A ) An hellfire warlock that when draw upon the might hellfire, receive an CON damage due the powerful nature of hellfire that is dangerous even for his conjurer
B ) An hellfire warlock that trows an hellfire eldricht blast and then needs to wait (insert arbitrary amount of secs) to trow it again, he can use other hellfire skills, but no hellfire eldritch blast
The "A" way is the way that most old school RPG's will deal with the class in question. The "B", most modern games... In most cases, it even ruin some class fantasies. Grim Dawn skeletons on CDs kill the fantasy of an necromancer. And CDs exist even with trowing grenades. That is awful.
Wrong question. I don't care whether class mechanics sound "epic". What matters is how they interact with other mechanics & environment in the game. A) is how the kineticist was implemented in PK and it demonstrates this issue.
The kineticist class is quite similar to warlock in that it has spammable abilities, but the more powerful abilities come at a burn cost. The amount of burn a kineticist can sustain is dependent on constitution. They can reduce this burn cost by using their 'gather power' ability. In theory, that is.
In practice this doesn't work, because due to the way the line of sight is implemented in this game, you can 'gather power' before combat, thus your kinetics has all the time in the world to bring the burn cost down. This is what happens when class mechanics are not tailored to general game mechanics, and vice versa.
Have few issues with an game doesn't means that doesn't work. I can't detail since i never played P:K with an kineticist, but spell slots and some skills that damage attributes is nothing new too. On BG if you have your familiar killed, you take an PERMANENT CON damage. On M&M VI, divine intervention ages your character 10 years and at old ages, he receive stat penalties. I an not sure, but i believe that if you ressurect someone that had his body erradicated, you lost permanently stats too. Not temporary like nwn2. Permanently.
Is like Vincke with missing. only because failed on his testing, he assumes that something that works since 80s dungeon crawlers can't work on a video game.... What "works" is everyone using macros to spam the same rotation, never missing, but needing to spam the same rotation 5000 times to kill an boss, that is fun /sarcasm.
Not if there are an limited number of it on stock of each merchant. Again, you are trying to make everything that is not an artificially limitation that makes no sense, not work. When games that has no cooldowns has the best combat. Doesn't matter if they are isometric aRPG's(diablo 2), 3rd person aRPG(dark souls for eg), classic RPG's(baldur's gate), they are the best ones. Nobody, even mmo fans like to constnat watch to an bar to see what skills they can use(this is why macroing is common on mmos)
Diablo 2 does have cooldowns since LoD. And I very much hated them, because my favorite strategy used to be to spam Firewall or Blizzard until they stacked up to the point anything caught within would disintegrate at speed of light (hello Mephisto ). Except it wasn't really much of a strategy.
Not if there are an limited number of it on stock of each merchant.
...
And what is the problem? Nobody uses 14.5x114mm incendiary ammo to hunt rabbits IRL but use this ammo against armored vehicles. The same logic should apply on a "medieval world", you should't use bodkin arrows in unarmored weak enemies. But if you need to assassinate someone in plate armor, you will use bodkin arrow and the deadliest poison that you can find.
It's psychology factor mostly. If you play for the first time, which today is usually also the last time due to games piling up faster than you can play them, then you don't know when it's appropriate time to use limited resources.
Again, I'm not saying a grenade or arrow on a timer is a good decision. But poison sounds perfectly fine if we assume it leaves vapors too toxic to be exposed to them twice in a minute. Or the warlock, who by system's default will not take health risks associated with strain imposed by high-end spells.
Have few issues with an game doesn't means that doesn't work. I can't detail since i never played P:K with an kineticist, but spell slots and some skills that damage attributes is nothing new too. On BG if you have your familiar killed, you take an PERMANENT CON damage. On M&M VI, divine intervention ages your character 10 years and at old ages, he receive stat penalties. I an not sure, but i believe that if you ressurect someone that had his body erradicated, you lost permanently stats too. Not temporary like nwn2. Permanently.
That permanent CON damage is why familiars spend all the game stuck in master's backpack, instead of using their abilities.
What "works" is everyone using macros to spam the same rotation, never missing, but needing to spam the same rotation 5000 times to kill an boss, that is fun /sarcasm.
