@BelgarathMTH But the guard doesn't stop you right away. He only spawns if you try to leave the library after talking to Rieltar, or once you reach the top floor. Gorion's letter is the floor below the top iirc.
Or is it different if you actually murder him? I've never done so.
in every run of bg 1 ee with npc project installed the guard comes after me before i can even get to gorions room.
@sarevok57 It doesn't take any tactics to get there if you don't attack Rieltar. You don't get stopped in that case until the top floor. One (two?) floor(s) past where Gorion's letter is.
For such an important reveal, I think that's a weakness in game design there. So I am sympathetic when I hear arguments that a lot of our reverence for BG is nostalgia-based, and that BG had plenty of the same weaknesses we often accuse newer games of having.
I totally agree with this - and will continue to compare modern CRPGs to BG and probably find them wanting (Including D:OS).
It's also been so long since I played an unmodded version of BG that I'll profess I dont perfectly remember what is in the original game all of the time.
I guess this depends on the kind of game plots one likes. For you guys it would appear your dividing line is between BG1&2 versus PoE1&2. For me, however, the dividing line is between the first games versus the second games: I love the plot/story of both BG1 and PoE1 while I dislike the plot/story of both BG2 and PoE2.
If we are talking about the main plot, and the main plot only, my vote is for "Tyranny". Unlike other games, almost everything you do in that game has something to do with the plot or has world consequences. You do not spend time dungeoneering, doing mercenary work, or exploring lost towers when there´s a god in a killing rampage or your sister is in the hands of a madman.
it´s a shorter game than POE, NWN or IE games, of course.
While CRPGs often pride themselves on having great storytelling, I find that people in general—myself included—tend to gravitate more towards fiction with great iconography and memorable characters rather than flawless storytelling. I think they're the main mechanisms through which a lot of the huge cultural milestones like Star Wars become so popular and pervasive.
I was just thinking about the two main antagonists in the BG franchise, and then I tried to see what I could remember about the main antagonist of PoE off the top of my head after having played through the game three or four times. I couldn't for the life of me recall any details about that game's antagonist, or if there even was one. Then I looked it up and I realized I completely forgot everything about them. Other than a possible sign of early onset Alzheimer's on my end, that's also a big design issue.
That's not to say that storytelling is unimportant or that I think the storytelling in the BG games is bad—I happen to think BG1 has incredible storytelling. I do think it's unconventional for the genre, as the story is arguably more focused on Sarevok than the protagonist, and the PC discovers a lot of the story developments through written notes rather than direct observation, which lends the story sort of a crime thriller vibe throughout. However, I don't necessarily regard those differences as flaws if the story is otherwise effective at fleshing out the fictional world and plot developments are supported by clear, logical, consistent character motivations—which they are.
BG1 has a lot of unconventional design, it in many ways inhabits the same chaotic energy that you get in a writer's first book or a filmmaker's first feature film—filled with creativity and interesting ideas that are not yet refined down to a template. Rough edges all around. I can't help but love that sort of thing.
While CRPGs often pride themselves on having great storytelling, I find that people in general—myself included—tend to gravitate more towards fiction with great iconography and memorable characters rather than flawless storytelling. I think they're the main mechanisms through which a lot of the huge cultural milestones like Star Wars become so popular and pervasive.
I was just thinking about the two main antagonists in the BG franchise, and then I tried to see what I could remember about the main antagonist of PoE off the top of my head after having played through the game three or four times. I couldn't for the life of me recall any details about that game's antagonist, or if there even was one. Then I looked it up and I realized I completely forgot everything about them. Other than a possible sign of early onset Alzheimer's on my end, that's also a big design issue.
That's not to say that storytelling is unimportant or that I think the storytelling in the BG games is bad—I happen to think BG1 has incredible storytelling. I do think it's unconventional for the genre, as the story is arguably more focused on Sarevok than the protagonist, and the PC discovers a lot of the story developments through written notes rather than direct observation, which lends the story sort of a crime thriller vibe throughout. However, I don't necessarily regard those differences as flaws if the story is otherwise effective at fleshing out the fictional world and plot developments are supported by clear, logical, consistent character motivations—which they are.
BG1 has a lot of unconventional design, it in many ways inhabits the same chaotic energy that you get in a writer's first book or a filmmaker's first feature film—filled with creativity and interesting ideas that are not yet refined down to a template. Rough edges all around. I can't help but love that sort of thing.
This! You just named the very one thing that I couldn't point out, why PoE and Pathfinder Kingmaker were dull to me. There was no evil guy to hate ? Both Sarevok and Irenicus are exeptionally well written characters. Hell, even main IWD antagonist is very interesting individual and this game is more of a hack & slash.
@Adul "the story sort of a crime thriller vibe throughout."
Ignoring the "notes part" this is exactly how Pillars 1 conducts its story. You spend the game trying to find a specific person, in very much a Sherlock/Moriarty way. You pick up little pieces of their identity (usually by using your Watcher powers), but are always juuuuuuust a step behind them. Until finally catching up with them in endgame.
Very much like the protaganist of BG1 slowly learning the identity of the person hunting them. But with mind powers instead of notes.
Pathfinder Kingmaker were dull to me. There was no evil guy to hate ?
Major spoilers for P:K you´ve been warned
Even tho the real Bad guy of the campaign is definitely the Lantern king, I found the main adversary of the campaign, mainly Nyrissa, a very compelling character. After knowing her full story and motivations I hardly couldn´t hate her too.
And you do not meet the Lantern king until the endgame.
I found the storytelling approach to Nyrissa very interesting. He went from Damsel in distress...
"Who am I? just a tear, shed by the land itself, the bitter sigh of nature [...]
Beauty is so tender, It could be easily crushed under the boots of cruel fate"
...To full arrogant BBEG
"Oh you really come, and alone as I asked. Didn't you know, my loyal hound, that the brightest flowers are the most poisonous? [...]
