@mlnevese nice to hear you are feeling positive. I am also considering early access, but not 100% decided yet as I might just wait until full release so I can get stuck into Baldur’s Gate 3 with no limits ? Temptation might get the better of me though as I am definitely looking forward to it.
I normally just wait for the complete, ultimate or whatever they decide to name it edition to get the full game. That's probably what I'll do anyway.
I'm not an Early Access sort of guy (I prefer my first experience playing a game to be with the "finished product"), but I do look forward to hearing the reports and experiences of those who dive in.
That's a good plan. In the meantime, I'm planning to do that with Pathfinder kingmaker and Deadfire. I'm excited for Bg3, it won't be perfect, but I'm a fan of the forgotten realms. We've had some great isometric RPGs the last few years - although I hope we're not heading for another time where all these games go 3d/ first person. It's ironic in a way, imo, that so many games try to be a spiritual successor to BG, and an improved version...yet aren't as good. Not easy to replicate bg2, but I think the key is the characters with friendship, story, rather than game systems and graphics. I think if I could zoom in on Jaheira or Minsc and see an incredibly detailed sprite it would be really exciting...yet the games that do have better detail, I don't have that same excitement. Maybe it's just me lol.
In the remake of FFVII there are some scenes, like one when Tifa takes the hand of Cloud for example, something you cannot see in the original game and it gives the scene another meaning they do not have before.
I never played the original FFVII...need to give the remake a go. If they remade bg2 exactly like that it would be great. We just need the improvements the new games bring to go hand in hand with the story, choices and character development of some the best classics.
I'm currently playing Baldur's Gate 2 again, and honestly as I play it its quite plain to see where Pillars of Eternity and Pathfinder Kingmaker lack in comparison, and indeed its mostly in the storytelling aspect.
Baldur's Gate 2 is a simple concept, focusing on a centralised figure. In a videogame RPG its a storytelling experience for the player to take on the role of that central figure, and everything that happens around them should be something that goads a reaction from them. Baldur's Gate 2 isn't subtle about this. Irenicus tortures you, takes your closest friend from you, and eventually takes your very heritage from you. That kind of motivation isn't matched by any recent games I feel, they just don't make the conflict personal enough. And for the majority of the NPC followers, the player has a direct chance to influence many of them, and influence what happens to them. It's kind of funny to me how BG2 has like 18 followers (not counting the Beamdog additions) or 19 counting ToB, vs say PoE's 8, and BG2's characters are mostly more memorable to me and what happens with them is always more interesting. And PoE probably does have a lot more written dialogue for its smaller cast, and I don't dislike them but really other than Eder I just didn't think they resonated a lot.
And almost all the quests have simple moral choices that inform the protagonist's eventual decision with what to do with their birthright. Everything in BG2 focuses heavily on this destiny and what it means for those around you. Even when its blunt, and sometimes its blunt, it works really well. Better blunt but effective than being pretentious in any case.
BG3 certainly has a potentially strong start with that tadpole, the way its been put into your brain, its a violation and even if that's simply the Illithid's reproductive process at work its still a pretty strong motivation to find a cure and then stop it happening to others. Or I guess going in another direction possibly if you want to play evil. I'm just not sure though where there is to go with it other than to find and kill the Illithids though, the Illithids will not be quality villains like Irenicus, so I'm guessing Raphael is going to be the real villain in the end and the conflict becomes something different.
But yeah, not that I need to say it here really but never buy from people when they say anything about BG2's writing doesn't hold up, it was great, and it remains great and it remains better than most.
this is why i always saw the main issue of stuff like pillars existing when you can easily replay the older games.
you notice the stuff the newer games are lacking. even something like arcanum is better then pillars in alot of areas.
now had the ie games and arcanum not been easily available to buy when pillars came out that would be another story. but as you can easily buy say baldurs gate 2 ee on gog or steam it causes comparisons. same can be said with tides of numanara and planescape torment.
"Vincke noted that Avernus will put players in moral dilemmas and often, players will be completely unaware of how their actions will impact down the road. As an example, Vincke revealed that Raphael, the devil shown in past gameplay footage, will at some point approach the player and their party members with an offer. The player will never know what their party members said yes to and even for secondary playthroughs, the devil will change his offers. Baldur’s Gate 3 will have several of these dynamic events which will endanger not only the player but also their party members."
