Oh, I was talking about the actual DoS games before because some statements about those games were objectively false, possibly made by people who (I think) do not played the game much or played before the patches and dlc.
But I prefer my cofee black, my beer cold and my Bg games RTWP, based on D&D and with a good writing, thanks
@SorcererV1ct0r Again, I've noticed that the majority of complaints are about the DOS games. BG3 will be different from them (of course, the scope of these differences is to be seen). Complaints about the DOS games in 2019 (considering the games are released a long time ago, and considering this is not a discussion about DOS) is not what can be relatively helpful in terms of a BG3 discussion.
@JuliusBorisov, besides obvious things like BG3 will be using D&D rules and the FR setting, on what are you basing your claim that BG3 will be different from the D:OS games? Larian has not said anything to that effect. To the contrary, Swen has said in many of his interviews that he expects to borrow various "systems" from D:OS2 because they "worked very well." As such, that is your personal take on things, which is no more factual than my personal take that there will be a lot of overlap between BG3 and D:OS2. This in turn makes it perfectly reasonable to bring up the D:OS games if someone believes, as I very much do, that the D:OS games were utterly horrible games.
During one of the recent interviews a journalist directly asked Swen if the game will be a DOS "reskin" about Baldur's Gate. He replied that it won't be the case because DnD rules fundamentally change the game, ex. classes, and DOS doesn't have classes.
Again, as you keep insisting, I will repeat as well: I find the DOS games quite entertaining and DOS2 to me is the best party RPG since DA:O.
It's not like DAO was a high bar to surpass... other than in marketing hype. Looking back, that's probably the only reason I even bothered with it, and still never managed to finish despite two attempts. Almost like Hellgate London, which also had such a glorious intro and a really shoddy gameplay.
Hmm, you know, I'm gonna wager this - if you liked DAO, you'll like BG3 as well.
DAO is great.... apart from the cooldown based system and the fact that every attack basically hits in combat.
Origins does have really cool blocking animations too. Just those almost never play because everyone hits all the time. So combat in DAO looks pretty dumb with combatants just standing there looping attack animations until someone runs out of HP. And of course no one can die and everyone heals almost instantly after every combat which completely removes any feeling of consequence from fighting for your life.
I really hate the cooldowns though. Why can't a mage cast two fireballs back to back if fire is what you need. Fireball -> Cone of Cold is somehow ok but not two fireballs. Same with combat talents.
DAO is great.... apart from the cooldown based system and the fact that every attack basically hits in combat.
Origins does have really cool blocking animations too. Just those almost never play because everyone hits all the time. So combat in DAO looks pretty dumb with combatants just standing there looping attack animations until someone runs out of HP. And of course no one can die and everyone heals almost instantly after every combat which completely removes any feeling of consequence from fighting for your life.
I really hate the cooldowns though. Why can't a mage cast two fireballs back to back if fire is what you need. Fireball -> Cone of Cold is somehow ok but not two fireballs. Same with combat talents.
I strongly agree. Note that since enemies can't roll an fortitude save, CDs become the unique way to ""balance"" most of spells that inflict conditions. I din't liked the lack of shape shift spells and summons too, but the game is very good. Could be better if had maintained itself more "old school like" mechanics, but is not an bad game. If you change missing, saves, etc you need to re write all rules.
Again, as you keep insisting, I will repeat as well: I find the DOS games quite entertaining and DOS2 to me is the best party RPG since DA:O.
In my opinion, both of those games were terrible. I would just say Dragon Age probably made a more sincere attempt to be like Baldur's Gate than Original Sin, it still failed miserably at it because the combat was boring and the story was Bioware at their blandest.
No, I'll tell you what I think is a good party based RPG we've had in recent years, aside from Pillars of Eternity. Shadowrun Dragonfall.
I still have to play Pillars 2, Tyranny, and Numenara, but I'd be surprised if I find even the last one there isn't at least better than Dragon Age Origins and the Original Sin games.
