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 )
I do prefer simple hot seat, because I can play an extra character/faction.
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?
I don't know what innovations they will introduce in BGIII.
However, I have to agree with @Gyor about the following things I personally found fresh from D:OS games: the origins, the undead handling, the environmental effects.
Just started another D:OS 2 run as Red Prince, and it provides a completely different perspective than playing this game as a non-original character. It also differs from my previous attempt at playing as Fane (which offered me a chance to see the undead handling). Not only dialogue options are different (in a way ciphers get additional dialogues in PoE, for example) - the whole quest sequences are felt differently. Plus, of course, personality of Red Prince is not something easy to forget.
I recall Swen mentioned he wasn't 100% content with the implementation of the original characters in D:OS 2 because of the scope of the game and will further improve this aspect in BGIII. Maybe they won't let you play as one of the original characters there, but if they pursue the same level of detail in terms of personalization of characters and quests, that'll be cool.
Breaking away from the TB vs RtWP debate before a virtual knife fight breaks out, what races, subraces, classes, subclasses, backgrounds, factions, and Gods do you want to see.
I think all 12 PHB classes are obviously in, but there is a slim class that a finished Artificer could end up in the game, with a more likely chance of ending up in an expansion or DLC. Any chance of the Psion or other class being in it is 100% expansion or DLC, not with the core game.
I think most of the PHB subclasses will be in the game, some adjusted to be compatible with technology. I think a good amount of Xanther's Guide to Everything and Swordcoast Adventurer's Guide will be in it, but maybe not everything.
Races are easier I think to impliment, so all of the PHB races will be in and a good chunk of none PHB races, especially Gith, Aasimar, Goliaths.
I think they will save Tortles for a DLC charity thing.
I hope the subraces from MTOFs, VGTMs, and the SCAG are in.
I hope Genasai are in, but rebalanced.
I hope all the Gods mentioned in the FR and None Human deity lists of Gods in the PHB, the Gods mentioned in the SCAG, MTOFs, and VGTM are in.
Only an update about "not following pnp rules". If i can do cool stuff that i can do on BG, i will buy. Cool stuff like :
Snipe enemies
Summon an undead army
Summon an construct army
Stop the time
Shape the reality with Wish
Have an fortress depending my class
Use all spells without cooldown BS
Have spells that petrify, OHK, etc enemies
Shapechange
Teleport
Become invisible
(...)
Or cool stuff that i can do on other cRPG's like fly on M&M VI. If i can do less than i can on previous D&D games, why should i purchase BG3 in the first place? They offer less and costs more...
"Questions remain about publishing models, but it’s clear that, if designed properly, there is money to be made. Divinity: Original Sin 2 took just over two months to sell a million copies, and market research firm SuperData estimates that it generated $85m in 2017, which put it in the top 10 for non-free-to-play PC games."
$85 million dollars in 2017 alone, holy ****. Did BG 1 & 2 come even close to making that much money? This was before Divinity: OS2 was ported to consoles and I think before the definitive edition, and of course before Divinity: Fallen Heroes.
It explains how come they can afford to have over 200 internal devs, 27 writers, and 100 external devs working on BG 3. I wonder if Beamdog is among the external devs. It'd be cool if Beamdog got at least a slice of the BG3 pie.
This would I think make Divinity: OS 2 actually more successful the BG 1 or 2 or even NWNs 1&2.
Also NWN2 with all it's expansions, Mask of the Betrayer, Storm of Zehir, and Mysteries of Westgate has 100 hours of game play, BG3 alone has over 100 hours of gameplay. BG 1 & 2 (including expansions I think) have around a hundred hours, more if your a completionist. And Larian studios tends to down play hours of game play time from what I've heard.
This game is going to be huge.
You can kill almost everyone in the game, except Gods and certain types of undead (speculation Liches).
It's going to have all kinds of Stadia based features including playable on mobile devices (currently the biggest video game market is mobile devices).
"
This would I think make Divinity: OS 2 actually more successful the BG 1 or 2 or even NWNs 1&2.
In therms of sales, or in "profit therms" but using that logic, candy crush is the best game ever...
He said "successful", not "best".
The most successful game is undoubtedly the game that earns the most money, meaning revenue minus development costs. Whatever your personal definition is of good games, this is an undeniable fact.
@ThacoBell Whilst I agree that a game needs to be fun 100%. Being fun is a thing that is a matter of opinion. But being financially successful isn’t a matter of opinion. It’s a matter of fact. A game either is or isn’t successful financially and in the long run that is probably just as important to the developer. Hence why DOS 1&2 are considered major successes. They were not only financially pretty successful as far as I know. They are also for a large majority of people very fun. Me being one of those people that really enjoy them
"
This would I think make Divinity: OS 2 actually more successful the BG 1 or 2 or even NWNs 1&2.
In therms of sales, or in "profit therms" but using that logic, candy crush is the best game ever...
He said "successful", not "best".
The most successful game is undoubtedly the game that earns the most money, meaning revenue minus development costs. Whatever your personal definition is of good games, this is an undeniable fact.
The success of a game (or any work of art) can be determined on various scales. The reason why the term "financial success" exists is that there are also other types of success, such as critical success, cult success, etc. Objective categories of success don't simply get to override the subjective ones by virtue of their existence.
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"...
A couple corrections (sorry, have to do it for the truth sake).
First, there were many people who did not like the PfK, and not for the swarm/poleaxe, not even for the myriads of code bugs, but for very lazy offhandedly roughly done adaptation of the rules to computer game-play. The rest - plot, characters, graphics, etc. can be seen as a matter of taste, but poor adaptation was objectively the reason for people to dislike the game, and there were enough of them. Not to mention the game actually created the case the precedent to call something "see, it does not work!".
As for Chris Avellone (and I do not think you need to explain who he is on that forums) he was not their narrative designer. He was first a big name to attract the audience (as well as Inon Zur), second, (by the words of developers) he "gave us an advise about some plot twist", and lastly, he made precisely one character (Nok-Nok). Chris Avellone is great, he does not deserve to be blamed for PfK mismanagement.