Why I am here? Why shouldn´t a mistress visit her pet? [...] Run, hound, run... I want to see you stumble.
Once, long ago, it hurt me to see flowers being torn apart with the wind, but today I watched you thrashing helplessly like a moth caught in a spider´s web and I cannot turn my eyes away [...]
"Me? the spider? I am the web itself! The moment you took your first step into the Stolen lands you fell under my power without even knowing"
...To an even more complex character
"A lie? a mask? I just have shown you something real that it is long, long gone... but I still remember what I was, I remember what I wanted to become, so It was easy to...
Why I am telling you this, you´re nothing, just another step in the ladder I must climb.
You will perish here, and I`ll forget you the next dawn as I always do"
...To a woman trapped in an impossible gamble as you can see when you discover her past
"Thousands of lives must be turned to dust for a single act of forgiveness"
She has the best dialogues of the game, IMHO.
And I loved that you have the opportunity to redeem two of your adversaries, "Purple frog" Tartuk and Nyrissa so they could help you against the real evil guy of the game if you discover all the hidden truths and you made the right choices with the right character.
[(...)There was no evil guy to hate ? Both Sarevok and Irenicus are exeptionally well written characters. Hell, even main IWD antagonist is very interesting individual and this game is more of a hack & slash.
That is AMAZING. Instead of "saving the world from the bad guy Nº654156186", you are dealing with ancient curses and feyfolk. And even the optional final chapter
shows lantern king as a demigod toying with humans, not a villain
Anyway, one thing that bugs me is when Vincke talks about how spell slots aren't intuitive. I NEVER get it. All Gold Box games uses it. Most earlier RPG's used it and you can see it even on Japanese console games. Dark Souls 1/2 and the first P$1 Suikuden for eg. Is so simple, you attuned 3 skull traps, so you can use 3 skull traps in the other day each usage takes one "charge", and spontaneous characters don't prepare spells but has a X amount of magical power that they can use per day. NOBODY CRITICIZED spell slots on this console games. How it is "unintuitive"? What is unintuitive is the cooldown system. You cast a skull trap, now wait X seconds/X turns to use it again; Why? I never saw this mechanic outside of gaming.
[(...)There was no evil guy to hate ? Both Sarevok and Irenicus are exeptionally well written characters. Hell, even main IWD antagonist is very interesting individual and this game is more of a hack & slash.
That is AMAZING. Instead of "saving the world from the bad guy Nº654156186", you are dealing with ancient curses and feyfolk. And even the optional final chapter
shows lantern king as a demigod toying with humans, not a villain
Anyway, one thing that bugs me is when Vincke talks about how spell slots aren't intuitive. I NEVER get it. All Gold Box games uses it. Most earlier RPG's used it and you can see it even on Japanese console games. Dark Souls 1/2 and the first P$1 Suikuden for eg. Is so simple, you attuned 3 skull traps, so you can use 3 skull traps in the other day each usage takes one "charge", and spontaneous characters don't prepare spells but has a X amount of magical power that they can use per day. NOBODY CRITICIZED spell slots on this console games. How it is "unintuitive"? What is unintuitive is the cooldown system. You cast a skull trap, now wait X seconds/X turns to use it again; Why? I never saw this mechanic outside of gaming.
This is definitively not rocket science.
I guess I like saving the world from another bad guy than saving the world from a nasty ancient curse *shrugs*.
But I guess the issue here is that both Sarevok and Irenicus are known to be ultimate bad guys from the beginning. This lets you grow feelings towards them from the very start. In P:K (and PoE1) for a long time I haven't a faintest idea who my main adversary will be. And (especially in P:K) I felt kinda "meh", when I realized who is the plotmaker.
[(...)There was no evil guy to hate ? Both Sarevok and Irenicus are exeptionally well written characters. Hell, even main IWD antagonist is very interesting individual and this game is more of a hack & slash.
That is AMAZING. Instead of "saving the world from the bad guy Nº654156186", you are dealing with ancient curses and feyfolk. And even the optional final chapter
shows lantern king as a demigod toying with humans, not a villain
Anyway, one thing that bugs me is when Vincke talks about how spell slots aren't intuitive. I NEVER get it. All Gold Box games uses it. Most earlier RPG's used it and you can see it even on Japanese console games. Dark Souls 1/2 and the first P$1 Suikuden for eg. Is so simple, you attuned 3 skull traps, so you can use 3 skull traps in the other day each usage takes one "charge", and spontaneous characters don't prepare spells but has a X amount of magical power that they can use per day. NOBODY CRITICIZED spell slots on this console games. How it is "unintuitive"? What is unintuitive is the cooldown system. You cast a skull trap, now wait X seconds/X turns to use it again; Why? I never saw this mechanic outside of gaming.
This is definitively not rocket science.
I guess I like saving the world from another bad guy than saving the world from a nasty ancient curse *shrugs*.
But I guess the issue here is that both Sarevok and Irenicus are known to be ultimate bad guys from the beginning. This lets you grow feelings towards them from the very start. In P:K (and PoE1) for a long time I haven't a faintest idea who my main adversary will be. And (especially in P:K) I felt kinda "meh", when I realized who is the plotmaker.
No, you are dealing with a relative small region of a very big continent. You are not saving the world, you are just """saving""" a small region where you rule. Which is great. Local conflicts > saving the world.
[(...)There was no evil guy to hate ? Both Sarevok and Irenicus are exeptionally well written characters. Hell, even main IWD antagonist is very interesting individual and this game is more of a hack & slash.