I still have yet to play Pillars 1 because my laptop can't seem to run it but it sure looks good. Anyways I'm riding this hype train until at least when the game comes out. And if B3 ends up being awful than it really doesn't matter because BG2 will always be a masterpiece.
I find cooldowns about as logical as x/day/battle charges, recovery timers or mana cost. It's just yet another mechanic, and it works pretty well if you don't stop at it and mix it up with other types of restriction.
I find cooldowns about as logical as x/day/battle charges, recovery timers or mana cost. It's just yet another mechanic, and it works pretty well if you don't stop at it and mix it up with other types of restriction.
I disagree. Casts / day or mana is because you ran out of power and need to rest to re gain.
This with supernatural powers, there are ZERO reasons to an barbarian leap, an type of shot, etc be on CD
This with supernatural powers, there are ZERO reasons to an barbarian leap, an type of shot, etc be on CD
Nothing kills a fun game faster than trying to be realistic.
One question. Why?
Depends the degree of realism and game propose. Nobody wanna realistic inventory management on BG/IWD, but this can make sense on a horror game where you don't wanna that the charname that is fearing an Cthulhu cultist to pick an lmg from his backpack and kill all cultists or that are threatening him. But ArmA 3 is realistic and much more fun than COD.
BG are immersive games and should't have mechanics that makes no sense, like armor never deflecting even an kitchen knife, but everyone requiring 30 strokes in the head to die, or cooldowns, or necromancers limited to one summon or master archers that can't hit an bear at 14 or etc.
An RPG doesn't need to be realistic like A3, but lets be honest, see an LoTR movie that follow this mechanics will be silly. People will joke like the twilight sparkling on sun vampries. An RPG should aim to be immersive like fantasy novels/books.
The Baldur's Gate III subforum never stops to surprise me. Apparently, the game I was 100% sure about (as is - a definitely good game) - DA:0 is considered meh by many. Overall, I get more and more confident that the reasons for these opposite views on Larian are quite deeper than the DOS games. It's interesting to watch how this forum is generally pro-BG (classic), but in terms of any other game the views are so entirely different.
Nobody said that DA:O is a meh game. Is an amazing game. Mainly on story and narrative choices. In combat, he is just not good as IWD/BG in therms of immersion and combat due some "modern mechanics". Could be better if had an more old school approach, but only because the game is not perfect in every aspect, that is an average game...
The Baldur's Gate III subforum never stops to surprise me. Apparently, the game I was 100% sure about (as is - a definitely good game) - DA:0 is considered meh by many. Overall, I get more and more confident that the reasons for these opposite views on Larian are quite deeper than the DOS games. It's interesting to watch how this forum is generally pro-BG (classic), but in terms of any other game the views are so entirely different.
The crazy irony is that there's a subset of negative comments here that complain about how too many modern RPG's are dumbed-down, targeted for consoles, made more action-y, etc, all things that the OS games very much depart from, imo!
Frankly, ever since DAO got released I've thought of Bioware games as dating sims, even if they had deeper gameplay and story than such genre requires.
It doesn't really matter how you design the mechanic, or what your explanation is. But if the answer to why something works a certain way is "because our system uses cooldowns," then you've failed in a fundamental way.
That's kinda my point - if you have to find an explanation why your mechanic works this way, then you've already failed. At least if it's fantasy - because it's fantasy. You should focus on flowing story and snapping dialog, not on boring stuff like logic behind mechanics unless it's important to the plot. Otherwise you just end up with yet another insipidly realistic medieval world full of rats, mud and famine and devoid of literacy, hygiene and razors.
It's a tricky trap to escape, as I know well, but it can be done.
I have a mixed feeling about cooldowns, but it is not regarding realism.
For example, while WoW is a mixed bag, I have no issue with them using cooldowns for certain very powerful self-buffs (like Arcane Power) or even certain powerful attacks and crowd controls like Ice Nova.
But using Cooldowns as the only resource management is not good game design in my opinion.