I'm currently playing Baldur's Gate 2 again, and honestly as I play it its quite plain to see where Pillars of Eternity and Pathfinder Kingmaker lack in comparison, and indeed its mostly in the storytelling aspect.
I noticed this very much on another aspect of the game, combat. About a year ago, I had played a crapton of Pillars and hadn't gone back to BG for quite some time. I was moving through the early parts of BG1 and had a fight where my main character got whacked by a ghast and held.
What was a simple fight, where I was just going to pelt away with weapons suddenly became a dire emergency. And I unloaded almost everything I had available to make sure the ghast died before bringing down my character. Pillars just doesn't have combat that quite matches the quickness and the extremes of the BG series. And I think it suffers in the fun department for that reason.
What was a simple fight, where I was just going to pelt away with weapons suddenly became a dire emergency. And I unloaded almost everything I had available to make sure the ghast died before bringing down my character. Pillars just doesn't have combat that quite matches the quickness and the extremes of the BG series. And I think it suffers in the fun department for that reason.
From what I've seen a lot of people more new to the genre hate the dice roll aspect of the combat and particularly, how unfair it can be early on in the first game.
I can see that it does put quite a bit of a hurdle up front for people to get into it, but the unpredictability of the combat is why it remains fun long term. Whereas I more or less specifically stopped playing Original Sin 2 because the combat was ultra samey and tedious, and yeah I can't say at any point Pillars 1 or 2 was particularly exciting combat wise because it was mostly too standard and easy. Combat in Kingmaker seemed like the more fun aspect of that game but I hated how everything else was designed in it. That map traversal and resting system and hiding so many things behind arbitrary skill checks. I hope Wrath of the Righteous learns from all that and ends up more worth playing.
"Vincke noted that Avernus will put players in moral dilemmas and often, players will be completely unaware of how their actions will impact down the road. As an example, Vincke revealed that Raphael, the devil shown in past gameplay footage, will at some point approach the player and their party members with an offer. The player will never know what their party members said yes to and even for secondary playthroughs, the devil will change his offers. Baldur’s Gate 3 will have several of these dynamic events which will endanger not only the player but also their party members."
I am also curious what would decide what choices they make - both players and companions face the same problem and may be tempted to reach for various solutions. It is also something designed for coop players. So essencially companions would need to be designed in such a way, so they interact with content designed for players in an interesting way.
Will their choices be determined on our interactions with them? Will there be some hidden system in place? Alignment?
I never played the original FFVII...need to give the remake a go. If they remade bg2 exactly like that it would be great. We just need the improvements the new games bring to go hand in hand with the story, choices and character development of some the best classics.
You want BG2 remade as a hack and slash action game?
I never played the original FFVII...need to give the remake a go. If they remade bg2 exactly like that it would be great. We just need the improvements the new games bring to go hand in hand with the story, choices and character development of some the best classics.
You want BG2 remade as a hack and slash action game?
Beats having your toon stand right in front of your enemy and still hit the air most of the time. Strategic battles be damned: a BG2 remake with Amalur-esque ARPG combat would actually be rather refreshing for once.
"Vincke noted that Avernus will put players in moral dilemmas and often, players will be completely unaware of how their actions will impact down the road. As an example, Vincke revealed that Raphael, the devil shown in past gameplay footage, will at some point approach the player and their party members with an offer. The player will never know what their party members said yes to and even for secondary playthroughs, the devil will change his offers. Baldur’s Gate 3 will have several of these dynamic events which will endanger not only the player but also their party members."
I am also curious what would decide what choices they make - both players and companions face the same problem and may be tempted to reach for various solutions. It is also something designed for coop players. So essencially companions would need to be designed in such a way, so they interact with content designed for players in an interesting way.
Will their choices be determined on our interactions with them? Will there be some hidden system in place? Alignment?
Yes, I agree, and as such this is actually very worrisome for me. If the game can randomly, behind the scenes, make my good-aligned companions agree to an evil deal, that is utterly ridiculous. The game already will have so very few companions I would be willing to include in my party, and then on top of that there's a random chance even those few companions could be turned against me? Seems to me like they are trying to force people to play with companion characters they don't like, and that is not fun in any way.
I'm currently playing Baldur's Gate 2 again, and honestly as I play it its quite plain to see where Pillars of Eternity and Pathfinder Kingmaker lack in comparison, and indeed its mostly in the storytelling aspect ....