I said so earlier, but 5000 times on repeat is an example of bad design in its own right. Yes, you kinda have to make sure player is able to figure out the winning strategy after the fight already started, but there's zero reason the boss has to be a single solid object.
Again, I'm not saying a grenade or arrow on a timer is a good decision. But poison sounds perfectly fine if we assume it leaves vapors too toxic to be exposed to them twice in a minute. Or the warlock, who by system's default will not take health risks associated with strain imposed by high-end spells..
No, that is awful. You need to purchase or prepare poison(an skill + roll check to determine the power), apply poison on your weapon/arrow and the enemy do an fortitude save to be poisoned or not and how deadly he will be poisoned. Even Skyrim that is an dumbed down to oblivion game has no CDs on poison and you can craft poison(but not "randomness")
And guess what, the removal of random factor lead to an stream of changes that affected everything and make the game far worse than Morrowind for eg.
Have few issues with an game doesn't means that doesn't work. I can't detail since i never played P:K with an kineticist, but spell slots and some skills that damage attributes is nothing new too. On BG if you have your familiar killed, you take an PERMANENT CON damage.
Again, spell slots and attribute loss should be considered in the context in which they are implemented.
In the original version of BG there was no find familiar spell, so no permanent con loss. In BG2 the familiar just doesn't have enough of combat ability to make risk of using it in combat worth it, considering that
a) you can raise dead party members with no con penalty,
b) other summons don't incur any cost (since resting is so easy).
And in the EEs both a) and b) still apply.
So why exactly is this supposed to be an example of good design?
Yes, you are RIGHT.
Anyway, i still think that CDs are the worst way to "balance" any skill. Spell slots, casting time, reagent requirement, temp attribute damage, etc, etc, etc are far better
@subtledoctor So you accused me of saying "your opinion doesn't matter" based on the fact I decided to look at the poll results? Up to you, but I didn't mean that.
Moreover, as I try to read everywhere, I genuinely began to think there's more negative written about the game than there's positive. It was my genuine understanding after all the arguments. And then I decided to check the poll results.
You keep insisting on me dismissing opposite opinions, but why? I have always tried to reply to opposite opinions sharing mine. And yes, I haven't agreed with negative comments. I repeat: all opinions here are my own, so please don't imagine it means anything about Beamdog and their future games.
I also want to share that during this weekend I spent 12 hours playing co-op DOS2 with my wife. And this has been very, very cool. We play on Tactician and both have some experience of single player. But playing it together is a completely different thing. This is another argument from me to the support of Larian: BG3 will be based on DnD, and DnD is playing together with other people. Larian are experienced in this, while PoE and Pathfinder don't offer a MP mode.
One side observation I've had about DOS2: in turn-based missing indeed leaves a bad feeling. DOS battles are quite dynamic, and occasional misses aren't felt, but when I imagine a round after a round in TB aka in BG when there are only too few actions you can take, eg. attack once or twice a round, and then imagine enemies missing as well - it will soon lead to long and repetitive battles. So the "missing " part of the interview might be an additional confirmation of a TB combat. Missing worked so well in classic BG because it was real time and you can just leave your fighter swinging hits when you concentrate on your mage or thief.
The more I think about it, the more it almost has to be TB. Which I'm fine with. I just don't see a comfortable multiplayer using RTwP. And I think their focus along with WotC is to make this a viable DnD 5e multiplayer CRPG, so they can launch more in a similar vein.
@SorcererV1ct0r
That reminds me of the Almraiven mod for NWN, which implemented spell reagents. Made playing a wizard far more fun.
Spell reagents are on my wishlist for any game that has spellcasters in it.
I think that depends. For stoneskin i believe that an expensive component should be required, but i don't think that all spells should have it, micro manage all reagents can become bad.
nother argument from me to the support of Larian: BG3 will be based on DnD, and DnD is playing together with other people. Larian are experienced in this, while PoE and Pathfinder don't offer a MP mode.
@JuliusBorisov "So you accused me of saying "your opinion doesn't matter" based on the fact I decided to look at the poll results? Up to you, but I didn't mean that."