I don't like that you can cast Fireball -> Meteor Shower but not Fireball -> Fireball. Again, for me it is less a matter of realism and more a matter of fun. It leads to way kind of meta-gaming that I do not like, i.e. sure that your best abilities do not come of cooldown at the same time. Or that you need to time them to set up certain combos, i.e. ability 1 has a debuff that improves ability 2 by a huge margin but only lasts for 1 turn.
If we look only at realism, I agree that it seems like a strange line to draw. E.g. in BG 2 you could also question why you can't put a Level 3 spell in a Level 4 slot (given that it is less powerful), or why a Sorcerer could run out of Magic Missiles but is still able to cast Meteor Showers.
But I think there is something about reliance on cooldowns that makes combat feel more like a puzzle instead of like combat.
The Baldur's Gate III subforum never stops to surprise me. Apparently, the game I was 100% sure about (as is - a definitely good game) - DA:0 is considered meh by many. Overall, I get more and more confident that the reasons for these opposite views on Larian are quite deeper than the DOS games. It's interesting to watch how this forum is generally pro-BG (classic), but in terms of any other game the views are so entirely different.
The crazy irony is that there's a subset of negative comments here that complain about how too many modern RPG's are dumbed-down, targeted for consoles, made more action-y, etc, all things that the OS games very much depart from, imo!
D:OS focus much more in being an "envorimental puzzle game" instead of an living breathing world.
I play IWD, even despite the bad story, i fell like i an an guy living among nordic barbarian tribes and solving mysteries around an "magical world". About action focus, i don't see it as an big problem. As longs the action is immersive, there are a lot of cool stuff to do, and you fight interesting enemies with interesting abilities.
Dark Souls is an very action focused game and don't have most of modern game design awfullness like stats linked towards gear, numbers that represent nothing, CDs, handholding, lack of choice and consequence, etc.
@SorcererV1ct0r Again, I've noticed that the majority of complaints are about the DOS games. BG3 will be different from them (of course, the scope of these differences is to be seen). Complaints about the DOS games in 2019 (considering the games are released a long time ago, and considering this is not a discussion about DOS) is not what can be relatively helpful in terms of a BG3 discussion.
@JuliusBorisov, besides obvious things like BG3 will be using D&D rules and the FR setting, on what are you basing your claim that BG3 will be different from the D:OS games? Larian has not said anything to that effect. To the contrary, Swen has said in many of his interviews that he expects to borrow various "systems" from D:OS2 because they "worked very well." As such, that is your personal take on things, which is no more factual than my personal take that there will be a lot of overlap between BG3 and D:OS2. This in turn makes it perfectly reasonable to bring up the D:OS games if someone believes, as I very much do, that the D:OS games were utterly horrible games.
During one of the recent interviews a journalist directly asked Swen if the game will be a DOS "reskin" about Baldur's Gate. He replied that it won't be the case because DnD rules fundamentally change the game, ex. classes, and DOS doesn't have classes.
Again, as you keep insisting, I will repeat as well: I find the DOS games quite entertaining and DOS2 to me is the best party RPG since DA:O.
In my post I specifically said besides things like using D&D rules. Yes, that is obvious. The game will be using D&D rules. But that does not say anything about the game feeling and playing more like the D:OS games than the original BG games. For example, Vincke himself said in one of those interviews they're looking at whether spell slots is something they want to replace because many players find it "not fun." So, cooldowns? Like in the D:OS games? Yeah, that's probably what we're going to get.
The Baldur's Gate III subforum never stops to surprise me. Apparently, the game I was 100% sure about (as is - a definitely good game) - DA:0 is considered meh by many. Overall, I get more and more confident that the reasons for these opposite views on Larian are quite deeper than the DOS games. It's interesting to watch how this forum is generally pro-BG (classic), but in terms of any other game the views are so entirely different.
The crazy irony is that there's a subset of negative comments here that complain about how too many modern RPG's are dumbed-down, targeted for consoles, made more action-y, etc, all things that the OS games very much depart from, imo!