And please do not put the words into Larian's mouth - even if they generalized and declared some feature not working well in video games from their (very experienced perspective), yet some people love it, it does not mean they called the whole games with MCA's participation "something that does not work". It only means that to them something looks like a poor addition to the video game, and if some people insist on rest/encumbrance mechanic in SuperMario, it does not mean such mechanics should be used.
Personally, I strongly disagree that Owlcat Games did a "very lazy offhandedly roughly done adaptation of the rules to computer game-play". On the contrary I'd even argue that out of all video games featuring an D&D-esque system, Pathfinder: Kingmaker was the most faithful one to its source material. Was it a perfect adaptation? Of course not! Nothing is ever perfect. But that doesn't negate all of the things they did right.
That is not to say that some people out there disliked to deal with one or two particular PnP rules in a video game.
Individual tastes differ from one another after all. And always will.
As for whatever Larian is cooking up? Maybe they will fare better than Owlcat Games did. Or maybe Baldur's Gate III will do worse than Pathfinder: Kingmaker. Could also be that both video games will be evenly matched. No one knows what the future holds. Only that both studio's seemingly have different approaches to tackle very similar IP's.
Personally, I strongly disagree that Owlcat Games did a "very lazy offhandedly roughly done adaptation of the rules to computer game-play". On the contrary I'd even argue that out of all video games featuring an D&D-esque system, Pathfinder: Kingmaker was the most faithful one to its source material. Was it a perfect adaptation? Of course not! Nothing is ever perfect. But that doesn't negate all of the things they did right.
To my perspective (without pompous "and there are hundreds like me" even though there are - read the comments at any site about PfK) Owlcat did not make any adaptation at all (BG was an adaptation, IWD was an adaptation, NWN was an adaptation, and so on). They simply copy/pasted ... no, "copy/pasted" they rulebook text- including features that were not in the game at all ... they simply run electronic copy of rulebook (without some features), proving, that DM is a big part of PnP rules, computer can only calculate fast but can not replace DM, you do need a human being to be in charge - if you follow PnP rules to the letter.
For a computer game you need to change the rules to eliminate human factor.
I do believe this is what Larian was talking about.
Agree, that no matter who is doing any game if might flop. Still think, though, in case of Larian the game will be of high quality (technically, fun factor is a different matter).
they simply run electronic copy of rulebook (without some features), proving, that DM is a big part of PnP rules, computer can only calculate fast but can not replace DM, you do need a human being to be in charge - if you follow PnP rules to the letter.
That in itself doesn't make any sense: the developers themselves are the DM in a singleplayer video game. Always.
Pretty much the only exception would be a singleplayer game with multiplayer modus a' la NwN. Not that I know for certain, given my strong dislike of anything MP or Coop.
And yes, even Owlcat games did change rules in their adaptation. One of the earliest noteable ones for Half-Orc players (such as me) was for instance the lack of Darkvision. Still a pet peeve of mine to this day, I'll have you know.
"
This would I think make Divinity: OS 2 actually more successful the BG 1 or 2 or even NWNs 1&2.
In therms of sales, or in "profit therms" but using that logic, candy crush is the best game ever...
He said "successful", not "best".
The most successful game is undoubtedly the game that earns the most money, meaning revenue minus development costs. Whatever your personal definition is of good games, this is an undeniable fact.
The success of a game (or any work of art) can be determined on various scales. The reason why the term "financial success" exists is that there are also other types of success, such as critical success, cult success, etc. Objective categories of success don't simply get to override the subjective ones by virtue of their existence.
You are right of course, but if you read @gyor's post it was clearly written from a financial POV, at least the first segments up to the point about it being "successful".
The Divinity: Original Sin games are successful: they sold (and continue to do so) well, got critical success, the players' ratings are over 90%, and they generated a lot of followers of the company. And those people find them fun. I find them fun to play as well.
It would be reasonable to expect any person working on BGIII wants the same success for BGIII.
First, there were many people who did not like the PfK, and not for the swarm/poleaxe, not even for the myriads of code bugs, but for very lazy offhandedly roughly done adaptation of the rules to computer game-play. The rest - plot, characters, graphics, etc. can be seen as a matter of taste, but poor adaptation was objectively the reason for people to dislike the game, and there were enough of them. Not to mention the game actually created the case the precedent to call something "see, it does not work!".
(...)
And please do not put the words into Larian's mouth - even if they generalized and declared some feature not working well in video games from their (very experienced perspective), yet some people love it, it does not mean they called the whole games with MCA's participation "something that does not work". It only means that to them something looks like a poor addition to the video game, and if some people insist on rest/encumbrance mechanic in SuperMario, it does not mean such mechanics should be used.
1 - Explain why is a "lazy adaptation", PfK has is the cRPG with the closest rule system to the pnp. Lazy adaptation is sword coast legends. When i see an adaptation from a source material, it needs to be faithful with the source material. If you believe that the rules doesn't work, please. Name one. JUST ONE case where it resulted in a better game. I don't know any case. In fact, warlocks on NWN2 are borderline unplayable due the nerfs in relation to pnp. With an mod that fixes it, they become amazing > https://neverwintervault.org/project/nwn2/other/warlock-reworked-102g
2 - If someone say that "A doesnt work", is a obvious conclusion that they are saying that everything that uses A doesn't work. SuperMario is not an RPG. Sorry if you can't see the difference, but casts / rest is used even on Dark Souls and works pretty well.
they simply run electronic copy of rulebook (without some features), proving, that DM is a big part of PnP rules, computer can only calculate fast but can not replace DM, you do need a human being to be in charge - if you follow PnP rules to the letter.
That in itself doesn't make any sense: the developers themselves are the DM in a singleplayer video game. Always.
Pretty much the only exception would be a singleplayer game with multiplayer modus a' la NwN. Not that I know for certain, given my strong dislike of anything MP or Coop.