I'm sure you didn't, but that is what it reads like. Look at the context of this with several of your previous posts:
1. Since DOS2 sold well, we shouldn't doubt Larian.
2. Since WotC trusts Larian, we should too.
You've repeated these same points multiple times as well. And now since you point out that the poll is more in favor of, than against, your points are (to me at least) focused entirely on popularity and majority. Since x is more popular, x is correct. But the flip side of this is, since y is unpopular, y is incorrect.
If majority opinion is all that matters, then where does that leave the ones outside the majority?
Again, I believe you, I'm just trying to point out why it seems like, to us, that your comments have just been a dismissal of our opinions.
It's not up to me to dismiss (or accept) anything related to BGIII, it's for the game's developers. It's up for them to decide what these numbers say.
I didn't say you shouldn't doubt Larian - just on the opposite, I said that you might or might not like them, or their games. I said DOS2 sold well, yes. I said WotC trusts Larian, yes. I also expressed my reasons (MY) for trusting them. I expressed my thoughts on DOS2.
I created this subforum with one thought in mind - to provide a place where people can share opinions, and this is what we all have been doing here. And from what I see "your opinion doesn't matter" has no place neither in this subforum, nor anywhere else on the forum.
The arguments become heated, yes, and it looks like whenever once side states something the other side starts attacking that point of view.
Then I wondered if the reaction to the announcement is indeed so mixed as I started to see from this forum and other places. I checked the exact comments, and since our forum has a poll, checked the poll results. Then checked those users who voted in the poll. And saw that the subforum contains a lot of comments from them.
Maybe what I tried to say is that the more balanced view would be available if those who voted Yes and/or think positively about it shared their opinions AS OFTEN as you folks share your concerns.
What is also troubling me is that people who have a negative view on the matter try to look further than what is written by supporters, or people who at least voiced their support towards this or that argument. I've seen people questioning Beamdog representatives and even high management team in this very subforum, discussing their motives.
There're also a lot of false arguments being mentioned regarding DOS2, eg. no epic spells, no missing in DOS, a big range for missile weapons not taking into the height mechanic.
There're also a lot of false arguments being mentioned regarding DOS2, eg. no epic spells, no missing in DOS, a big range for missile weapons not taking into the height mechanic.
I think the no epic spells criticism is pretty spot on. Which D:OS 2 spell would you consider to be epic? Something like meteor shower?
Missing it has, agreed.
But I really disagree that high ground increasing range is a valid justification for extremely short ranges without high ground. Sure, high ground helps, but spells and arrows should fly more than a few meters even without it.
JuliusBorisov, remembers D3? Comments like Vincke's comments remembers me a lot of Jay Wilson's comments in relation to D2 "d2 is good, but lets rework skill system, stat system, leveling, ittemization, immunities, bosses" and despite him not being an bad RTS developer, as an aRPG developer, he messed up hard.
Pathfinder changed lot of things from 3.5e that i particularly liked
They finally treated Feyfolk with the deserved respect
Finally leveling past lv 10 takes much more time, you don't see armies capable to using tier 9 spells.
New interesting rules like swarms
Sorcerer bloodlines
Dragon disciple gain + caster level and other prestige classes become viable
Alchemist class
(...)
This are changes on 3.5e that added to the game and made the game overall better. Looking to the Vincke's comments, honestly gave me the impression that he din't even liked BG... Sorry, but if you think that missing doesn't work on a video game, that leveling is too slow, that resting is broken, etc; do he even liked an D&D game? On pathfinder kingmaker, after more than 100 hours of gameplay, my main char was lv 18 and missing happens, save happens, etc; I don't see how this is an problem.
D3 and D2 are a different case. Those games were developed by the same company, and the third game didn't come 20 years after the second. BGIII will be based on a completely different edition of DnD, and it's being created in another era of gaming (and this is a not bad thing, I mean the times greatly moved on).
Sven Winke most likely means it doesn't work in gaming today. What also he most likely means is that it doesn't work in their game engine, and with the current 5E implementation into a videogame. They all said they liked BG 1&2, but the games were released a long time ago.