Nope. The OS games are precisely poster-children for dumbed-down, superficial, targeted for consoles, action-y, gimmick-y games with lame-ass story and writing.
@SorcererV1ct0r Again, I've noticed that the majority of complaints are about the DOS games. BG3 will be different from them (of course, the scope of these differences is to be seen). Complaints about the DOS games in 2019 (considering the games are released a long time ago, and considering this is not a discussion about DOS) is not what can be relatively helpful in terms of a BG3 discussion.
@JuliusBorisov, besides obvious things like BG3 will be using D&D rules and the FR setting, on what are you basing your claim that BG3 will be different from the D:OS games? Larian has not said anything to that effect. To the contrary, Swen has said in many of his interviews that he expects to borrow various "systems" from D:OS2 because they "worked very well." As such, that is your personal take on things, which is no more factual than my personal take that there will be a lot of overlap between BG3 and D:OS2. This in turn makes it perfectly reasonable to bring up the D:OS games if someone believes, as I very much do, that the D:OS games were utterly horrible games.
During one of the recent interviews a journalist directly asked Swen if the game will be a DOS "reskin" about Baldur's Gate. He replied that it won't be the case because DnD rules fundamentally change the game, ex. classes, and DOS doesn't have classes.
Again, as you keep insisting, I will repeat as well: I find the DOS games quite entertaining and DOS2 to me is the best party RPG since DA:O.
In my post I specifically said besides things like using D&D rules. Yes, that is obvious. The game will be using D&D rules. But that does not say anything about the game feeling and playing more like the D:OS games than the original BG games. For example, Vincke himself said in one of those interviews they're looking at whether spell slots is something they want to replace because many players find it "not fun." So, cooldowns? Like in the D:OS games? Yeah, that's probably what we're going to get.
Where he said about removing spell slots?
I found the quote about "missing is not fun, armor being worthless at deflecting blows but you requiring 40 hits in enemy head to kill is what works" and about "leveling is too slow, so everyone should be lv cap and lv cap should means nothing" quotes...
Nobody said that DA:O is a meh game. Is an amazing game. Mainly on story and narrative choices. In combat, he is just not good as IWD/BG in therms of immersion and combat due some "modern mechanics". Could be better if had an more old school approach, but only because the game is not perfect in every aspect, that is an average game...
I really liked the DA games, and yes including even DA II. They were very different from the BG games, but that was ok and I could still enjoy them very much for what they were. Why? Because they were not called "Baldur's Gate."
The Baldur's Gate III subforum never stops to surprise me. Apparently, the game I was 100% sure about (as is - a definitely good game) - DA:0 is considered meh by many. Overall, I get more and more confident that the reasons for these opposite views on Larian are quite deeper than the DOS games. It's interesting to watch how this forum is generally pro-BG (classic), but in terms of any other game the views are so entirely different.
The crazy irony is that there's a subset of negative comments here that complain about how too many modern RPG's are dumbed-down, targeted for consoles, made more action-y, etc, all things that the OS games very much depart from, imo!
Nope. The OS games are precisely poster-children for dumbed-down, superficial, targeted for consoles, action-y, gimmick-y games with lame-ass story and writing.
@SorcererV1ct0r Again, I've noticed that the majority of complaints are about the DOS games. BG3 will be different from them (of course, the scope of these differences is to be seen). Complaints about the DOS games in 2019 (considering the games are released a long time ago, and considering this is not a discussion about DOS) is not what can be relatively helpful in terms of a BG3 discussion.
@JuliusBorisov, besides obvious things like BG3 will be using D&D rules and the FR setting, on what are you basing your claim that BG3 will be different from the D:OS games? Larian has not said anything to that effect. To the contrary, Swen has said in many of his interviews that he expects to borrow various "systems" from D:OS2 because they "worked very well." As such, that is your personal take on things, which is no more factual than my personal take that there will be a lot of overlap between BG3 and D:OS2. This in turn makes it perfectly reasonable to bring up the D:OS games if someone believes, as I very much do, that the D:OS games were utterly horrible games.