And yes, even Owlcat games did change rules in their adaptation. One of the earliest noteable ones for Half-Orc players (such as me) was for instance the lack of Darkvision. Still a pet peeve of mine to this day, I'll have you know.
And the game could be better without this adaptations.
For eg, on Pathfinder Kingmaker, is almost impossible for me to use Horrid Wilting without hitting my party members and this spell could help me a lot against jabberwocks. I will not spoil, but they are not easy enemies. The spell should have 400 ft + 40 / caster level range, like on PnP, but thanks to the ARTIFICIAL limitation, i wasted an tier 8 spell that barely used and believe on me. P:K isn't an game where you can learn how to cast tier 8 spells easily. And there aren't epic levels on pathfinder. From lv 17 to 18, took dozens of hours.
Well, a game always has to change a bit of the rules, so I assume PfK did also change them a bit.
But for an example of a grat game AND adaption... Baldurs Gate?
The only time you do not change the the ruleset per se, would be a multiplayer game with a dedicated dm, otherwise you need to simulate the DM. The lack of simulation is, as far as I udnerstand it, a reason for the save ability - no DM to adapt the difficulty for the game.
Video games are inherently different, so changes are needed. The art is to fidn the right balance and a good sense on *what* to change.
But if you want to turn a multiplayer game with nigh unlimited freedom into a singleplayer game, which is bound by the restrictions of technology and foresight, you *have* to change some things.
Also, D&D encourages homebrewing, especially if it increases the immersion, motivation or fun of the group. By that design philosophy, developers are encouraged to change stuff.
Since I have not played that game, a question: Why couldn't you use it? Can't you tell your party to stand back and then use.. maybe summons as bait?
The range.. I never hat the chance to snape as a mage, most battles where in places with not enough visiable distance for that, or where ambushes/surprises.
Even the dedicated forums I know don't really take long range into account, most optimizers work with limited range and mobility.
@ThacoBell Whilst I agree that a game needs to be fun 100%. Being fun is a thing that is a matter of opinion. But being financially successful isn’t a matter of opinion. It’s a matter of fact. A game either is or isn’t successful financially and in the long run that is probably just as important to the developer. Hence why DOS 1&2 are considered major successes. They were not only financially pretty successful as far as I know. They are also for a large majority of people very fun. Me being one of those people that really enjoy them
That subjectivity is exactly my point. Being financially successful means nothing to the quality of the game. Loot boxes (until very recently) were really successful, phones THRIVE on microtransactions and some are monstrously successful. This does not make them good games. Basing whether a game is good or not solely on how much money it made, is incredibly cynical.
they simply run electronic copy of rulebook (without some features), proving, that DM is a big part of PnP rules, computer can only calculate fast but can not replace DM, you do need a human being to be in charge - if you follow PnP rules to the letter.
That in itself doesn't make any sense: the developers themselves are the DM in a singleplayer video game. Always.
Supposed to be DM(s), yes. The type of DM, that does not force you to play one particular class (or have it in the party), the type of DM, that considers you to roll any available class and making sure you have fun with that class, yet, do not dramatically outperform other classes. The kind of DM that makes sure your encounters are entertaining , memorable, and mobs are not defined exclusively by their numbers and amount of HP. This is exactly what adaptation is: balancing huge number of things to make a smooth run. As @Arcanis said: "The art is to fidn the right balance and a good sense on *what* to change."
Without DM rules are just numbers, you either need someone to explain WHY your character missed at point blank range (create a narrative on the go, as DM would) or create a system where explanations do not needed (adaptation).
And yes, even Owlcat games did change rules in their adaptation. One of the earliest noteable ones for Half-Orc players (such as me) was for instance the lack of Darkvision. Still a pet peeve of mine to this day, I'll have you know.
My condolences But it's hardly an "adaptation". They also had goblins with stats of Red Dragons for the random encounters - would not call it adaptation either. And with all honesty, don't you think it's the laziest way to increase the difficulty of encounters?
If you believe that the rules doesn't work, please. Name one. JUST ONE case where it resulted in a better game.
Already did: BG, IWD, NWN, etc. (You asked where not copy-pasting rules from rule-book worked for the better game experience, right?) I did not say "rules do not work", I said "computer game is not PnP session with a living DM and rules have to be adjusted accordingly".
If even the whole class had to be skipped from the game because though in real PnP session it is tons of fun BUT works only with a heavy micromanagement of the campaign by living DM, and on a computer could not be replicated without crashing the rule-system - I call it a good adaptation. You don't, I get it, for you it's not true to the source material. Guess, we will not agree on that part.
But let me give you an example about laziness in PfK development: skill checks, that you can not repeat. It makes some sense for conversations (though, as a lover of Charisma based characters I would argue that and much prefer NWN here), but they were unable to make skills checks separate. As a result, rule "take 20" was gone from the game - if you failed to unlock the chest, your only option was to reload (waiting an in-game day to repeat an attempt I do not count due to time-limits for quests and kingdom management).
If someone say that "A doesn't work", is a obvious conclusion that they are saying that everything that uses A doesn't work.
Hmm... So, every time someone tells you "the right side tail light of your car is broken" - you take it as a suggestion to buy a new car? Or a notion "some parts of the that car is broken - I will never buy a car, they do not work"?
An interesting logic.
Anyone knows when beta is out? Would be interesting to here reaction of beta-testers for all the changes.
@ThacoBell I don’t think I was solely basing the success on that. I was just making it clear that it is important for any studios long term success. And I also pointed out that DOS 1 and 2 are also very successful critically with critics and gamers. Those points are also indisputable. I’m not saying there are not some people that don’t like them because you will get that with any game and that’s fine. But the fact is they are both very critically successful with reviewers and gamers alike.
No news about a beta yet (we don't even know if there will be a beta/early access).
According to their Community Manager, currently, the focus is shifting back to hunkering down and working on the game. There will be more details 'soon', but for now the various interviews covered most of the information they are ready to talk about.