Then you can play P:K. And I think it's sold well enough, we can probably expect P:K sequels.
I'm perfectly happy to see a studio try something new with a BG3 title, I wouldn't want it any other way. I'm not looking for an infinity engine clone. Nor do I want BG3 to just be a P:K knockoff.
(...) I'm not looking for an infinity engine clone. Nor do I want BG3 to just be a P:K knockoff.
Only one question. You wanna BG3 to be an D:OS knockoff? Or SCL knockoff?
IF Larien don't plan to make an BG game is a proper BG sequel, why not call it D:OS3? Or SCL2? I like ArmA 3 and BF 1, but will don't like if the next ArmA become more BF like or the next BF more ArmA like. Or course, is just my opinion, i don't own the IP. If they wanna make BG3 into an battle royale, an hero shooter or a racing game, they can...
No, I don't. I hope they break some new ground with the game. And why do you keep mentioning SCL dude? It doesn't make any sense. It didn't sell well. It didn't get positive reviews. Nobody wants to make a SCL knockoff.
I'm inclined to vote Yay!, but I'm reluctant until we see some actual gameplay. What worries me is that the CEO said the game would be similar to BG2. This to me is a complete letdown if it turns out to be true: another RPG on rails while all I want is a huge world to explore and interact with like in BG1.
I'm inclined to vote Yay!, but I'm reluctant until we see some actual gameplay. What worries me is that the CEO said the game would be similar to BG2. This to me is a complete letdown if it turns out to be true: another RPG on rails while all I want is a huge world to explore and interact with like in BG1.
I feel the same way. BG1 did "open world" right before "open world" was really even a thing. With so many side areas, it gave you the freedom to go wherever you wanted and carve out your own unique paths throughout the game world, but it didn't let you just frolic off and forget about the whole main quest Skyrim-style, as it tried to remind you almost everywhere you went that there was a sinister conspiracy behind the iron shortage and the bandit raids.
It also didn't try to hold the player's hands, which nowadays would be a unique feature by itself. Early on, some NPCs told you to stay on the road, but you were free to wander off regardless, making it possible for you to encounter ankhegs, flesh golems, sirines, and worse even at level 1—there was very little level scaling, and thank Bhaal for that.
Reinforced by its, dare I say it, perfectly executed exploration element, the game managed to hit that sweet spot between fantasy adventure high jinks and ominous murder mystery that was so damn compelling. And it did all this with style, without taking itself too seriously.
I've been waiting for a tactical CRPG that does justice to the exploration aspect of BG, but so far, unfortunately, it doesn't seem like it's coming. For whatever reason, all the studios that attempt to fill the huge gaping Baldur's-Gate-shaped hole in the modern gaming industry, all seem to ignore this particular facet of that game's legacy, ultimately causing them to fall short of achieving that goal.
I'm inclined to vote Yay!, but I'm reluctant until we see some actual gameplay. What worries me is that the CEO said the game would be similar to BG2. This to me is a complete letdown if it turns out to be true: another RPG on rails while all I want is a huge world to explore and interact with like in BG1.
I feel the same way. BG1 did "open world" right before "open world" was really even a thing. With so many side areas, it gave you the freedom to go wherever you wanted and carve out your own unique paths throughout the game world, but it didn't let you just frolic off and forget about the whole main quest Skyrim-style....
Bg1's exploration was great...on the first playthrough. After that, it just becomes "How much nothing can I skip?" I also disagree that BG2 was railroaded. You can do 70% of the game in whatever order you want. In fact, it did exploration BETTER than BG1 (yeah, I said it.) There was always SOMETHING to find.
Bg1's exploration was great...on the first playthrough. After that, it just becomes "How much nothing can I skip?"
Not for me it doesn't. I'd estimate my total BG1 full playthroughs to be over 40, and of those, the ones with 100% map completion to be over 35.
Exploring the BG1 maps is probably my favorite part of the whole BG saga, there's just something that I really enjoy about that experience. There's probably something to be said about how art, sound and area design in a video game can reflect the tranquility of nature or the rush of a busy city, but that stuff is above my paygrade.