But yeah, not that I need to say it here really but never buy from people when they say anything about BG2's writing doesn't hold up, it was great, and it remains great and it remains better than most.
I profoundly disagree. You are overstating the virtues of BG2 and understating those of the PoE games (P:Km I can agree is weak in some of these areas). The PoE games have excellent storytelling, and I'd much rather replay them than BG2. BG1 I still like replaying because it has a certain charm that BG2 lacks. But BG2, much like Ps:T as well, is overrated.
I'm currently playing Baldur's Gate 2 again, and honestly as I play it its quite plain to see where Pillars of Eternity and Pathfinder Kingmaker lack in comparison, and indeed its mostly in the storytelling aspect ....
But yeah, not that I need to say it here really but never buy from people when they say anything about BG2's writing doesn't hold up, it was great, and it remains great and it remains better than most.
I profoundly disagree. You are overstating the virtues of BG2 and understating those of the PoE games (P:Km I can agree is weak in some of these areas). The PoE games have excellent storytelling, and I'd much rather replay them than BG2. BG1 I still like replaying because it has a certain charm that BG2 lacks. But BG2, much like Ps:T as well, is overrated.
"Vincke noted that Avernus will put players in moral dilemmas and often, players will be completely unaware of how their actions will impact down the road. As an example, Vincke revealed that Raphael, the devil shown in past gameplay footage, will at some point approach the player and their party members with an offer. The player will never know what their party members said yes to and even for secondary playthroughs, the devil will change his offers. Baldur’s Gate 3 will have several of these dynamic events which will endanger not only the player but also their party members."
I am also curious what would decide what choices they make - both players and companions face the same problem and may be tempted to reach for various solutions. It is also something designed for coop players. So essencially companions would need to be designed in such a way, so they interact with content designed for players in an interesting way.
Will their choices be determined on our interactions with them? Will there be some hidden system in place? Alignment?
Yes, I agree, and as such this is actually very worrisome for me. If the game can randomly, behind the scenes, make my good-aligned companions agree to an evil deal, that is utterly ridiculous. The game already will have so very few companions I would be willing to include in my party, and then on top of that there's a random chance even those few companions could be turned against me? Seems to me like they are trying to force people to play with companion characters they don't like, and that is not fun in any way.
I personally love the idea that my companions have their own agency and will sometimes make different deals or take different paths depending on how the story has progressed.
I doubt they'll just take a character away from you for good unless that character was always supposed to pull a Yoshimo.
I personally love the idea that my companions have their own agency and will sometimes make different deals or take different paths depending on how the story has progressed.
I doubt they'll just take a character away from you for good unless that character was always supposed to pull a Yoshimo.
They don't have to take the character away from me. When I find out that one of my companions has made a deal with a devil, I will immediately kick them out of my party, and that's if I don't decide I should draw my sword on them. So this is why I say they seem to be trying to compel everyone to accept playing with evil-aligned companions, which is something I will never ever accept.
You bring up Yoshimo. Great example. But what would BG2 have been like if every one of your companions was a potential Yoshimo?
I profoundly disagree. You are overstating the virtues of BG2 and understating those of the PoE games (P:Km I can agree is weak in some of these areas). The PoE games have excellent storytelling, and I'd much rather replay them than BG2. BG1 I still like replaying because it has a certain charm that BG2 lacks. But BG2, much like Ps:T as well, is overrated.
No, I mean Pillars of Eternity 2 in particular is simply not what you described. There's only one game I ever stopped playing when I was about 90% of the way through it because I had a profound feeling of "Why does it feel like what I'm doing is pointless and isn't accomplishing anything meaningful?" That's Pillars of Eternity 2, a game that wasn't too unpleasant to play (if you were keeping away from the water) but, it felt like you were a zombie wandering around ticking off things in a checklist. It's a prime example of a game lacking in stakes and personal motivation to really do anything, because you are never much more than an observer in events that you can barely even influence. Even the faction stuff is completely meaningless in the end versus the main plot really.
In fact, let me add this because Pillars of Eternity 2 damns itself in like 5 seconds to be way worse than Baldur's Gate 2 in the respect of personal motivation (whilst BG2 to me has one of the greatest opening levels in gaming history)
You're first choice in PoE 2 is Berath telling you "you'll do what I say, or this game won't even start."
Fuck Pillars of Eternity 2
The first game was better but extremely dry and slow paced and really, academical in its execution. It's not a bad story like Deadfire (in my opinion) but its also not very exciting, or dynamic or even ever that interesting despite how hard it's trying to.