Supposed to be DM(s), yes. The type of DM, that does not force you to play one particular class (or have it in the party), the type of DM, that considers you to roll any available class and making sure you have fun with that class, yet, do not dramatically outperform other classes. The kind of DM that makes sure your encounters are entertaining , memorable, and mobs are not defined exclusively by their numbers and amount of HP.
Agree, and it's good that Owlcat Games did precisely that: not forcing you to play a specific build. The only times companions (and their class) are truly required is when it involves their own questlines. Which, to be fair, even Beamdog, Bioware and Obsidian did in their games to one extent or another.
As far as "balance" goes... I could see that point in MMO's, sure, Maybe also when Multiplayer is involved. But in pure singleplayer games? Really? None of the numerous D&D editions are exactly known for that (neither is Pathfinder or Starfinder). On top of my head the only D&D video games adaptions that were somewhat(?) balanced were Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance and Dragonshard. Not really the best examples as far as adaptions go.
The encounters in Pathfinder: Kingmaker are truth be told have some of the best ones I've seen in decades: the fact that your playthrough choices influences them is especially welcome in my book. The... "random"... encounters on the other hand ranged from pleasant surprises to downright nuisances. And yes, the latter indeed far outweights the former. Still, the Skeletal Merchant with his Nightmare-drawn cart was pure genius. :P
They also had goblins with stats of Red Dragons for the random encounters - would not call it adaptation either. And with all honesty, don't you think it's the laziest way to increase the difficulty of encounters?
Artificial difficulty such as this is indeed a problem developers in general knowingly implement in their games. True. Alas, no studio is immune to that. This issue can be seen in virtually all WRPG's and JRPG's alike. It is not an overstatement to say that the gaming industry at large has regrettable regarded artificial difficulty as "the golden rule". Everything besides that is nowadays the exception.
Well, a game always has to change a bit of the rules, so I assume PfK did also change them a bit.(...)
Video games are inherently different, so changes are needed. The art is to fidn the right balance and a good sense on *what* to change.
But if you want to turn a multiplayer game with nigh unlimited freedom into a singleplayer game, which is bound by the restrictions of technology and foresight, you *have* to change some things.
Also, D&D encourages homebrewing, especially if it increases the immersion, motivation or fun of the group. By that design philosophy, developers are encouraged to change stuff.
(...).The range.. I never hat the chance to snape as a mage, most battles where in places with not enough visiable distance for that, or where ambushes/surprises.
1 - As i've said, they could be better if they din't changed. It ruined some spells. Just like Pale Masters are USELESS on NWN1. No caster level and only one summon BS = nobody picks this prestige class.
2 - There are times where changes are needed. For eg, wish spell. There are no way unless you can implement an human-like IA to garant 1% of what you can do on pnp. My critique is changing when is not needed aka making the summon work differently than pnp. On BG/IWD:EE, you can summon one planeat + 4 efreets, but can't summon 6 1 HD skeletons. If modders already made an mod that makes summoning be limited to your caster level * 2 worth of hit dice creature as on pnp, why the developers can't do the same?
3 - Yes, but homebrew is generally used to INCREASE and add to the game. Rule changes, are generally used to remove from the game.
4 - Depends the setting. What if i an on feyworld? In nordic barbarian tribes? And ambushes can be used at range against the party
Already did: BG, IWD, NWN, etc. (You asked where not copy-pasting rules from rule-book worked for the better game experience, right?) I did not say "rules do not work", I said "computer game is not PnP session with a living DM and rules have to be adjusted accordingly".
No, you only said that they changed, but din't explained how the rule changes made the game better. You just said "A changed", i already demonstred that a lot of classes got ruined due the "changes" and specializations too. No wizard pick conjuration or necromancy as his school on NWN, thanks to rule changes and nobody picks pale master or arcane archer. Changing the rule literally ruined an big portion of the game.
And what is the most famous NWN mod? PRC. What PRC does? Makes classes more pnp like.
No more only one summon BS, summoning is limited to your CL * 2 HD of creatures
Arcane archers can imbue eletricity and cold, not only the most common resisted element ( fire)
Prestige classes like Pale Master increases CL
A lot of spells with alignment restriction comes
Reagent requirement for certain spells
A lot of new classes like Pison comes too
(...)
And you can't even say that they did it for """balance""" because some spells that works differently than pnp, mainly defensive ones are ridiculous broken. Haste allows you to cast 2 spells / round, differently than pnp. Shields, mainly Mestil's acid sheath is ridiculous broken.
But let me give you an example about laziness in PfK development: skill checks, that you can not repeat. It makes some sense for conversations (though, as a lover of Charisma based characters I would argue that and much prefer NWN here), but they were unable to make skills checks separate. As a result, rule "take 20" was gone from the game - if you failed to unlock the chest, your only option was to reload (waiting an in-game day to repeat an attempt I do not count due to time-limits for quests and kingdom management).
If you failed, you failed. If there are no risk of breaking an lock and losing the loot, why have an check in the first place?
If you don't like skill cheks, you can play sword coast legends. Only offline, because the studio failed.
Hmm... So, every time someone tells you "the right side tail light of your car is broken" - you take it as a suggestion to buy a new car? Or a notion "some parts of the that car is broken - I will never buy a car, they do not work"?
No, this is a bad analogy. He said that "missing often obviously not work", an better analogy is like saying "combustion engines obviously not work"(when obviously work on tons of car models)
The complete quote “The very obvious one would be that you tend to miss a lot when you roll the dice, which is fine when you’re playing on the tabletop, but it’s not so cool when you’re playing a video game,” Vincke said. “We had to have solutions for that.” Source https://www.tatech.org/baldurs-gate...es-place-after-dds-descent-into-avernus/
They also had goblins with stats of Red Dragons for the random encounters - would not call it adaptation either. And with all honesty, don't you think it's the laziest way to increase the difficulty of encounters?