I also disagree that BG2 was railroaded. You can do 70% of the game in whatever order you want. In fact, it did exploration BETTER than BG1 (yeah, I said it.) There was always SOMETHING to find.
"Railroaded" is probably a strong term. It's the difference between having an area populated by quests and points of interest, and having a quest area. One game focuses more on exploration and freedom of discovery, the other focuses more on giving you a more focused experience and taking you on a ride.
It really comes down to the sandbox vs theme park game design discussion and your preference in that matter. Not that BG1 was extremely sandboxy or BG2 extremely theme-parky, but they certainly each represented one side of that spectrum.
Of course, the later BioWare titles all went down the same direction BG2 did, but I personally wish they kept more of the BG1 game design approach throughout their later years.
Edit: I may have severely underestimated my number of BG1 playthroughs, lol!
So, if he failed to address "missing" on their game, imagine what he will do with BG3 if the tries an similar solution. At least i hope that he make an easily moddable game, so people will able to mod 5e or maybe even 3.5e rules into it.
edit : Around 48m, he talks about how the combat is too slow on D:OS, but his solution is to make combat more puzzle like instead of more fast, speed up animations or etc
edit : Around 48m, he talks about how the combat is too slow on D:OS, but his solution is to make combat more puzzle like instead of more fast, speed up animations or etc
Strictly speaking, TB combat *should* be more puzzle like. Otherwise why even bother with TB if you can't do it right - it's meant to challenge your intellect and strategic ability, i.e. something RT(wP) can't deliver as good as TB does. If not, then you might as well go for RT and let players test their reflexes.
edit : Around 48m, he talks about how the combat is too slow on D:OS, but his solution is to make combat more puzzle like instead of more fast, speed up animations or etc
Strictly speaking, TB combat *should* be more puzzle like. Otherwise why even bother with TB if you can't do it right - it's meant to challenge your intellect and strategic ability, i.e. something RT(wP) can't deliver as good as TB does. If not, then you might as well go for RT and let players test their reflexes.
I don't think so. Might & Magic VI-VIII offer both. Real itme and turn based. In turn based, the game doesn't have environmental gimmicky,
I don't think so. Might & Magic VI-VIII offer both. Real itme and turn based. In turn based, the game doesn't have environmental gimmicky,
M&M 6-8 are not exactly known for the depth of combat, they're more about free-roaming exploration and being resourceful at finding non-direct approach if the path is blocked by monsters.
Comments
Have few issues with an game doesn't means that doesn't work. I can't detail since i never played P:K with an kineticist, but spell slots and some skills that damage attributes is nothing new too. On BG if you have your familiar killed, you take an PERMANENT CON damage. On M&M VI, divine intervention ages your character 10 years and at old ages, he receive stat penalties. I an not sure, but i believe that if you ressurect someone that had his body erradicated, you lost permanently stats too. Not temporary like nwn2. Permanently.
Is like Vincke with missing. only because failed on his testing, he assumes that something that works since 80s dungeon crawlers can't work on a video game.... What "works" is everyone using macros to spam the same rotation, never missing, but needing to spam the same rotation 5000 times to kill an boss, that is fun /sarcasm.
It's psychology factor mostly. If you play for the first time, which today is usually also the last time due to games piling up faster than you can play them, then you don't know when it's appropriate time to use limited resources.
Again, I'm not saying a grenade or arrow on a timer is a good decision. But poison sounds perfectly fine if we assume it leaves vapors too toxic to be exposed to them twice in a minute. Or the warlock, who by system's default will not take health risks associated with strain imposed by high-end spells.
That permanent CON damage is why familiars spend all the game stuck in master's backpack, instead of using their abilities.
I said so earlier, but 5000 times on repeat is an example of bad design in its own right. Yes, you kinda have to make sure player is able to figure out the winning strategy after the fight already started, but there's zero reason the boss has to be a single solid object.
Do you know why CDs was added in the first place? Due HW limitations of skills with a lot of particles. Was not added by default.
An weredruid still can be 100% of time on were form. Something that is not possible in other games...
PS : You can't use your strategy on fire or cold immune mobs and it makes perfectly sense.