I can't say about Planescape Torment because, I have still to play it, but Baldur's Gate 2, given the contrarian asshole I am, is one of very few big name games I've played I don't think is overrated at all, if anything people tend to ignore how good it is because it's old now and some people seem to think old =/bad (not you, but I just come across that way too much)
I profoundly disagree. You are overstating the virtues of BG2 and understating those of the PoE games (P:Km I can agree is weak in some of these areas). The PoE games have excellent storytelling, and I'd much rather replay them than BG2. BG1 I still like replaying because it has a certain charm that BG2 lacks. But BG2, much like Ps:T as well, is overrated.
No, I mean Pillars of Eternity 2 in particular is simply not what you described. There's only one game I ever stopped playing when I was about 90% of the way through it because I had a profound feeling of "Why does it feel like what I'm doing is pointless and isn't accomplishing anything meaningful?" That's Pillars of Eternity 2, a game that wasn't too unpleasant to play (if you were keeping away from the water) but, it felt like you were a zombie wandering around ticking off things in a checklist. It's a prime example of a game lacking in stakes and personal motivation to really do anything, because you are never much more than an observer in events that you can barely even influence. Even the faction stuff is completely meaningless in the end versus the main plot really.
The first game was better but extremely dry and slow paced and really, academical in its execution. It's not a bad story like Deadfire (in my opinion) but its also not very exciting, or dynamic or even ever that interesting despite how hard it's trying to.
I can't say about Planescape Torment because, I have still to play it, but Baldur's Gate 2, given the contrarian asshole I am, is one of very few big name games I've played I don't think is overrated at all, if anything people tend to ignore how good it is because it's old now and some people seem to think old =/bad (not you, but I just come across that way too much)
Hey that's fine. These are all personal opinions from all of us. And I will even agree that PoE2 was not as good as 1 (as I've said elsewhere, 2 was much better mechanically than 1, 1 was much better in story, characters and atmosphere). But for me, BG2's "awesomeness," if you will, was always its bigger scope and size, it's expanded gameplay mechanics, and overall greater polish. But its story never truly captured me.
none of this is nostalgia as i did not start playing any of the older games until the last decade.
but pillars of eternity does feel like it is lacking something that was in the older games. you don't really have that much of a goal until the end of act 1 whits is like 4 or 5 hours into the game.
the villain is only in directly involed in your adventure. he does not even know you exist until you start messing with his cult.
the party members at time feel undeveloped but this was due to them having word counts.
i always tend to point out the main issue with alot of the modern crpgs is they take them selves way to seriously. most of the older games have some sort of humor planescape torment is a depressing game but it has alot of humor.
at times i felt pillars and tides of numanara were less passion projects and more something they felt like they were forced to make. they did not have as much soul and passion pput into them as say something like Disco Elysium.
No, I mean Pillars of Eternity 2 in particular is simply not what you described...
Yeah, one big piece of common ground we have is our take on this game. Both Pillars really. One was excellent if flawed, Two is great in parts but lacking something quite fundamental throughout.
I was thinking... Are old school RPG gamers the most persnickety/ fussy gamers? I think I am and I'm not. I just want a great story. We live in a world of films, games, even VR and yet people still love books. With an RPG, I want a great book... Made better through visual, music, sound and through shaping the main character's story as if it were my own story.... But without breaking the immersion a good story book brings... I can't handle any games that break the immersion, with damage numbers or health bars floating above characters. It's not easy to make a truly great rpg... Take Chris Avellone for example...a lot of people recognise he can create a great story, but his greatest talent imo is often overlooked and hard to experience unless you make a game... Chris knew that the best experience for a player is to feel like they are the focus of the story. He has a unique ability to know what choices/ replies in conversations will allow nearly all gamers to think... Yea that's what I or my character would do/ say.
Josh Sawyer has a wealth of experience and skills to make an RPG, his games have all the ingredients of an excellent rpg, it's just the small subtleties that I think are missing. In bg2 I wondered whether I should become a god... In Pillars I felt like someone was showing me a new world through someone else's eyes.
@hybridial "It's a prime example of a game lacking in stakes and personal motivation"
I'll give you the personal motivation, Pillars2 was very much focused on a regional conflict, rather than the protaganist's very personal quest from 1. But I'm not sure what you mean by "lacking stakes". You decide the fate of a, uh, country? Island Nation? Not sure what the proper terminology is. On top of that, the fundamental process of how the world survives is at risk. There are DEFINITELY stakes.