As far as "balance" goes... I could see that point in MMO's, sure, Maybe also when Multiplayer is involved. But in pure singleplayer games? Really? None of the numerous D&D editions are exactly known for that (neither is Pathfinder or Starfinder). On top of my head the only D&D video games adaptions that were somewhat(?) balanced were Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance and Dragonshard. Not really the best examples as far as adaptions go.
No-no, I (and afaiu Arcanis too) meant by "balance" not the individual strength of the classes, but the general balance between parts of the game: story, mechanic, visuals, coding capacity - everything. At the table (on the forums - wherever you are playing) living DM can correct any situation on the go and solve practically any problem. The game developers have to think in advance, as you understand. Let's take Ranger they discussed. Your DM at the table can simply tell you: "no rangers for that campaign" and you will be fine with that (or skip that particular day) because there will be many more campaigns in the future with the same people but with your Ranger in it. Or DM can add one more map/situation where your Ranger makes sense. Or force your Ranger to go through the change to adapt to the new world around - DM can do anything! Developers can not simply say "we are throwing out an iconic class", nor can they add a random map for the time when you want to play Ranger, or change the story to accommodate your every potential choice (well, they probably can but the cost would be astronomical). They have to make something universal where everything and everyone fits - meaning adjustment of the story, mechanic, etc., compromising at every step (like - just an example - fitting said Ranger into urban environment without hindering his abilities or making him a "must have" member of the party).
This is the kind of balance I was talking about.
(Btw, class balance in general was never ...mmm... main concern for Larian's games, afaik. Though, some balance in this case make sense too, I'd say: what is the point of tactical combat and party building if one class outperforms the whole party and compensatory mechanic is impossible to implement?)
No news about a beta yet (we don't even know if there will be a beta/early access).
According to their Community Manager, currently, the focus is shifting back to hunkering down and working on the game. There will be more details 'soon', but for now the various interviews covered most of the information they are ready to talk about.
On top of what Mirandel said I want to add that every class has strength.
Every character builds upon those areas and thus every character can be unique, especially if they take skills for RP fluff and not just to be the "best".
If you have a DM, you can build in some challenges or situation where rare skills can be used..
Those little things are not as easy for a video game, since their are a multitude of combinations and you can't really build everything into *one* module.
Lets say one of the characters is a wizard with the scholar background and a specialization in the medicine skill (human with prodigy feat allows that). That character could help research a seemingly extinct sickness and find the connections to a current threat. In the adventure your party has, this character will save the day with such a discovery. If there is no such character you would need to offer an alternative way.
But in a video game you would need to offer the second way even if someone makes such a character, which would kinda cheapen the characters accomplishments.
And I'm, sure a good DM and creative players can build better examples than that..
The second kind of balance that is nice would be a .. balance of progression.
The story progression, learning curve, that sort of things.
If only your first 3 levels are difficulty and then the battles are incredibly easy on to end in a extremly difficulty boss, than the learning curve is badly balanced.
If your first act gives you all questions, the second act rushes you towards all answers and the third act consist of contrived problems and just moping up the rest, then the story is badly paced.
The last balance that I think is important is the kind of balance that gives us choice.
Yes, some people enjoy playing characters that sacrifice efficency for style (I do that), but if you have something that is at least as good in all situtions, you do not have a fair choice.
That does not mean that all classes should be equal -because that makes the choice rahter meaningless- but that there should be different possible *combinations*.
This is actually the hardest one to do right, because to often people just equalize everything.
Let me illustrate what I mean with BG2. Disregarding RP reasons, there is no reason to take Nalia over Immy. Imoen is the better thief, basicly equal as a mage making her the obvious, objectivly better choice.
Another matter is Korgan vs Minsc. Who of them is better? No one, they both have their strength in different aspects and weapons. Cernd (who is not useless at all oô) and Viconia have a similiar roles, but are vastly different. So, the only true unbalanced characters in BG2 are Immy and Aerie (who is awesome in everything) and yet, many people will contest that as well, claiming I'm biased towards those two.
In a well balanced game, the answer to the question "who is the best party member" should always be "depends on your character settup and the other party members".
A game is well balanced if everything has its use and you are forced to decide which strength *and* weakness you want to have - instead of having a clearly superior choice vs a clearly inferior choice.
Solving any of this with making everything equal is as lazy as not trying to balance it at all.
[Also, the best party to beat BG2 with is obviously a Paladin MC, Imoen, Minsc, Aerie, Jan, Sarevok. Also, stop claiming I'm biased! >_<]
Edit: I also want to apologize for the multitude of spelling errors in my last posts, I'm currently not fit and somehow keep overlooking a lot of them. Sorry about that, I hope it doesn't turn my posts into a completly unreadable mess..
Comments
I do prefer simple hot seat, because I can play an extra character/faction.
Upcoming Age of Wonders Planetfall has hot seat.
I don't know what innovations they will introduce in BGIII.
However, I have to agree with @Gyor about the following things I personally found fresh from D:OS games: the origins, the undead handling, the environmental effects.
Just started another D:OS 2 run as Red Prince, and it provides a completely different perspective than playing this game as a non-original character. It also differs from my previous attempt at playing as Fane (which offered me a chance to see the undead handling). Not only dialogue options are different (in a way ciphers get additional dialogues in PoE, for example) - the whole quest sequences are felt differently. Plus, of course, personality of Red Prince is not something easy to forget.
I recall Swen mentioned he wasn't 100% content with the implementation of the original characters in D:OS 2 because of the scope of the game and will further improve this aspect in BGIII. Maybe they won't let you play as one of the original characters there, but if they pursue the same level of detail in terms of personalization of characters and quests, that'll be cool.
I think all 12 PHB classes are obviously in, but there is a slim class that a finished Artificer could end up in the game, with a more likely chance of ending up in an expansion or DLC. Any chance of the Psion or other class being in it is 100% expansion or DLC, not with the core game.