During one of the recent interviews a journalist directly asked Swen if the game will be a DOS "reskin" about Baldur's Gate. He replied that it won't be the case because DnD rules fundamentally change the game, ex. classes, and DOS doesn't have classes.
Again, as you keep insisting, I will repeat as well: I find the DOS games quite entertaining and DOS2 to me is the best party RPG since DA:O.
In my post I specifically said besides things like using D&D rules. Yes, that is obvious. The game will be using D&D rules. But that does not say anything about the game feeling and playing more like the D:OS games than the original BG games. For example, Vincke himself said in one of those interviews they're looking at whether spell slots is something they want to replace because many players find it "not fun." So, cooldowns? Like in the D:OS games? Yeah, that's probably what we're going to get.
Where he said about removing spell slots?
I found the quote about "missing is not fun, armor being worthless at deflecting blows but you requiring 40 hits in enemy head to kill is what works" and about "leveling is too slow, so everyone should be lv cap and lv cap should means nothing" quotes...
I can't find the direct interview itself, but the exchange is referenced in this section of a recent pcgamesn.com article:
“We’ve gotten some pushback on some game mechanics,” Mearls admits. “You [indicating Vincke] have talked about how spell slots might not be the most intuitive thing. One of the things with Dungeons and Dragons, which I think is very important, is the method by which we do things is not as important for tabletop players as the actual effect on the table.”
So if somebody says spell slots might be something to look at again, “we would not just change it, but maybe we’ll start exploring alternatives, and then seeing – like, in a playtest – do people like them better? Does it get momentum?
“In some ways – especially in tabletop, because we have 45 years of history – it’s kinda fun to have someone smart who’s not you say: ‘you should consider changing this’.”
Dumbed-down - how so? DOS 2 on Tactician is one of the hardest RPGs ever (if you limit reloads, of course)
Superficial - how so? There are different consequences to your actions; different stat checks; the game lets you play in a co-op and with NPCs, and still provides quest twists
Targeted for consoles - come on, now? DOS 1 was a Kickstarter game with no consoles in mind. It was a PC game from start to finish. Kickstarter ports happened much later.
Action-y - so TB games are action games now?
Gimmick-y - hmmm. I like combat there.
Lame-ass story and writing - let's just agree we disagree. I recently posted a small video about one interaction from DOS 2. To me, those games are full of interesting stories and I like their writing.
Well said, Julius. There's a reason why the OS games became such an out-of-nowhere hit.
I mean, Larian was not a famous studio before OS, and was really only known as making Diablo-style action RPG's. The whole reason the games became popular is specifically because they were a refreshing break from the way CRPG's had been trending. They're very much the anti-Skyrim RPG's, imo.
Oh I'd better address that then, because Dragon Age Origins was terrible, and it is most certainly not definitely a good game, and it seems I think so differently from @JuliusBorisov that we will never reach a middle ground.
But its not complicated I think why, I'm not interested in the "dumbed down, consolised" argument because I grew up on consoles and I don't buy into the stupid tribal mentality there. Original Sin 1 and 2 were just hollow games to me, with stories I could not engage with and gameplay that I think is unsatisfying. I would honestly say 90% of the job to get me to like an RPG of this kind, is up to the writers. And if they fail, that's kind of it, the game is just not going to work for me. I want to be engaged by the story, the world and my role in it. The games that succeeded in doing this, it was because I liked the writing. It's kind of as simple as that, and I'm dreading BG3 because Larian have been terrible at the writing so far, from my perspective, and unless they hire completely different writers for this project, its very unlikely the writers of the Original Sin games are going to suddenly write material that I would enjoy.
Comments
But I prefer my cofee black, my beer cold and my Bg games RTWP, based on D&D and with a good writing, thanks
edit: typos, etc
During one of the recent interviews a journalist directly asked Swen if the game will be a DOS "reskin" about Baldur's Gate. He replied that it won't be the case because DnD rules fundamentally change the game, ex. classes, and DOS doesn't have classes.