That is AMAZING. Instead of "saving the world from the bad guy Nº654156186", you are dealing with ancient curses and feyfolk. And even the optional final chapter
shows lantern king as a demigod toying with humans, not a villain
Anyway, one thing that bugs me is when Vincke talks about how spell slots aren't intuitive. I NEVER get it. All Gold Box games uses it. Most earlier RPG's used it and you can see it even on Japanese console games. Dark Souls 1/2 and the first P$1 Suikuden for eg. Is so simple, you attuned 3 skull traps, so you can use 3 skull traps in the other day each usage takes one "charge", and spontaneous characters don't prepare spells but has a X amount of magical power that they can use per day. NOBODY CRITICIZED spell slots on this console games. How it is "unintuitive"? What is unintuitive is the cooldown system. You cast a skull trap, now wait X seconds/X turns to use it again; Why? I never saw this mechanic outside of gaming.
This is definitively not rocket science.
I guess I like saving the world from another bad guy than saving the world from a nasty ancient curse *shrugs*.
But I guess the issue here is that both Sarevok and Irenicus are known to be ultimate bad guys from the beginning. This lets you grow feelings towards them from the very start. In P:K (and PoE1) for a long time I haven't a faintest idea who my main adversary will be. And (especially in P:K) I felt kinda "meh", when I realized who is the plotmaker.
No, you are dealing with a relative small region of a very big continent. You are not saving the world, you are just """saving""" a small region where you rule. Which is great. Local conflicts > saving the world.
"Saving the world" was just a figure of speech, I'm completely aware that CHARNAME does not save the "world" neither in BG1 nor in BG2, thank you Having a strong, interesting and well written antagonist means much more to me than having an elaborate, slowly paced plot, though.
Generally from what I observed, for me the most exciting computer games are the ones with interesting, believable characters. This is probably one of the reasons that I loved Read Dead Redemption 2 so much. There were characters I liked very much (Arthur, Lenny, Sadie) and there were those I despised almost from the beginning (Micah). There was literally no character from Dutch's gang that would be totally indifferent to me. In BG1 and BG2 all NPC are obviously much less developed than in RDR2, so I'm not able to connect with them as much as with Dutch's gang members, but there are Sarevok and Irenicus driving the story, picking up the mantle of unforgettable characters.
I guess I like saving the world from another bad guy than saving the world from a nasty ancient curse *shrugs*.
I do not think that´s accurate, You can actually fail "An ancient curse" and reach some of the endings of the game.
Also, nor the world or the people in the Stolen lands, neither your avatar nor your party members are the ones cursed in the game. The curse is not even the main plot in half of the chapters of the game.
Technically you are creating a kingdom in a savage, barren land, and to do that you are saving your barony from a lot of dangers
Dangers that go from a crazy bandid lord that commands a powerful druid, an ancient cyclops lich, a barbarian invasion, a magic plague, and of course, a cursed nymph, and maybe saving the nymph in the process
I know Pathfinder Kingmaker gets more interesting, but it takes a long time to get to that point, (like 30 hours at least) and the kingdom management stuff is badly done and not what I go into a game like that for (I'd say its the equivalent of the really badly done naval stuff in Deadfire that was also pointless in the end.)
Someone brought up the Suikoden series and now there's a great series about leading a kingdom in an RPG, especially the second and fifth games, which had fantastic stories. Had Pathfinder been anything like those it would have been so much better, but I don't get at all what they tried to do with the Kingdom stuff, it was a mess and constantly annoying, I really would describe it as playing a table top game with a very obnoxious DM who wants to stress you out to the point you no longer want to play.
And I could just turn it off? Tempting, very tempting, but it doesn't excuse their inability to so a major part of the game right.
I kinda liked the kingdom management part. They improved it a lot the UI and added more events and the option to use crisis points and more counsellors so it´s less a mess than before, fortunately. I understand it´s not for everyone but at least they added the option to skip it.
I love Suikoden games, especially the fifth (Still trying to recruit the 108 stars tho), but you have the same events in every run in the game. In P: K they are randomized, and some events depend on your campaign choices or the alignment of your kingdom.
Can fights be avoided by using social skills?
Yes. All the fights that Sven did [Editor's note: in the version shown to the press], could have been avoided. There is none that was essential. Each time, there is a dialogue: that's something new. It's a big evolution for us since DOS 1. In this game, you had monsters; they were aggressive so as soon as they saw you, they attacked you. It is something that we no longer do or if we do, it is extremely rare. Without exaggerating, you can avoid everything. You can talk, lie or just hide each time. There is no fight that you have to do.
The way he phrased it kinda remembered me the V:TM bloodlines game, where you can achieve your objectives not only fighting, but using your social skills, cunning tactics or stealth. That sounds like a great approach that I look forward to.
(...) Suikoden series and now there's a great series about leading a kingdom in an RPG, especially the second and fifth games, which had fantastic stories. Had Pathfinder been anything like those it would have been so much better, but I don't get at all what they tried to do with the Kingdom stuff, it was a mess and constantly annoying, I really would describe it as playing a table top game with a very obnoxious DM who wants to stress you out to the point you no longer want to play.
And I could just turn it off? Tempting, very tempting, but it doesn't excuse their inability to so a major part of the game right.
I mentioned Suikoden because it uses a "spell slots" system as a argument to why i believe taht Vincke concers with it makes no sense about the story, sorry but every JRPG is about androgynous teenager with oversized swords saving the world. Most of JRPG's, if you don't indulge into the "anime swordsman" archetype, aren't for you. Kingmaker has a way better story. About the "obnoxious dm", just lower the difficulty; the game was made for CRPG veterans. Hell, i had no problem soloing BG2:EE on Legacy of Bhaal as a necromancer(except in a bug) but can't play this game on anything above challenging even with full party.
The first chapter is not that great because is a low level 3.5e/pathfinder 1e game. However after you reach mid levels, the game become pretty great.
Baldur's Gate 3 lv cap = 10 at beginning was a huge "it will be awful" but after i understood more about 5e and how 5e suffers from "oblivion effect" where everything is tedious at higher levels, i an neutral about it.
Can fights be avoided by using social skills?