I think most of the PHB subclasses will be in the game, some adjusted to be compatible with technology. I think a good amount of Xanther's Guide to Everything and Swordcoast Adventurer's Guide will be in it, but maybe not everything.
Races are easier I think to impliment, so all of the PHB races will be in and a good chunk of none PHB races, especially Gith, Aasimar, Goliaths.
I think they will save Tortles for a DLC charity thing.
I hope the subraces from MTOFs, VGTMs, and the SCAG are in.
I hope Genasai are in, but rebalanced.
I hope all the Gods mentioned in the FR and None Human deity lists of Gods in the PHB, the Gods mentioned in the SCAG, MTOFs, and VGTM are in.
Or cool stuff that i can do on other cRPG's like fly on M&M VI. If i can do less than i can on previous D&D games, why should i purchase BG3 in the first place? They offer less and costs more...
$85 million dollars in 2017 alone, holy ****. Did BG 1 & 2 come even close to making that much money? This was before Divinity: OS2 was ported to consoles and I think before the definitive edition, and of course before Divinity: Fallen Heroes.
It explains how come they can afford to have over 200 internal devs, 27 writers, and 100 external devs working on BG 3. I wonder if Beamdog is among the external devs. It'd be cool if Beamdog got at least a slice of the BG3 pie.
This would I think make Divinity: OS 2 actually more successful the BG 1 or 2 or even NWNs 1&2.
Also NWN2 with all it's expansions, Mask of the Betrayer, Storm of Zehir, and Mysteries of Westgate has 100 hours of game play, BG3 alone has over 100 hours of gameplay. BG 1 & 2 (including expansions I think) have around a hundred hours, more if your a completionist. And Larian studios tends to down play hours of game play time from what I've heard.
This game is going to be huge.
You can kill almost everyone in the game, except Gods and certain types of undead (speculation Liches).
It's going to have all kinds of Stadia based features including playable on mobile devices (currently the biggest video game market is mobile devices).
In therms of sales, or in "profit therms" but using that logic, candy crush is the best game ever...
Note that :
He said "successful", not "best".
The most successful game is undoubtedly the game that earns the most money, meaning revenue minus development costs. Whatever your personal definition is of good games, this is an undeniable fact.
"Is Baldur's Gate 3 Giving Players Too Much Freedom? | E3 2019"
The success of a game (or any work of art) can be determined on various scales. The reason why the term "financial success" exists is that there are also other types of success, such as critical success, cult success, etc. Objective categories of success don't simply get to override the subjective ones by virtue of their existence.
A couple corrections (sorry, have to do it for the truth sake).
First, there were many people who did not like the PfK, and not for the swarm/poleaxe, not even for the myriads of code bugs, but for very lazy offhandedly roughly done adaptation of the rules to computer game-play. The rest - plot, characters, graphics, etc. can be seen as a matter of taste, but poor adaptation was objectively the reason for people to dislike the game, and there were enough of them. Not to mention the game actually created the case the precedent to call something "see, it does not work!".
As for Chris Avellone (and I do not think you need to explain who he is on that forums) he was not their narrative designer. He was first a big name to attract the audience (as well as Inon Zur), second, (by the words of developers) he "gave us an advise about some plot twist", and lastly, he made precisely one character (Nok-Nok). Chris Avellone is great, he does not deserve to be blamed for PfK mismanagement.
And please do not put the words into Larian's mouth - even if they generalized and declared some feature not working well in video games from their (very experienced perspective), yet some people love it, it does not mean they called the whole games with MCA's participation "something that does not work". It only means that to them something looks like a poor addition to the video game, and if some people insist on rest/encumbrance mechanic in SuperMario, it does not mean such mechanics should be used.
That is not to say that some people out there disliked to deal with one or two particular PnP rules in a video game.
Individual tastes differ from one another after all. And always will.
As for whatever Larian is cooking up? Maybe they will fare better than Owlcat Games did. Or maybe Baldur's Gate III will do worse than Pathfinder: Kingmaker. Could also be that both video games will be evenly matched. No one knows what the future holds. Only that both studio's seemingly have different approaches to tackle very similar IP's.
To my perspective (without pompous "and there are hundreds like me" even though there are - read the comments at any site about PfK) Owlcat did not make any adaptation at all (BG was an adaptation, IWD was an adaptation, NWN was an adaptation, and so on). They simply copy/pasted ... no, "copy/pasted" they rulebook text- including features that were not in the game at all ... they simply run electronic copy of rulebook (without some features), proving, that DM is a big part of PnP rules, computer can only calculate fast but can not replace DM, you do need a human being to be in charge - if you follow PnP rules to the letter.
For a computer game you need to change the rules to eliminate human factor.
I do believe this is what Larian was talking about.
Agree, that no matter who is doing any game if might flop. Still think, though, in case of Larian the game will be of high quality (technically, fun factor is a different matter).
Pretty much the only exception would be a singleplayer game with multiplayer modus a' la NwN. Not that I know for certain, given my strong dislike of anything MP or Coop.
And yes, even Owlcat games did change rules in their adaptation. One of the earliest noteable ones for Half-Orc players (such as me) was for instance the lack of Darkvision. Still a pet peeve of mine to this day, I'll have you know.
You are right of course, but if you read @gyor's post it was clearly written from a financial POV, at least the first segments up to the point about it being "successful".
It would be reasonable to expect any person working on BGIII wants the same success for BGIII.
1 - Explain why is a "lazy adaptation", PfK has is the cRPG with the closest rule system to the pnp. Lazy adaptation is sword coast legends. When i see an adaptation from a source material, it needs to be faithful with the source material. If you believe that the rules doesn't work, please. Name one. JUST ONE case where it resulted in a better game. I don't know any case. In fact, warlocks on NWN2 are borderline unplayable due the nerfs in relation to pnp. With an mod that fixes it, they become amazing > https://neverwintervault.org/project/nwn2/other/warlock-reworked-102g
2 - If someone say that "A doesnt work", is a obvious conclusion that they are saying that everything that uses A doesn't work. SuperMario is not an RPG. Sorry if you can't see the difference, but casts / rest is used even on Dark Souls and works pretty well.
