMO and thanks to 4e, we have pathfinder. The unique good thing about 4e is that allowed another RPG for the first time in almost 50 years to become the most played tabletop game. And i wish that WotC make the same thing, so Pathfinder that IMO has an better ruleset than 5e can become more relevant.
About NWN1:EE, i recommend. Is not that there are no party. Is just that you can't control party members. You can have your charname, an familiar, two henchman and a summon and there are mods that make summoning more pnp like allowing specializations like necromancer and conjurator to be actually playable instead of huge nerfs.
About casters VS fighters at high level, depends the class in question
Talking about high level monks, on nwn1, an lv 20 monk can deal 5 attacks per round, each one dealing 2D10 damage + attribute mod. An sorcerer with 12 CON(+1) at lv 20 even with max hp per roll will have 100 hp, in other words, can be OHKilled in one round by an monk that will have a lot of SR and can knockdown the sorcerer easily. This not mentioning that Monks has the best saves on the game, is amazing at disarming, knocking out, etc and on nwn1, monks are nerfed compared to pnp. They don't get the outsider template, nor the ethereal ability(lv 19) > http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/monk.htm#perfectSelf
As for fighters, they are much more gear dependent than the monk. But even then can outDPS any caster if they have for eg +5 axe that deals +2D6 fire and +2D6 cold damage. And believe or not, this ludicrous OP weapons exists on NWN2 a lot. And note that on 3.0e, spell reistence works in a different way than 3.5e/pathfinder, spells like incendiary cloud that allow SR on 3e won't allow on 3.5e. It helped to make conjuration more viable, since conjuration deals in general less damage than evokation.
What makes casters special on D&D is exactly that they can do more than trow fireballs and clerics more than heal. If the DM allow your sorc charname to pick the strongest spells, allowed wiz to find the storngest scrolls but din't gave an powerful weapon to the fighter, then is a balance problem caused by the DM, not by the rules. And on NWN1 is possible to have above god stats > http://world-of-greyhawk.github.io/builds/data/build312774.html
PS : 5.5e rules will probably be D:OS2 rules and i honestly don't like D:OS mechanics.
There split screen multi-player mode for a turn based CRPG, the way the did origins, the way they handled playable undead, the way they interacted with the enviroment.
But none of those things are why I said that, it wasn't based on passed games as I never played them, no it was based on reading and watching every interview I could for every grain of info and getting a sense of his passion for the project, his goals for it, what his basic plans for it are, and so on.
Well, the MP mode is not that innovative. NWN1 had MP mode long time ago. Split screen i agree, but honestly always hated split screen
About undead, there are countless of games that allow you to be an undead. M&M VII-VIII-IX allow you to become a lich and you can be a vampire on VIII, and become undead is not like "immune to critical, immune to poison, no need to eat food and drink water, be shunned by mortals, paladins can "turn" you, etc", be an undead changes so little...
About the environment, is relative new on cRPG's, but exist a long time on more action games, DmMM see at 1:10, the guy cutting an bridge to kill a lot of enemies, at 1:28, an barrel + gravity kill followed by an wall kill
Sometimes it is refining a formula, sometimes it is poplarizing an idea. (i.e. Apple are hailed as inovaters, even though most of their inovations where made by other companeis before them).
But one thing is the dual-protagonist idea Larian had in Beyond Divinity. D:OS combined that one with a coop mode creating a story where two people where the hero of it.
That was an inovative idea. It may not one you care much for (I.. don't rally tbh) but it *is* innovative.
Or another example, WoW is often hailed as a revolution of mmorpgs. It made the genre popular, yes, but there where good mmorpgs before that which are somehow forgotten by the modern generation.
(On that note, Beamdog could make an enhanced edition of the old AOL Neverwinter Night next
A last example: Warlords Battlecry was a RTS game with RPG elements and a full RPG-style hero.
Most people believe that RPG-RTS mix was invented by WC3.
Similiar, many people believe Heroes of Might and Magic invented the idea of RPG elements in a TBS, disregarding the existence of Warlords and Kings Bounty.
But it is the more succesfull game that sets new standards and thus get called innovative.
Even if that game is not really as good as the odler game (WC3 is not as good as WBC2 or even WC2!)
About split-screen: I always found splitscreen not really a good idea, because too often the monitor size is not really large enough... Give me back HotSeat mutiplayer!
This is how you play multiplayer: One pc, two seats and a nice turn based game! That was great in the late 90s and early 00s and so it is good enough for today!
(Sorry, this thread reminded me that I havn't played a good old TBS game in yeears
"Many assumed Baldur’s Gate 3 would the sequel to Baldur’s Gate 2: Shadows of Amn, developed by BioWare and published in 2000 for Windows PC. It won’t be. Instead, it will be the sequel to an upcoming module for the modern D&D tabletop RPG. Called Baldur’s Gate: Descent into Avernus, that module takes place about 100 years before Baldur’s Gate 3 even begins.
Folks on social media and here in the comments at Polygon were understandably puzzled by this. So, I cornered Wizards of the Coast franchise creative director Mike Mearls — who also happens to be the co-creator of D&D’s 5th edition ruleset — in a Los Angeles hotel room and put the screws to him about the timeline."
* I have yet to play the Dark Side of the Sword Coast mod with a BG2 dragon, I only ever played it long ago with the wyvern sprite representing a dragon. But a properly scaled dragon fight for a level 1-9 party (has to be a pretty young dragon) sounds like a total blast.