Yes. All the fights that Sven did [Editor's note: in the version shown to the press], could have been avoided. There is none that was essential. Each time, there is a dialogue: that's something new. It's a big evolution for us since DOS 1. In this game, you had monsters; they were aggressive so as soon as they saw you, they attacked you. It is something that we no longer do or if we do, it is extremely rare. Without exaggerating, you can avoid everything. You can talk, lie or just hide each time. There is no fight that you have to do.
The way he phrased it kinda remembered me the V:TM bloodlines game, where you can achieve your objectives not only fighting, but using your social skills, cunning tactics or stealth. That sounds like a great approach that I look forward to.
@kanisatha you did ask about possibility of avoid battles if I remember correctly? This should be something that would make you (a little) less concerned about the game. I know I know... But baby steps, baby steps ?
Than Suikoden 2 and 5? Absolutely not. And I question if you even played them because defining them as "generic anime teen saves the world" is a completely inaccurate description of their storylines, and your ignorant generalisation (calling it for exactly what it is) is further evidence of that.
Oh yeah, most JRPGs are pretty weak from a story standpoint, and unfortunately the most popular ones over time are also what I consider to be the worst ones, but I actually played ones not so often talked about that were great, but arguably aimed at an audience simply not equipped to appreciate them precisely because of that audience's inclinations. It sucks, because the Suikoden series is dead despite routinely having excellent writing because that never lead to it selling particularly well.
but you have the same events in every run in the game. In P: K they are randomized, and some events depend on your campaign choices or the alignment of your kingdom.
Because Suikoden writes a narrative around it, it doesn't have a real management aspect... and that is precisely why I think its better. I don't like management games and I don't want management in my CRPGs. Of course I can still recognise when that sort of thing is at least done competently because I understand the general concept, and the reason its such a mess in that game is because of how arbitrary most of it is yet forces you away from focusing on the adventure aspect. Its bad design, definitely.
I also have a hardcore fundamentalist hatred of randomised content in games. I find them anathema to my sacred tenets of what-is-fun-in-videogames. As you might imagine, I consider roguelikes to be blasphemy of the highest order :P
@SorcererV1ct0r " What is unintuitive is the cooldown system. You cast a skull trap, now wait X seconds/X turns to use it again; Why? I never saw this mechanic outside of gaming."
This comment implies that you've seen actual vancian magic irl.
@Cahir "But I guess the issue here is that both Sarevok and Irenicus are known to be ultimate bad guys from the beginning."
Irenicus, yes. Sarevok, no. Sarevok is definitely a great villain, he isn't "known" from the beginning. All you know at the beginning is that a spiky dude killed your dad. You don't even get a name until reaching Baldur's Gate. Sarevok is a great villain by the end, when you ACTUALLY know anything about him. In the beginning, he could just be a very skilled grunt for all we know.
serevok suffers from an issue i have with alot of rpg villains. he just isnt there enough. you deal with irenicus for the whole game and even interact with him. by contrast you have at most 4 interactions with serevok.
@ThacoBell , Doesn't the opening cinematic for the game pretty much tell you that he's the story's main antagonist, even though you don't know his name?
"I will be the last, and you will go first!"
"There are others! I can show you!"
*crunch*
*splat*
*blood covers the pavement and turns into Bhaal's symbol*
*dramatic music plays*
I still smile and get fun chills and goosebumps replaying the scene in my head.
@SorcererV1ct0r " What is unintuitive is the cooldown system. You cast a skull trap, now wait X seconds/X turns to use it again; Why? I never saw this mechanic outside of gaming."
This comment implies that you've seen actual vancian magic irl.
@Cahir "But I guess the issue here is that both Sarevok and Irenicus are known to be ultimate bad guys from the beginning."
Irenicus, yes. Sarevok, no. Sarevok is definitely a great villain, he isn't "known" from the beginning. All you know at the beginning is that a spiky dude killed your dad. You don't even get a name until reaching Baldur's Gate. Sarevok is a great villain by the end, when you ACTUALLY know anything about him. In the beginning, he could just be a very skilled grunt for all we know.
You know since the Gorion's scene he will be your adversary (to be honest, you know this from intro, but let's assume that intro is just an intro). What you don't know, though, is his name and motivations (which are btw very well explained during the course of the game). I'm fairly sure I wasn't the only one who thought he is not just a grunt, but something much more. His voice, a manner of speaking, an aura of power, all of those things tell you he is dangerous and he won't stop hunting you. Irenicus may be considered more dangerous, because he's a mage and he singlehandedly destroyed couple of Cowled Wizards, but Sarevok is more intimidating (his voice, height and bulky armor does make you cringe).
" What is unintuitive is the cooldown system. You cast a skull trap, now wait X seconds/X turns to use it again; Why? I never saw this mechanic outside of gaming."
This comment implies that you've seen actual vancian magic irl.
No, but there are books, novels and stories who uses that system.
Game mechanics needs to fit the game lore. Eg - Magic leading to insanity makes perfectly sense in The Call of Cthulhu, the same system on Baldur's Gate would't make any sense, because magic on BG is mundane. Magic on The Call of Cthulhu is a alien force which our human mind can't comprehend. Is like a Dog trying to learn how to code. Even if he somehow learns, he will never be a normal dog again. Same with magic, most magicians of The Call of Cthulhu are crazy cultists.
Hell, even on Anime, did you watched Yu Yu Hakusho? Yusuke has "X" shots of "Spirit Gun" per day. After he fires all shots, he needs to sleep to recover. At beginning, he could use one shot per day. On the final of the series, he had far more proficiency. Togashi is amazing on creating hard magical systems. Hiatus X Hiatus is one of the best;
Oh yeah, most JRPGs are pretty weak from a story standpoint, and unfortunately the most popular ones over time are also what I consider to be the worst ones, but I actually played ones not so often talked about that were great, but arguably aimed at an audience simply not equipped to appreciate them precisely because of that audience's inclinations. It sucks, because the Suikoden series is dead despite routinely having excellent writing because that never lead to it selling particularly well.