And the game could be better without this adaptations.
For eg, on Pathfinder Kingmaker, is almost impossible for me to use Horrid Wilting without hitting my party members and this spell could help me a lot against jabberwocks. I will not spoil, but they are not easy enemies. The spell should have 400 ft + 40 / caster level range, like on PnP, but thanks to the ARTIFICIAL limitation, i wasted an tier 8 spell that barely used and believe on me. P:K isn't an game where you can learn how to cast tier 8 spells easily. And there aren't epic levels on pathfinder. From lv 17 to 18, took dozens of hours.
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/h/horrid-wilting/
edit : i wish that they increase the range of this spell on future updates to be pnp like.
But for an example of a grat game AND adaption... Baldurs Gate?
The only time you do not change the the ruleset per se, would be a multiplayer game with a dedicated dm, otherwise you need to simulate the DM. The lack of simulation is, as far as I udnerstand it, a reason for the save ability - no DM to adapt the difficulty for the game.
Video games are inherently different, so changes are needed. The art is to fidn the right balance and a good sense on *what* to change.
But if you want to turn a multiplayer game with nigh unlimited freedom into a singleplayer game, which is bound by the restrictions of technology and foresight, you *have* to change some things.
Also, D&D encourages homebrewing, especially if it increases the immersion, motivation or fun of the group. By that design philosophy, developers are encouraged to change stuff.
Since I have not played that game, a question: Why couldn't you use it? Can't you tell your party to stand back and then use.. maybe summons as bait?
The range.. I never hat the chance to snape as a mage, most battles where in places with not enough visiable distance for that, or where ambushes/surprises.
Even the dedicated forums I know don't really take long range into account, most optimizers work with limited range and mobility.
That subjectivity is exactly my point. Being financially successful means nothing to the quality of the game. Loot boxes (until very recently) were really successful, phones THRIVE on microtransactions and some are monstrously successful. This does not make them good games. Basing whether a game is good or not solely on how much money it made, is incredibly cynical.
Supposed to be DM(s), yes. The type of DM, that does not force you to play one particular class (or have it in the party), the type of DM, that considers you to roll any available class and making sure you have fun with that class, yet, do not dramatically outperform other classes. The kind of DM that makes sure your encounters are entertaining , memorable, and mobs are not defined exclusively by their numbers and amount of HP. This is exactly what adaptation is: balancing huge number of things to make a smooth run. As @Arcanis said: "The art is to fidn the right balance and a good sense on *what* to change."
Without DM rules are just numbers, you either need someone to explain WHY your character missed at point blank range (create a narrative on the go, as DM would) or create a system where explanations do not needed (adaptation).
My condolences
Already did: BG, IWD, NWN, etc. (You asked where not copy-pasting rules from rule-book worked for the better game experience, right?) I did not say "rules do not work", I said "computer game is not PnP session with a living DM and rules have to be adjusted accordingly".
If even the whole class had to be skipped from the game because though in real PnP session it is tons of fun BUT works only with a heavy micromanagement of the campaign by living DM, and on a computer could not be replicated without crashing the rule-system - I call it a good adaptation. You don't, I get it, for you it's not true to the source material. Guess, we will not agree on that part.
But let me give you an example about laziness in PfK development: skill checks, that you can not repeat. It makes some sense for conversations (though, as a lover of Charisma based characters I would argue that and much prefer NWN here), but they were unable to make skills checks separate. As a result, rule "take 20" was gone from the game - if you failed to unlock the chest, your only option was to reload (waiting an in-game day to repeat an attempt I do not count due to time-limits for quests and kingdom management).
Hmm... So, every time someone tells you "the right side tail light of your car is broken" - you take it as a suggestion to buy a new car? Or a notion "some parts of the that car is broken - I will never buy a car, they do not work"?
An interesting logic.
Anyone knows when beta is out? Would be interesting to here reaction of beta-testers for all the changes.
According to their Community Manager, currently, the focus is shifting back to hunkering down and working on the game. There will be more details 'soon', but for now the various interviews covered most of the information they are ready to talk about.
As far as "balance" goes... I could see that point in MMO's, sure, Maybe also when Multiplayer is involved. But in pure singleplayer games? Really? None of the numerous D&D editions are exactly known for that (neither is Pathfinder or Starfinder). On top of my head the only D&D video games adaptions that were somewhat(?) balanced were Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance and Dragonshard. Not really the best examples as far as adaptions go.
The encounters in Pathfinder: Kingmaker are truth be told have some of the best ones I've seen in decades: the fact that your playthrough choices influences them is especially welcome in my book. The... "random"... encounters on the other hand ranged from pleasant surprises to downright nuisances. And yes, the latter indeed far outweights the former. Still, the Skeletal Merchant with his Nightmare-drawn cart was pure genius. :P
Artificial difficulty such as this is indeed a problem developers in general knowingly implement in their games. True. Alas, no studio is immune to that. This issue can be seen in virtually all WRPG's and JRPG's alike. It is not an overstatement to say that the gaming industry at large has regrettable regarded artificial difficulty as "the golden rule". Everything besides that is nowadays the exception.
1 - As i've said, they could be better if they din't changed. It ruined some spells. Just like Pale Masters are USELESS on NWN1. No caster level and only one summon BS = nobody picks this prestige class.
2 - There are times where changes are needed. For eg, wish spell. There are no way unless you can implement an human-like IA to garant 1% of what you can do on pnp. My critique is changing when is not needed aka making the summon work differently than pnp. On BG/IWD:EE, you can summon one planeat + 4 efreets, but can't summon 6 1 HD skeletons. If modders already made an mod that makes summoning be limited to your caster level * 2 worth of hit dice creature as on pnp, why the developers can't do the same?
3 - Yes, but homebrew is generally used to INCREASE and add to the game. Rule changes, are generally used to remove from the game.