No, that is awful. You need to purchase or prepare poison(an skill + roll check to determine the power), apply poison on your weapon/arrow and the enemy do an fortitude save to be poisoned or not and how deadly he will be poisoned. Even Skyrim that is an dumbed down to oblivion game has no CDs on poison and you can craft poison(but not "randomness")
And guess what, the removal of random factor lead to an stream of changes that affected everything and make the game far worse than Morrowind for eg.
Make it temporary and one save per rest to remove the attribute damage.
Yes, you are RIGHT.
Anyway, i still think that CDs are the worst way to "balance" any skill. Spell slots, casting time, reagent requirement, temp attribute damage, etc, etc, etc are far better
Moreover, as I try to read everywhere, I genuinely began to think there's more negative written about the game than there's positive. It was my genuine understanding after all the arguments. And then I decided to check the poll results.
You keep insisting on me dismissing opposite opinions, but why? I have always tried to reply to opposite opinions sharing mine. And yes, I haven't agreed with negative comments. I repeat: all opinions here are my own, so please don't imagine it means anything about Beamdog and their future games.
I also want to share that during this weekend I spent 12 hours playing co-op DOS2 with my wife. And this has been very, very cool. We play on Tactician and both have some experience of single player. But playing it together is a completely different thing. This is another argument from me to the support of Larian: BG3 will be based on DnD, and DnD is playing together with other people. Larian are experienced in this, while PoE and Pathfinder don't offer a MP mode.
One side observation I've had about DOS2: in turn-based missing indeed leaves a bad feeling. DOS battles are quite dynamic, and occasional misses aren't felt, but when I imagine a round after a round in TB aka in BG when there are only too few actions you can take, eg. attack once or twice a round, and then imagine enemies missing as well - it will soon lead to long and repetitive battles. So the "missing " part of the interview might be an additional confirmation of a TB combat. Missing worked so well in classic BG because it was real time and you can just leave your fighter swinging hits when you concentrate on your mage or thief.
I think that depends. For stoneskin i believe that an expensive component should be required, but i don't think that all spells should have it, micro manage all reagents can become bad.
edit : nwn1/nwn2 offers an mp mode.
Indeed, NWN and NWN2 have a toolset with which to build persistent worlds!
I'm sure you didn't, but that is what it reads like. Look at the context of this with several of your previous posts:
1. Since DOS2 sold well, we shouldn't doubt Larian.
2. Since WotC trusts Larian, we should too.
You've repeated these same points multiple times as well. And now since you point out that the poll is more in favor of, than against, your points are (to me at least) focused entirely on popularity and majority. Since x is more popular, x is correct. But the flip side of this is, since y is unpopular, y is incorrect.
If majority opinion is all that matters, then where does that leave the ones outside the majority?
Again, I believe you, I'm just trying to point out why it seems like, to us, that your comments have just been a dismissal of our opinions.
I didn't say you shouldn't doubt Larian - just on the opposite, I said that you might or might not like them, or their games. I said DOS2 sold well, yes. I said WotC trusts Larian, yes. I also expressed my reasons (MY) for trusting them. I expressed my thoughts on DOS2.
I created this subforum with one thought in mind - to provide a place where people can share opinions, and this is what we all have been doing here. And from what I see "your opinion doesn't matter" has no place neither in this subforum, nor anywhere else on the forum.
The arguments become heated, yes, and it looks like whenever once side states something the other side starts attacking that point of view.
Then I wondered if the reaction to the announcement is indeed so mixed as I started to see from this forum and other places. I checked the exact comments, and since our forum has a poll, checked the poll results. Then checked those users who voted in the poll. And saw that the subforum contains a lot of comments from them.
Maybe what I tried to say is that the more balanced view would be available if those who voted Yes and/or think positively about it shared their opinions AS OFTEN as you folks share your concerns.
What is also troubling me is that people who have a negative view on the matter try to look further than what is written by supporters, or people who at least voiced their support towards this or that argument. I've seen people questioning Beamdog representatives and even high management team in this very subforum, discussing their motives.
There're also a lot of false arguments being mentioned regarding DOS2, eg. no epic spells, no missing in DOS, a big range for missile weapons not taking into the height mechanic.