(...) t, it doesn't have a real management aspect... and that is precisely why I think its better. I don't like management games and I don't want management in my CRPGs
And did you reached Varnhold on kingmaker to judge the story? I played very little dos2, so you don't see me criticizing dos2 story. About Suikoden, i googled Suikuden protagonist and only saw Generi-kuns.
I in other hands, love management and loved to make decisions, see a small barony growing and becoming more rich looking, the infrastructure changing, having golems doing the protection(...) is so good.
While CRPGs often pride themselves on having great storytelling, I find that people in general—myself included—tend to gravitate more towards fiction with great iconography and memorable characters rather than flawless storytelling. I think they're the main mechanisms through which a lot of the huge cultural milestones like Star Wars become so popular and pervasive.
I was just thinking about the two main antagonists in the BG franchise, and then I tried to see what I could remember about the main antagonist of PoE off the top of my head after having played through the game three or four times. I couldn't for the life of me recall any details about that game's antagonist, or if there even was one. Then I looked it up and I realized I completely forgot everything about them. Other than a possible sign of early onset Alzheimer's on my end, that's also a big design issue.
Sorry, but again I think this is an unfair comparison. No, it is not Alzheimer's, I hope, but the timeline does matter. I'll bet anything that if PoE had been that iconic game that was released in 1998 and BG was a game released today, you'd remember the characters from PoE whereas the BG characters would be something you've seen a thousand times and are nothing special or memorable.
Can fights be avoided by using social skills?
Yes. All the fights that Sven did [Editor's note: in the version shown to the press], could have been avoided. There is none that was essential. Each time, there is a dialogue: that's something new. It's a big evolution for us since DOS 1. In this game, you had monsters; they were aggressive so as soon as they saw you, they attacked you. It is something that we no longer do or if we do, it is extremely rare. Without exaggerating, you can avoid everything. You can talk, lie or just hide each time. There is no fight that you have to do.
The way he phrased it kinda remembered me the V:TM bloodlines game, where you can achieve your objectives not only fighting, but using your social skills, cunning tactics or stealth. That sounds like a great approach that I look forward to.
@kanisatha you did ask about possibility of avoid battles if I remember correctly? This should be something that would make you (a little) less concerned about the game. I know I know... But baby steps, baby steps ?
This is exactly the interview I myself have often referenced in this forum. And yes, if this is for real, then it helps a lot. But two points. One, it should not be the case that a player has to go to all that trouble of using skill checks, and even reloading the game to ensure winning those checks, to avoid such a big portion of the game. To me, that is not good game design. And two, this was in a February interview. And given the track record of initially stated things subsequently being changed because some people complained loudly, I am very leery about believing that any of this will actually be in the final game. So right now, I cannot trust anything about what the state of the final game will be from whatever is said today. I'll have to wait until even after EA and the game gets truly released before I can trust in these kinds of features.
And did you reached Varnhold on kingmaker to judge the story? I played very little dos2, so you don't see me criticizing dos2 story. About Suikoden, i googled Suikuden protagonist and only saw Generi-kuns.
So you're quite happy to criticise Suikoden's story based on absolutely nothing than character artwork. See, I did not finish Original Sin 2 and Kingmaker, but I played them, I played a pretty substantial amount of both games in actuality. I played Original Sin 2 for 40 hours and Pathfinder for 25, which is enough to completely finish Baldur's Gate. One of the things I didn't like about both games was their terminally slow pace of play and how long it takes to do anything in them, because combat in OS2 takes so long and map traversal in Pathfinder is terrible padding that just ate away all my patience. So I also looked into what happens in their plot because I felt maybe if that was particularly interesting it would encourage me to play more. Because to me, spoilers do not negatively impact a good story, a good story does not reply on surprises alone to be good. Original Sin 2 does not get better. Pathfinder does, but also many people do not have good things to say about the gameplay experience of the endgame which is often described as horrible, and gameplay had as much to do with my dissatisfaction with the game as much as the lack of direction to the plot early on did so its definitely part of my decision that it might just not be worth it.
I do know enough to judge the story on a basic level, and I'm not calling it bad, it's pretty good, but not terribly interesting to me. The Lantern King sounds like basically if Q in Star Trek decided to be particularly nasty to the Enterprise D crew without any motive (and Q is great because he always has a motive). In villain terms he's a trickster, he's comparable to Mr. Mxyzptlk, maybe Kefka in FFVI as well. I never liked villains like that because they're motivations are spurious at best and they just do things because they decided they wanted to. Nyrissa is definitely on the other hand interesting, but there's not a lot to the depth of the plot outside of your kingdom is under threat and you don't even know who is behind it till the end.
I have enough to say the plots in Suikoden 2 and 5 are better because they are far more complex storylines where much more happens, have more interesting characters with a role in the story that matters, and explores its themes in a very detailed manner that is often never seen in videogames. But this is not something I hold against Pathfinder other than, Suikoden's handling of being in charge of a kingdom in an RPG was much more interesting and better executed, because that was handled as a narrative in itself and not as an ill advised second gameplay function that vies for attention over the first.
I'll bet anything that if PoE had been that iconic game that was released in 1998 and BG was a game released today, you'd remember the characters from PoE whereas the BG characters would be something you've seen a thousand times and are nothing special or memorable
Man, I don't agree with this even just on the basis of the characters themselves. I did not like most of the (small number) of characters in Pillars. Eder was great... eh I think that's it. I hated everbody in Deadfire except Maia but I don't think even she was all that memorable and her romance (like much of the game) was shallower than even BG2's prototype romances. (so are Beamdogs mind you...)