Since I despise "edgelord" characters in games with a passion, I am getting increasingly worried that I'm not going to be compatible personally with any of these characters, or able to make a party out of them that I will enjoy adventuring with.
I had a similar problem getting into D:OS 2. It seemed like every character there was an "edgelord". Lohse was half-possessed, the ranger guy was dark and brooding, the Red Prince was from an empire that kept slaves, the rogue woman wanted revenge against having been a slave, and don't even get me started on the undead guy. It seems like these kind of characters are what Larian does, so I agree a lot with @kanisatha .
(I know a lot of people are going to disagree with my impressions of these characters. They could say "But you never gave them a chance, you didn't finish the game to see how wonderful they all are." The point is that their dark personalities and cynical natures didn't make me *want* to get to know them any better.)
Since I despise "edgelord" characters in games with a passion, I am getting increasingly worried that I'm not going to be compatible personally with any of these characters, or able to make a party out of them that I will enjoy adventuring with.
I had a similar problem getting into D:OS 2. It seemed like every character there was an "edgelord". Lohse was half-possessed, the ranger guy was dark and brooding, the Red Prince was from an empire that kept slaves, the rogue woman wanted revenge against having been a slave, and don't even get me started on the undead guy. It seems like these kind of characters are what Larian does, so I agree a lot with @kanisatha .
(I know a lot of people are going to disagree with my impressions of these characters. They could say "But you never gave them a chance, you didn't finish the game to see how wonderful they all are." The point is that their dark personalities and cynical natures didn't make me *want* to get to know them any better.)
You know, there would have to be at least a dozen of NPC's available to fulfill the needs of having typical lawful/neutral good party or typical evil party. In BG2 (and especially in BG1) there were abundance of NPC's to choose from, so the problem was nonexistent. The problem is a very short list of NPC's here... and a lack of, well... more mundane personalities.
Lohse is one of the sweetest and kindest characters ever. She's possessed. It's why she sometimes starts acting strange. But when you talk to her (even on the starting ship!) you quickly see she likes children, she plays with them, she can sing. Imagine Imoen getting possessed. Or Nalia. It only makes you want to save her, help her.
Ifan is a bro. When you're on the starting ship, he helps you tighten up the collar.
Beast is a nice chap, he talks about nice things, he cares about his sister and all dwarfs.
I will never agree they are "edge-lord" characters. Ever since meeting them on the starting ship, and continuing with first interactions on the land, it's clear these 3 are kind and caring people.
Sebille is a slave and wants revenge, yes, she's edgy. Red Prince is a prince and a lizard. Yes, he's edgy. Fane is from an eternal race, and doesn't think highly about mortal races. But these 3 - you will get to know them, get to understand them, and eventually they also stop being edgy (well, with Prince, not quite, but he becomes a real friend).
As for the first 3 characters, NO, I will never agree they are "edgelords". When you learn the stories of Lohse, Ifan and Beast, you will understand their kindness even more. But you don't need to go as far just to see their personality.
@hybridial "It's a prime example of a game lacking in stakes and personal motivation"
I'll give you the personal motivation, Pillars2 was very much focused on a regional conflict, rather than the protaganist's very personal quest from 1. But I'm not sure what you mean by "lacking stakes". You decide the fate of a, uh, country? Island Nation?
The problem is you don't, there's no stakes because you're not telling that 500 ft ardra statue what to do, the ending just makes a token effort to give you a bunch of "options" but it's a lot like Mass Effect 3's ending, its unsatisfying and makes the whole thing feel like an exercise in futility. Such storytelling can work but not in this field, not in an interactive story built around role playing.
Red Prince is a prince and a lizard. Yes, he's edgy.
Really? he comes off as more of a comedic figure I thought. That point about his race practicing slavery is incidental setting stuff and not all that edgy in fantasy fiction, but Sebille is more clearly the character they want to address that stuff through, the Prince kind of comes off as a buffoon at times, although if you play as him sometimes you get more suave things to say to not give off that sense. He feels like Blackadder only lacking the cunning or genuine malfeasance.
Lohse is one of the sweetest and kindest characters ever. She's possessed. It's why she sometimes starts acting strange. But when you talk to her (even on the starting ship!) you quickly see she likes children, she plays with them, she can sing. Imagine Imoen getting possessed. Or Nalia. It only makes you want to save her, help her.