Again, as you keep insisting, I will repeat as well: I find the DOS games quite entertaining and DOS2 to me is the best party RPG since DA:O.
Hmm, you know, I'm gonna wager this - if you liked DAO, you'll like BG3 as well.
Origins does have really cool blocking animations too. Just those almost never play because everyone hits all the time. So combat in DAO looks pretty dumb with combatants just standing there looping attack animations until someone runs out of HP. And of course no one can die and everyone heals almost instantly after every combat which completely removes any feeling of consequence from fighting for your life.
I really hate the cooldowns though. Why can't a mage cast two fireballs back to back if fire is what you need. Fireball -> Cone of Cold is somehow ok but not two fireballs. Same with combat talents.
I strongly agree. Note that since enemies can't roll an fortitude save, CDs become the unique way to ""balance"" most of spells that inflict conditions. I din't liked the lack of shape shift spells and summons too, but the game is very good. Could be better if had maintained itself more "old school like" mechanics, but is not an bad game. If you change missing, saves, etc you need to re write all rules.
In my opinion, both of those games were terrible. I would just say Dragon Age probably made a more sincere attempt to be like Baldur's Gate than Original Sin, it still failed miserably at it because the combat was boring and the story was Bioware at their blandest.
No, I'll tell you what I think is a good party based RPG we've had in recent years, aside from Pillars of Eternity. Shadowrun Dragonfall.
I still have to play Pillars 2, Tyranny, and Numenara, but I'd be surprised if I find even the last one there isn't at least better than Dragon Age Origins and the Original Sin games.
It goes so smoothly from an immersive ots exploration view to a tactical top down view.
Off topic: I also want that perfect camera for NWN:EE.
I disagree. Casts / day or mana is because you ran out of power and need to rest to re gain.
This with supernatural powers, there are ZERO reasons to an barbarian leap, an type of shot, etc be on CD
One question. Why?
Depends the degree of realism and game propose. Nobody wanna realistic inventory management on BG/IWD, but this can make sense on a horror game where you don't wanna that the charname that is fearing an Cthulhu cultist to pick an lmg from his backpack and kill all cultists or that are threatening him. But ArmA 3 is realistic and much more fun than COD.
BG are immersive games and should't have mechanics that makes no sense, like armor never deflecting even an kitchen knife, but everyone requiring 30 strokes in the head to die, or cooldowns, or necromancers limited to one summon or master archers that can't hit an bear at 14 or etc.
An RPG doesn't need to be realistic like A3, but lets be honest, see an LoTR movie that follow this mechanics will be silly. People will joke like the twilight sparkling on sun vampries. An RPG should aim to be immersive like fantasy novels/books.
The crazy irony is that there's a subset of negative comments here that complain about how too many modern RPG's are dumbed-down, targeted for consoles, made more action-y, etc, all things that the OS games very much depart from, imo!
It's a tricky trap to escape, as I know well, but it can be done.
For example, while WoW is a mixed bag, I have no issue with them using cooldowns for certain very powerful self-buffs (like Arcane Power) or even certain powerful attacks and crowd controls like Ice Nova.
But using Cooldowns as the only resource management is not good game design in my opinion.
I don't like that you can cast Fireball -> Meteor Shower but not Fireball -> Fireball. Again, for me it is less a matter of realism and more a matter of fun. It leads to way kind of meta-gaming that I do not like, i.e. sure that your best abilities do not come of cooldown at the same time. Or that you need to time them to set up certain combos, i.e. ability 1 has a debuff that improves ability 2 by a huge margin but only lasts for 1 turn.
If we look only at realism, I agree that it seems like a strange line to draw. E.g. in BG 2 you could also question why you can't put a Level 3 spell in a Level 4 slot (given that it is less powerful), or why a Sorcerer could run out of Magic Missiles but is still able to cast Meteor Showers.
But I think there is something about reliance on cooldowns that makes combat feel more like a puzzle instead of like combat.