See, the characters in BG1 and 2 are not overly complicated or overwritten. If PoE came in 1997 it also wouldn't likely be overwritten as that just wasn't the style at the time, but you're making a direct comparison so I work with that. But they are played up based on characteristics people easily identify with. I'm not a huge Star Wars fan, I think the original movies (and they were the only good ones) have the depth of a puddle. But why its all so memorable is fairly clear, because it was a large cast of very well defined characters who have clear physical and personality characteristics. Are they deep? No. Is this the right thing? Yes. Because the story is about you in the end, and you shouldn't have the supporting cast taking over anyway, another issue with the Beamdog NPCs and them having additional quest lines that feel far too like you're a supporting cast in their story. Baldur's Gate is your story, and you have a large group of different people who give it different flavour which is why whilst people always have preferences I notice, they always have a group they like running with.
You can't even do that in Pillars 1 and 2 really, there's too few characters to give that kind of variation. Only reason you probably won't use a character is because you're that class, that's the reason I didn't use Aloth. But my party was every NPC in the game minus 3 or 4. And I did use everybody for a bit, I did everybody's quest. Durance and The Grey Mother were interesting, although noticeably with a lot more to say than everybody else. I still hated Durance though, but I'll give him that, interesting to talk to. But I also feel they were the only characters with that kind of attention put on them when either all the NPCs should have or none of them should have.
I have seen better, I think the Mass Effect games and the Shadowrun games did things fantastically. Small number of characters to use in total but, all of them are super detailed, interesting, generally likeable, offer great insight to the races they represent (they had a clear purpose in that regard that was excellently done in Mass Effect. So much great world building and character writing, let down by a plot that wasn't worth of them in the end, such a shame.) I think a fairer direct comparison would be between Pillars and Mass Effect 1 or 2 and Pillars loses that one hands down.
Comments
in every run of bg 1 ee with npc project installed the guard comes after me before i can even get to gorions room.
I totally agree with this - and will continue to compare modern CRPGs to BG and probably find them wanting (Including D:OS).
It's also been so long since I played an unmodded version of BG that I'll profess I dont perfectly remember what is in the original game all of the time.
100% agree. I was and still am far more drawn into the protagonist's story in BG than I ever have been for PoE 1 (Never played PoE 2)
it´s a shorter game than POE, NWN or IE games, of course.
I was just thinking about the two main antagonists in the BG franchise, and then I tried to see what I could remember about the main antagonist of PoE off the top of my head after having played through the game three or four times. I couldn't for the life of me recall any details about that game's antagonist, or if there even was one. Then I looked it up and I realized I completely forgot everything about them. Other than a possible sign of early onset Alzheimer's on my end, that's also a big design issue.
That's not to say that storytelling is unimportant or that I think the storytelling in the BG games is bad—I happen to think BG1 has incredible storytelling. I do think it's unconventional for the genre, as the story is arguably more focused on Sarevok than the protagonist, and the PC discovers a lot of the story developments through written notes rather than direct observation, which lends the story sort of a crime thriller vibe throughout. However, I don't necessarily regard those differences as flaws if the story is otherwise effective at fleshing out the fictional world and plot developments are supported by clear, logical, consistent character motivations—which they are.
BG1 has a lot of unconventional design, it in many ways inhabits the same chaotic energy that you get in a writer's first book or a filmmaker's first feature film—filled with creativity and interesting ideas that are not yet refined down to a template. Rough edges all around. I can't help but love that sort of thing.
This! You just named the very one thing that I couldn't point out, why PoE and Pathfinder Kingmaker were dull to me. There was no evil guy to hate ? Both Sarevok and Irenicus are exeptionally well written characters. Hell, even main IWD antagonist is very interesting individual and this game is more of a hack & slash.
Ignoring the "notes part" this is exactly how Pillars 1 conducts its story. You spend the game trying to find a specific person, in very much a Sherlock/Moriarty way. You pick up little pieces of their identity (usually by using your Watcher powers), but are always juuuuuuust a step behind them. Until finally catching up with them in endgame.
Very much like the protaganist of BG1 slowly learning the identity of the person hunting them. But with mind powers instead of notes.
And you do not meet the Lantern king until the endgame.
I found the storytelling approach to Nyrissa very interesting. He went from Damsel in distress...
"Who am I? just a tear, shed by the land itself, the bitter sigh of nature [...]
Beauty is so tender, It could be easily crushed under the boots of cruel fate"
...To full arrogant BBEG
"Oh you really come, and alone as I asked. Didn't you know, my loyal hound, that the brightest flowers are the most poisonous? [...]
Why I am here? Why shouldn´t a mistress visit her pet? [...] Run, hound, run... I want to see you stumble.
Once, long ago, it hurt me to see flowers being torn apart with the wind, but today I watched you thrashing helplessly like a moth caught in a spider´s web and I cannot turn my eyes away [...]
"Me? the spider? I am the web itself! The moment you took your first step into the Stolen lands you fell under my power without even knowing"
...To an even more complex character
"A lie? a mask? I just have shown you something real that it is long, long gone... but I still remember what I was, I remember what I wanted to become, so It was easy to...
Why I am telling you this, you´re nothing, just another step in the ladder I must climb.
You will perish here, and I`ll forget you the next dawn as I always do"
...To a woman trapped in an impossible gamble as you can see when you discover her past
"Thousands of lives must be turned to dust for a single act of forgiveness"
She has the best dialogues of the game, IMHO.
And I loved that you have the opportunity to redeem two of your adversaries, "Purple frog" Tartuk and Nyrissa so they could help you against the real evil guy of the game if you discover all the hidden truths and you made the right choices with the right character.
That is AMAZING. Instead of "saving the world from the bad guy Nº654156186", you are dealing with ancient curses and feyfolk. And even the optional final chapter
Anyway, one thing that bugs me is when Vincke talks about how spell slots aren't intuitive. I NEVER get it. All Gold Box games uses it. Most earlier RPG's used it and you can see it even on Japanese console games. Dark Souls 1/2 and the first P$1 Suikuden for eg. Is so simple, you attuned 3 skull traps, so you can use 3 skull traps in the other day each usage takes one "charge", and spontaneous characters don't prepare spells but has a X amount of magical power that they can use per day. NOBODY CRITICIZED spell slots on this console games. How it is "unintuitive"? What is unintuitive is the cooldown system. You cast a skull trap, now wait X seconds/X turns to use it again; Why? I never saw this mechanic outside of gaming.