Ifan is a bro. When you're on the starting ship, he helps you tighten up the collar.
Beast is a nice chap, he talks about nice things, he cares about his sister and all dwarfs.
I will never agree they are "edge-lord" characters. Ever since meeting them on the starting ship, and continuing with first interactions on the land, it's clear these 3 are kind and caring people.
Sebille is a slave and wants revenge, yes, she's edgy. Red Prince is a prince and a lizard. Yes, he's edgy. Fane is from an eternal race, and doesn't think highly about mortal races. But these 3 - you will get to know them, get to understand them, and eventually they also stop being edgy (well, with Prince, not quite, but he becomes a real friend).
As for the first 3 characters, NO, I will never agree they are "edgelords". When you learn the stories of Lohse, Ifan and Beast, you will understand their kindness even more. But you don't need to go as far just to see their personality.
I don't know about them being "edgelords", but the issue I had with all of them is that they all had this "hook" which seemed a bit unnecessary for me. I guess it was done to give each of them a new spin when they are played as the main character, but I feel like more normal characters can be just as compelling. It's personal preference, I guess.
My problem is possibly more with the descriptions of the characters, which perhaps biased my opinion of them all before I had even started playing the game. I guess you could do the same to the BG2 lot, if you wanted to. Something like: "Jaheira is a loyal harper and a druid devoted to maintaining the balance. However, wrestling with the tragic death of her beloved after months of captivity at the hands of a mysterious, powerful figure, will she be able to find inner peace as she searches for revenge?"
When I actually started playing, I really liked Ifan (for example), but I kind of understand the initial feeling of not wanting to get to know them better, based on the descriptions.
Comments
I normally just wait for the complete, ultimate or whatever they decide to name it edition to get the full game. That's probably what I'll do anyway.
In the remake of FFVII there are some scenes, like one when Tifa takes the hand of Cloud for example, something you cannot see in the original game and it gives the scene another meaning they do not have before.
Baldur's Gate 2 is a simple concept, focusing on a centralised figure. In a videogame RPG its a storytelling experience for the player to take on the role of that central figure, and everything that happens around them should be something that goads a reaction from them. Baldur's Gate 2 isn't subtle about this. Irenicus tortures you, takes your closest friend from you, and eventually takes your very heritage from you. That kind of motivation isn't matched by any recent games I feel, they just don't make the conflict personal enough. And for the majority of the NPC followers, the player has a direct chance to influence many of them, and influence what happens to them. It's kind of funny to me how BG2 has like 18 followers (not counting the Beamdog additions) or 19 counting ToB, vs say PoE's 8, and BG2's characters are mostly more memorable to me and what happens with them is always more interesting. And PoE probably does have a lot more written dialogue for its smaller cast, and I don't dislike them but really other than Eder I just didn't think they resonated a lot.
And almost all the quests have simple moral choices that inform the protagonist's eventual decision with what to do with their birthright. Everything in BG2 focuses heavily on this destiny and what it means for those around you. Even when its blunt, and sometimes its blunt, it works really well. Better blunt but effective than being pretentious in any case.
BG3 certainly has a potentially strong start with that tadpole, the way its been put into your brain, its a violation and even if that's simply the Illithid's reproductive process at work its still a pretty strong motivation to find a cure and then stop it happening to others. Or I guess going in another direction possibly if you want to play evil. I'm just not sure though where there is to go with it other than to find and kill the Illithids though, the Illithids will not be quality villains like Irenicus, so I'm guessing Raphael is going to be the real villain in the end and the conflict becomes something different.
But yeah, not that I need to say it here really but never buy from people when they say anything about BG2's writing doesn't hold up, it was great, and it remains great and it remains better than most.
you notice the stuff the newer games are lacking. even something like arcanum is better then pillars in alot of areas.
now had the ie games and arcanum not been easily available to buy when pillars came out that would be another story. but as you can easily buy say baldurs gate 2 ee on gog or steam it causes comparisons. same can be said with tides of numanara and planescape torment.