D:OS focus much more in being an "envorimental puzzle game" instead of an living breathing world.
I play IWD, even despite the bad story, i fell like i an an guy living among nordic barbarian tribes and solving mysteries around an "magical world". About action focus, i don't see it as an big problem. As longs the action is immersive, there are a lot of cool stuff to do, and you fight interesting enemies with interesting abilities.
Dark Souls is an very action focused game and don't have most of modern game design awfullness like stats linked towards gear, numbers that represent nothing, CDs, handholding, lack of choice and consequence, etc.
In my post I specifically said besides things like using D&D rules. Yes, that is obvious. The game will be using D&D rules. But that does not say anything about the game feeling and playing more like the D:OS games than the original BG games. For example, Vincke himself said in one of those interviews they're looking at whether spell slots is something they want to replace because many players find it "not fun." So, cooldowns? Like in the D:OS games? Yeah, that's probably what we're going to get.
Nope. The OS games are precisely poster-children for dumbed-down, superficial, targeted for consoles, action-y, gimmick-y games with lame-ass story and writing.
Where he said about removing spell slots?
I found the quote about "missing is not fun, armor being worthless at deflecting blows but you requiring 40 hits in enemy head to kill is what works" and about "leveling is too slow, so everyone should be lv cap and lv cap should means nothing" quotes...
I really liked the DA games, and yes including even DA II. They were very different from the BG games, but that was ok and I could still enjoy them very much for what they were. Why? Because they were not called "Baldur's Gate."
The OS games aren't action-y at all.
I can't find the direct interview itself, but the exchange is referenced in this section of a recent pcgamesn.com article:
“We’ve gotten some pushback on some game mechanics,” Mearls admits. “You [indicating Vincke] have talked about how spell slots might not be the most intuitive thing. One of the things with Dungeons and Dragons, which I think is very important, is the method by which we do things is not as important for tabletop players as the actual effect on the table.”
So if somebody says spell slots might be something to look at again, “we would not just change it, but maybe we’ll start exploring alternatives, and then seeing – like, in a playtest – do people like them better? Does it get momentum?
“In some ways – especially in tabletop, because we have 45 years of history – it’s kinda fun to have someone smart who’s not you say: ‘you should consider changing this’.”
Superficial - how so? There are different consequences to your actions; different stat checks; the game lets you play in a co-op and with NPCs, and still provides quest twists
Targeted for consoles - come on, now? DOS 1 was a Kickstarter game with no consoles in mind. It was a PC game from start to finish. Kickstarter ports happened much later.
Action-y - so TB games are action games now?
Gimmick-y - hmmm. I like combat there.
Lame-ass story and writing - let's just agree we disagree. I recently posted a small video about one interaction from DOS 2. To me, those games are full of interesting stories and I like their writing.
I mean, Larian was not a famous studio before OS, and was really only known as making Diablo-style action RPG's. The whole reason the games became popular is specifically because they were a refreshing break from the way CRPG's had been trending. They're very much the anti-Skyrim RPG's, imo.
Oh I'd better address that then, because Dragon Age Origins was terrible, and it is most certainly not definitely a good game, and it seems I think so differently from @JuliusBorisov that we will never reach a middle ground.
But its not complicated I think why, I'm not interested in the "dumbed down, consolised" argument because I grew up on consoles and I don't buy into the stupid tribal mentality there. Original Sin 1 and 2 were just hollow games to me, with stories I could not engage with and gameplay that I think is unsatisfying. I would honestly say 90% of the job to get me to like an RPG of this kind, is up to the writers. And if they fail, that's kind of it, the game is just not going to work for me. I want to be engaged by the story, the world and my role in it. The games that succeeded in doing this, it was because I liked the writing. It's kind of as simple as that, and I'm dreading BG3 because Larian have been terrible at the writing so far, from my perspective, and unless they hire completely different writers for this project, its very unlikely the writers of the Original Sin games are going to suddenly write material that I would enjoy.