This is definitively not rocket science.
I guess I like saving the world from another bad guy than saving the world from a nasty ancient curse *shrugs*.
But I guess the issue here is that both Sarevok and Irenicus are known to be ultimate bad guys from the beginning. This lets you grow feelings towards them from the very start. In P:K (and PoE1) for a long time I haven't a faintest idea who my main adversary will be. And (especially in P:K) I felt kinda "meh", when I realized who is the plotmaker.
No, you are dealing with a relative small region of a very big continent. You are not saving the world, you are just """saving""" a small region where you rule. Which is great. Local conflicts > saving the world.
"Saving the world" was just a figure of speech, I'm completely aware that CHARNAME does not save the "world" neither in BG1 nor in BG2, thank you
Generally from what I observed, for me the most exciting computer games are the ones with interesting, believable characters. This is probably one of the reasons that I loved Read Dead Redemption 2 so much. There were characters I liked very much (Arthur, Lenny, Sadie) and there were those I despised almost from the beginning (Micah). There was literally no character from Dutch's gang that would be totally indifferent to me. In BG1 and BG2 all NPC are obviously much less developed than in RDR2, so I'm not able to connect with them as much as with Dutch's gang members, but there are Sarevok and Irenicus driving the story, picking up the mantle of unforgettable characters.
Also, nor the world or the people in the Stolen lands, neither your avatar nor your party members are the ones cursed in the game. The curse is not even the main plot in half of the chapters of the game.
Technically you are creating a kingdom in a savage, barren land, and to do that you are saving your barony from a lot of dangers
Someone brought up the Suikoden series and now there's a great series about leading a kingdom in an RPG, especially the second and fifth games, which had fantastic stories. Had Pathfinder been anything like those it would have been so much better, but I don't get at all what they tried to do with the Kingdom stuff, it was a mess and constantly annoying, I really would describe it as playing a table top game with a very obnoxious DM who wants to stress you out to the point you no longer want to play.
And I could just turn it off? Tempting, very tempting, but it doesn't excuse their inability to so a major part of the game right.
I love Suikoden games, especially the fifth (Still trying to recruit the 108 stars tho), but you have the same events in every run in the game. In P: K they are randomized, and some events depend on your campaign choices or the alignment of your kingdom.
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fjv.jeuxonline.info%2Factualite%2F57546%2Finterview-edouard-imbert-senior-designer-combats-baldur-gate-3
The way he phrased it kinda remembered me the V:TM bloodlines game, where you can achieve your objectives not only fighting, but using your social skills, cunning tactics or stealth. That sounds like a great approach that I look forward to.
I mentioned Suikoden because it uses a "spell slots" system as a argument to why i believe taht Vincke concers with it makes no sense about the story, sorry but every JRPG is about androgynous teenager with oversized swords saving the world. Most of JRPG's, if you don't indulge into the "anime swordsman" archetype, aren't for you. Kingmaker has a way better story. About the "obnoxious dm", just lower the difficulty; the game was made for CRPG veterans. Hell, i had no problem soloing BG2:EE on Legacy of Bhaal as a necromancer(except in a bug) but can't play this game on anything above challenging even with full party.
The first chapter is not that great because is a low level 3.5e/pathfinder 1e game. However after you reach mid levels, the game become pretty great.
Baldur's Gate 3 lv cap = 10 at beginning was a huge "it will be awful" but after i understood more about 5e and how 5e suffers from "oblivion effect" where everything is tedious at higher levels, i an neutral about it.
@kanisatha you did ask about possibility of avoid battles if I remember correctly? This should be something that would make you (a little) less concerned about the game. I know I know... But baby steps, baby steps ?
Than Suikoden 2 and 5? Absolutely not. And I question if you even played them because defining them as "generic anime teen saves the world" is a completely inaccurate description of their storylines, and your ignorant generalisation (calling it for exactly what it is) is further evidence of that.
Oh yeah, most JRPGs are pretty weak from a story standpoint, and unfortunately the most popular ones over time are also what I consider to be the worst ones, but I actually played ones not so often talked about that were great, but arguably aimed at an audience simply not equipped to appreciate them precisely because of that audience's inclinations. It sucks, because the Suikoden series is dead despite routinely having excellent writing because that never lead to it selling particularly well.
Because Suikoden writes a narrative around it, it doesn't have a real management aspect... and that is precisely why I think its better. I don't like management games and I don't want management in my CRPGs. Of course I can still recognise when that sort of thing is at least done competently because I understand the general concept, and the reason its such a mess in that game is because of how arbitrary most of it is yet forces you away from focusing on the adventure aspect. Its bad design, definitely.
I also have a hardcore fundamentalist hatred of randomised content in games. I find them anathema to my sacred tenets of what-is-fun-in-videogames. As you might imagine, I consider roguelikes to be blasphemy of the highest order :P
This comment implies that you've seen actual vancian magic irl.
@Cahir "But I guess the issue here is that both Sarevok and Irenicus are known to be ultimate bad guys from the beginning."
Irenicus, yes. Sarevok, no. Sarevok is definitely a great villain, he isn't "known" from the beginning. All you know at the beginning is that a spiky dude killed your dad. You don't even get a name until reaching Baldur's Gate. Sarevok is a great villain by the end, when you ACTUALLY know anything about him. In the beginning, he could just be a very skilled grunt for all we know.
"I will be the last, and you will go first!"
"There are others! I can show you!"
*crunch*
*splat*
*blood covers the pavement and turns into Bhaal's symbol*
*dramatic music plays*
I still smile and get fun chills and goosebumps replaying the scene in my head.