"Vincke noted that Avernus will put players in moral dilemmas and often, players will be completely unaware of how their actions will impact down the road. As an example, Vincke revealed that Raphael, the devil shown in past gameplay footage, will at some point approach the player and their party members with an offer. The player will never know what their party members said yes to and even for secondary playthroughs, the devil will change his offers. Baldur’s Gate 3 will have several of these dynamic events which will endanger not only the player but also their party members."
https://segmentnext.com/2020/08/25/baldurs-gate-3-make-pact-devil/
I noticed this very much on another aspect of the game, combat. About a year ago, I had played a crapton of Pillars and hadn't gone back to BG for quite some time. I was moving through the early parts of BG1 and had a fight where my main character got whacked by a ghast and held.
What was a simple fight, where I was just going to pelt away with weapons suddenly became a dire emergency. And I unloaded almost everything I had available to make sure the ghast died before bringing down my character. Pillars just doesn't have combat that quite matches the quickness and the extremes of the BG series. And I think it suffers in the fun department for that reason.
From what I've seen a lot of people more new to the genre hate the dice roll aspect of the combat and particularly, how unfair it can be early on in the first game.
I can see that it does put quite a bit of a hurdle up front for people to get into it, but the unpredictability of the combat is why it remains fun long term. Whereas I more or less specifically stopped playing Original Sin 2 because the combat was ultra samey and tedious, and yeah I can't say at any point Pillars 1 or 2 was particularly exciting combat wise because it was mostly too standard and easy. Combat in Kingmaker seemed like the more fun aspect of that game but I hated how everything else was designed in it. That map traversal and resting system and hiding so many things behind arbitrary skill checks. I hope Wrath of the Righteous learns from all that and ends up more worth playing.
I am also curious what would decide what choices they make - both players and companions face the same problem and may be tempted to reach for various solutions. It is also something designed for coop players. So essencially companions would need to be designed in such a way, so they interact with content designed for players in an interesting way.
Will their choices be determined on our interactions with them? Will there be some hidden system in place? Alignment?
You want BG2 remade as a hack and slash action game?
Beats having your toon stand right in front of your enemy and still hit the air most of the time. Strategic battles be damned: a BG2 remake with Amalur-esque ARPG combat would actually be rather refreshing for once.
@hybridial when he sees you say this:
I personally love the idea that my companions have their own agency and will sometimes make different deals or take different paths depending on how the story has progressed.
I doubt they'll just take a character away from you for good unless that character was always supposed to pull a Yoshimo.
You bring up Yoshimo. Great example. But what would BG2 have been like if every one of your companions was a potential Yoshimo?
No, I mean Pillars of Eternity 2 in particular is simply not what you described. There's only one game I ever stopped playing when I was about 90% of the way through it because I had a profound feeling of "Why does it feel like what I'm doing is pointless and isn't accomplishing anything meaningful?" That's Pillars of Eternity 2, a game that wasn't too unpleasant to play (if you were keeping away from the water) but, it felt like you were a zombie wandering around ticking off things in a checklist. It's a prime example of a game lacking in stakes and personal motivation to really do anything, because you are never much more than an observer in events that you can barely even influence. Even the faction stuff is completely meaningless in the end versus the main plot really.
In fact, let me add this because Pillars of Eternity 2 damns itself in like 5 seconds to be way worse than Baldur's Gate 2 in the respect of personal motivation (whilst BG2 to me has one of the greatest opening levels in gaming history)
You're first choice in PoE 2 is Berath telling you "you'll do what I say, or this game won't even start."
Fuck Pillars of Eternity 2
The first game was better but extremely dry and slow paced and really, academical in its execution. It's not a bad story like Deadfire (in my opinion) but its also not very exciting, or dynamic or even ever that interesting despite how hard it's trying to.
I can't say about Planescape Torment because, I have still to play it, but Baldur's Gate 2, given the contrarian asshole I am, is one of very few big name games I've played I don't think is overrated at all, if anything people tend to ignore how good it is because it's old now and some people seem to think old =/bad (not you, but I just come across that way too much)
Hey that's fine. These are all personal opinions from all of us. And I will even agree that PoE2 was not as good as 1 (as I've said elsewhere, 2 was much better mechanically than 1, 1 was much better in story, characters and atmosphere). But for me, BG2's "awesomeness," if you will, was always its bigger scope and size, it's expanded gameplay mechanics, and overall greater polish. But its story never truly captured me.
but pillars of eternity does feel like it is lacking something that was in the older games. you don't really have that much of a goal until the end of act 1 whits is like 4 or 5 hours into the game.
the villain is only in directly involed in your adventure. he does not even know you exist until you start messing with his cult.
the party members at time feel undeveloped but this was due to them having word counts.
i always tend to point out the main issue with alot of the modern crpgs is they take them selves way to seriously. most of the older games have some sort of humor planescape torment is a depressing game but it has alot of humor.
at times i felt pillars and tides of numanara were less passion projects and more something they felt like they were forced to make. they did not have as much soul and passion pput into them as say something like Disco Elysium.