4 - Depends the setting. What if i an on feyworld? In nordic barbarian tribes? And ambushes can be used at range against the party
No, you only said that they changed, but din't explained how the rule changes made the game better. You just said "A changed", i already demonstred that a lot of classes got ruined due the "changes" and specializations too. No wizard pick conjuration or necromancy as his school on NWN, thanks to rule changes and nobody picks pale master or arcane archer. Changing the rule literally ruined an big portion of the game.
And what is the most famous NWN mod? PRC. What PRC does? Makes classes more pnp like.
And you can't even say that they did it for """balance""" because some spells that works differently than pnp, mainly defensive ones are ridiculous broken. Haste allows you to cast 2 spells / round, differently than pnp. Shields, mainly Mestil's acid sheath is ridiculous broken.
If you failed, you failed. If there are no risk of breaking an lock and losing the loot, why have an check in the first place?
If you don't like skill cheks, you can play sword coast legends. Only offline, because the studio failed.
No, this is a bad analogy. He said that "missing often obviously not work", an better analogy is like saying "combustion engines obviously not work"(when obviously work on tons of car models)
The complete quote “The very obvious one would be that you tend to miss a lot when you roll the dice, which is fine when you’re playing on the tabletop, but it’s not so cool when you’re playing a video game,” Vincke said. “We had to have solutions for that.” Source https://www.tatech.org/baldurs-gate...es-place-after-dds-descent-into-avernus/
Wrong, they are REDCAPS > http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/fey/redcap/
And they are not the strongest fey that you will face. Jabberwocks makes any material plane dragon looks like an docile cat. And in one part, you need to fight two ( http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/dragons/jabberwock/ )
And if i remember correctly, the PC can summon then with an summon monster(not sure but believe to be the VI)
And yes, summoning doesn't have all monsters that have on pnp, but at least give a lot of options ( https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/s/summon-monster/ )
No-no, I (and afaiu Arcanis too) meant by "balance" not the individual strength of the classes, but the general balance between parts of the game: story, mechanic, visuals, coding capacity - everything. At the table (on the forums - wherever you are playing) living DM can correct any situation on the go and solve practically any problem. The game developers have to think in advance, as you understand. Let's take Ranger they discussed. Your DM at the table can simply tell you: "no rangers for that campaign" and you will be fine with that (or skip that particular day) because there will be many more campaigns in the future with the same people but with your Ranger in it. Or DM can add one more map/situation where your Ranger makes sense. Or force your Ranger to go through the change to adapt to the new world around - DM can do anything! Developers can not simply say "we are throwing out an iconic class", nor can they add a random map for the time when you want to play Ranger, or change the story to accommodate your every potential choice (well, they probably can but the cost would be astronomical). They have to make something universal where everything and everyone fits - meaning adjustment of the story, mechanic, etc., compromising at every step (like - just an example - fitting said Ranger into urban environment without hindering his abilities or making him a "must have" member of the party).
This is the kind of balance I was talking about.
(Btw, class balance in general was never ...mmm... main concern for Larian's games, afaik. Though, some balance in this case make sense too, I'd say: what is the point of tactical combat and party building if one class outperforms the whole party and compensatory mechanic is impossible to implement?)
The holy word has been spoken!
Every character builds upon those areas and thus every character can be unique, especially if they take skills for RP fluff and not just to be the "best".
If you have a DM, you can build in some challenges or situation where rare skills can be used..
Those little things are not as easy for a video game, since their are a multitude of combinations and you can't really build everything into *one* module.
Lets say one of the characters is a wizard with the scholar background and a specialization in the medicine skill (human with prodigy feat allows that). That character could help research a seemingly extinct sickness and find the connections to a current threat. In the adventure your party has, this character will save the day with such a discovery. If there is no such character you would need to offer an alternative way.
But in a video game you would need to offer the second way even if someone makes such a character, which would kinda cheapen the characters accomplishments.
And I'm, sure a good DM and creative players can build better examples than that..
The second kind of balance that is nice would be a .. balance of progression.
The story progression, learning curve, that sort of things.
If only your first 3 levels are difficulty and then the battles are incredibly easy on to end in a extremly difficulty boss, than the learning curve is badly balanced.
If your first act gives you all questions, the second act rushes you towards all answers and the third act consist of contrived problems and just moping up the rest, then the story is badly paced.
The last balance that I think is important is the kind of balance that gives us choice.
Yes, some people enjoy playing characters that sacrifice efficency for style (I do that), but if you have something that is at least as good in all situtions, you do not have a fair choice.
That does not mean that all classes should be equal -because that makes the choice rahter meaningless- but that there should be different possible *combinations*.
This is actually the hardest one to do right, because to often people just equalize everything.
Let me illustrate what I mean with BG2. Disregarding RP reasons, there is no reason to take Nalia over Immy. Imoen is the better thief, basicly equal as a mage making her the obvious, objectivly better choice.
Another matter is Korgan vs Minsc. Who of them is better? No one, they both have their strength in different aspects and weapons. Cernd (who is not useless at all oô) and Viconia have a similiar roles, but are vastly different. So, the only true unbalanced characters in BG2 are Immy and Aerie (who is awesome in everything) and yet, many people will contest that as well, claiming I'm biased towards those two.
In a well balanced game, the answer to the question "who is the best party member" should always be "depends on your character settup and the other party members".
A game is well balanced if everything has its use and you are forced to decide which strength *and* weakness you want to have - instead of having a clearly superior choice vs a clearly inferior choice.
Solving any of this with making everything equal is as lazy as not trying to balance it at all.
[Also, the best party to beat BG2 with is obviously a Paladin MC, Imoen, Minsc, Aerie, Jan, Sarevok. Also, stop claiming I'm biased! >_<]
Edit: I also want to apologize for the multitude of spelling errors in my last posts, I'm currently not fit and somehow keep overlooking a lot of them. Sorry about that, I hope it doesn't turn my posts into a completly unreadable mess..