You know since the Gorion's scene he will be your adversary (to be honest, you know this from intro, but let's assume that intro is just an intro). What you don't know, though, is his name and motivations (which are btw very well explained during the course of the game). I'm fairly sure I wasn't the only one who thought he is not just a grunt, but something much more. His voice, a manner of speaking, an aura of power, all of those things tell you he is dangerous and he won't stop hunting you. Irenicus may be considered more dangerous, because he's a mage and he singlehandedly destroyed couple of Cowled Wizards, but Sarevok is more intimidating (his voice, height and bulky armor does make you cringe).
No, but there are books, novels and stories who uses that system.
Game mechanics needs to fit the game lore. Eg - Magic leading to insanity makes perfectly sense in The Call of Cthulhu, the same system on Baldur's Gate would't make any sense, because magic on BG is mundane. Magic on The Call of Cthulhu is a alien force which our human mind can't comprehend. Is like a Dog trying to learn how to code. Even if he somehow learns, he will never be a normal dog again. Same with magic, most magicians of The Call of Cthulhu are crazy cultists.
Hell, even on Anime, did you watched Yu Yu Hakusho? Yusuke has "X" shots of "Spirit Gun" per day. After he fires all shots, he needs to sleep to recover. At beginning, he could use one shot per day. On the final of the series, he had far more proficiency. Togashi is amazing on creating hard magical systems. Hiatus X Hiatus is one of the best;
And did you reached Varnhold on kingmaker to judge the story? I played very little dos2, so you don't see me criticizing dos2 story. About Suikoden, i googled Suikuden protagonist and only saw Generi-kuns.
I in other hands, love management and loved to make decisions, see a small barony growing and becoming more rich looking, the infrastructure changing, having golems doing the protection(...) is so good.
So you're quite happy to criticise Suikoden's story based on absolutely nothing than character artwork. See, I did not finish Original Sin 2 and Kingmaker, but I played them, I played a pretty substantial amount of both games in actuality. I played Original Sin 2 for 40 hours and Pathfinder for 25, which is enough to completely finish Baldur's Gate. One of the things I didn't like about both games was their terminally slow pace of play and how long it takes to do anything in them, because combat in OS2 takes so long and map traversal in Pathfinder is terrible padding that just ate away all my patience. So I also looked into what happens in their plot because I felt maybe if that was particularly interesting it would encourage me to play more. Because to me, spoilers do not negatively impact a good story, a good story does not reply on surprises alone to be good. Original Sin 2 does not get better. Pathfinder does, but also many people do not have good things to say about the gameplay experience of the endgame which is often described as horrible, and gameplay had as much to do with my dissatisfaction with the game as much as the lack of direction to the plot early on did so its definitely part of my decision that it might just not be worth it.
I do know enough to judge the story on a basic level, and I'm not calling it bad, it's pretty good, but not terribly interesting to me. The Lantern King sounds like basically if Q in Star Trek decided to be particularly nasty to the Enterprise D crew without any motive (and Q is great because he always has a motive). In villain terms he's a trickster, he's comparable to Mr. Mxyzptlk, maybe Kefka in FFVI as well. I never liked villains like that because they're motivations are spurious at best and they just do things because they decided they wanted to. Nyrissa is definitely on the other hand interesting, but there's not a lot to the depth of the plot outside of your kingdom is under threat and you don't even know who is behind it till the end.
I have enough to say the plots in Suikoden 2 and 5 are better because they are far more complex storylines where much more happens, have more interesting characters with a role in the story that matters, and explores its themes in a very detailed manner that is often never seen in videogames. But this is not something I hold against Pathfinder other than, Suikoden's handling of being in charge of a kingdom in an RPG was much more interesting and better executed, because that was handled as a narrative in itself and not as an ill advised second gameplay function that vies for attention over the first.
Man, I don't agree with this even just on the basis of the characters themselves. I did not like most of the (small number) of characters in Pillars. Eder was great... eh I think that's it. I hated everbody in Deadfire except Maia but I don't think even she was all that memorable and her romance (like much of the game) was shallower than even BG2's prototype romances. (so are Beamdogs mind you...)
See, the characters in BG1 and 2 are not overly complicated or overwritten. If PoE came in 1997 it also wouldn't likely be overwritten as that just wasn't the style at the time, but you're making a direct comparison so I work with that. But they are played up based on characteristics people easily identify with. I'm not a huge Star Wars fan, I think the original movies (and they were the only good ones) have the depth of a puddle. But why its all so memorable is fairly clear, because it was a large cast of very well defined characters who have clear physical and personality characteristics. Are they deep? No. Is this the right thing? Yes. Because the story is about you in the end, and you shouldn't have the supporting cast taking over anyway, another issue with the Beamdog NPCs and them having additional quest lines that feel far too like you're a supporting cast in their story. Baldur's Gate is your story, and you have a large group of different people who give it different flavour which is why whilst people always have preferences I notice, they always have a group they like running with.
You can't even do that in Pillars 1 and 2 really, there's too few characters to give that kind of variation. Only reason you probably won't use a character is because you're that class, that's the reason I didn't use Aloth. But my party was every NPC in the game minus 3 or 4. And I did use everybody for a bit, I did everybody's quest. Durance and The Grey Mother were interesting, although noticeably with a lot more to say than everybody else. I still hated Durance though, but I'll give him that, interesting to talk to. But I also feel they were the only characters with that kind of attention put on them when either all the NPCs should have or none of them should have.
I have seen better, I think the Mass Effect games and the Shadowrun games did things fantastically. Small number of characters to use in total but, all of them are super detailed, interesting, generally likeable, offer great insight to the races they represent (they had a clear purpose in that regard that was excellently done in Mass Effect. So much great world building and character writing, let down by a plot that wasn't worth of them in the end, such a shame.) I think a fairer direct comparison would be between Pillars and Mass Effect 1 or 2 and Pillars loses that one hands down.