Yeah, one big piece of common ground we have is our take on this game. Both Pillars really. One was excellent if flawed, Two is great in parts but lacking something quite fundamental throughout.
Josh Sawyer has a wealth of experience and skills to make an RPG, his games have all the ingredients of an excellent rpg, it's just the small subtleties that I think are missing. In bg2 I wondered whether I should become a god... In Pillars I felt like someone was showing me a new world through someone else's eyes.
I'll give you the personal motivation, Pillars2 was very much focused on a regional conflict, rather than the protaganist's very personal quest from 1. But I'm not sure what you mean by "lacking stakes". You decide the fate of a, uh, country? Island Nation? Not sure what the proper terminology is. On top of that, the fundamental process of how the world survives is at risk. There are DEFINITELY stakes.
I had a similar problem getting into D:OS 2. It seemed like every character there was an "edgelord". Lohse was half-possessed, the ranger guy was dark and brooding, the Red Prince was from an empire that kept slaves, the rogue woman wanted revenge against having been a slave, and don't even get me started on the undead guy. It seems like these kind of characters are what Larian does, so I agree a lot with @kanisatha .
(I know a lot of people are going to disagree with my impressions of these characters. They could say "But you never gave them a chance, you didn't finish the game to see how wonderful they all are." The point is that their dark personalities and cynical natures didn't make me *want* to get to know them any better.)
You know, there would have to be at least a dozen of NPC's available to fulfill the needs of having typical lawful/neutral good party or typical evil party. In BG2 (and especially in BG1) there were abundance of NPC's to choose from, so the problem was nonexistent. The problem is a very short list of NPC's here... and a lack of, well... more mundane personalities.
Ifan is a bro. When you're on the starting ship, he helps you tighten up the collar.
Beast is a nice chap, he talks about nice things, he cares about his sister and all dwarfs.
I will never agree they are "edge-lord" characters. Ever since meeting them on the starting ship, and continuing with first interactions on the land, it's clear these 3 are kind and caring people.
Sebille is a slave and wants revenge, yes, she's edgy. Red Prince is a prince and a lizard. Yes, he's edgy. Fane is from an eternal race, and doesn't think highly about mortal races. But these 3 - you will get to know them, get to understand them, and eventually they also stop being edgy (well, with Prince, not quite, but he becomes a real friend).
As for the first 3 characters, NO, I will never agree they are "edgelords". When you learn the stories of Lohse, Ifan and Beast, you will understand their kindness even more. But you don't need to go as far just to see their personality.
The problem is you don't, there's no stakes because you're not telling that 500 ft ardra statue what to do, the ending just makes a token effort to give you a bunch of "options" but it's a lot like Mass Effect 3's ending, its unsatisfying and makes the whole thing feel like an exercise in futility. Such storytelling can work but not in this field, not in an interactive story built around role playing.
Really? he comes off as more of a comedic figure I thought. That point about his race practicing slavery is incidental setting stuff and not all that edgy in fantasy fiction, but Sebille is more clearly the character they want to address that stuff through, the Prince kind of comes off as a buffoon at times, although if you play as him sometimes you get more suave things to say to not give off that sense. He feels like Blackadder only lacking the cunning or genuine malfeasance.
I don't know about them being "edgelords", but the issue I had with all of them is that they all had this "hook" which seemed a bit unnecessary for me. I guess it was done to give each of them a new spin when they are played as the main character, but I feel like more normal characters can be just as compelling. It's personal preference, I guess.
My problem is possibly more with the descriptions of the characters, which perhaps biased my opinion of them all before I had even started playing the game. I guess you could do the same to the BG2 lot, if you wanted to. Something like: "Jaheira is a loyal harper and a druid devoted to maintaining the balance. However, wrestling with the tragic death of her beloved after months of captivity at the hands of a mysterious, powerful figure, will she be able to find inner peace as she searches for revenge?"
When I actually started playing, I really liked Ifan (for example), but I kind of understand the initial feeling of not wanting to get to know them better, based on the descriptions.