I think the no epic spells criticism is pretty spot on. Which D:OS 2 spell would you consider to be epic? Something like meteor shower?
Missing it has, agreed.
But I really disagree that high ground increasing range is a valid justification for extremely short ranges without high ground. Sure, high ground helps, but spells and arrows should fly more than a few meters even without it.
Pathfinder changed lot of things from 3.5e that i particularly liked
This are changes on 3.5e that added to the game and made the game overall better. Looking to the Vincke's comments, honestly gave me the impression that he din't even liked BG... Sorry, but if you think that missing doesn't work on a video game, that leveling is too slow, that resting is broken, etc; do he even liked an D&D game? On pathfinder kingmaker, after more than 100 hours of gameplay, my main char was lv 18 and missing happens, save happens, etc; I don't see how this is an problem.
Sven Winke most likely means it doesn't work in gaming today. What also he most likely means is that it doesn't work in their game engine, and with the current 5E implementation into a videogame. They all said they liked BG 1&2, but the games were released a long time ago.
I'm perfectly happy to see a studio try something new with a BG3 title, I wouldn't want it any other way. I'm not looking for an infinity engine clone. Nor do I want BG3 to just be a P:K knockoff.
Only one question. You wanna BG3 to be an D:OS knockoff? Or SCL knockoff?
IF Larien don't plan to make an BG game is a proper BG sequel, why not call it D:OS3? Or SCL2? I like ArmA 3 and BF 1, but will don't like if the next ArmA become more BF like or the next BF more ArmA like. Or course, is just my opinion, i don't own the IP. If they wanna make BG3 into an battle royale, an hero shooter or a racing game, they can...
I feel the same way. BG1 did "open world" right before "open world" was really even a thing. With so many side areas, it gave you the freedom to go wherever you wanted and carve out your own unique paths throughout the game world, but it didn't let you just frolic off and forget about the whole main quest Skyrim-style, as it tried to remind you almost everywhere you went that there was a sinister conspiracy behind the iron shortage and the bandit raids.
It also didn't try to hold the player's hands, which nowadays would be a unique feature by itself. Early on, some NPCs told you to stay on the road, but you were free to wander off regardless, making it possible for you to encounter ankhegs, flesh golems, sirines, and worse even at level 1—there was very little level scaling, and thank Bhaal for that.
Reinforced by its, dare I say it, perfectly executed exploration element, the game managed to hit that sweet spot between fantasy adventure high jinks and ominous murder mystery that was so damn compelling. And it did all this with style, without taking itself too seriously.
I've been waiting for a tactical CRPG that does justice to the exploration aspect of BG, but so far, unfortunately, it doesn't seem like it's coming. For whatever reason, all the studios that attempt to fill the huge gaping Baldur's-Gate-shaped hole in the modern gaming industry, all seem to ignore this particular facet of that game's legacy, ultimately causing them to fall short of achieving that goal.
I couldn't agree more with everything you said!
Not for me it doesn't. I'd estimate my total BG1 full playthroughs to be over 40, and of those, the ones with 100% map completion to be over 35.
Exploring the BG1 maps is probably my favorite part of the whole BG saga, there's just something that I really enjoy about that experience. There's probably something to be said about how art, sound and area design in a video game can reflect the tranquility of nature or the rush of a busy city, but that stuff is above my paygrade.
"Railroaded" is probably a strong term. It's the difference between having an area populated by quests and points of interest, and having a quest area. One game focuses more on exploration and freedom of discovery, the other focuses more on giving you a more focused experience and taking you on a ride.
It really comes down to the sandbox vs theme park game design discussion and your preference in that matter. Not that BG1 was extremely sandboxy or BG2 extremely theme-parky, but they certainly each represented one side of that spectrum.
Of course, the later BioWare titles all went down the same direction BG2 did, but I personally wish they kept more of the BG1 game design approach throughout their later years.
Edit: I may have severely underestimated my number of BG1 playthroughs, lol!
"they really hated"
"there are books about it"
Around 40m.
So, if he failed to address "missing" on their game, imagine what he will do with BG3 if the tries an similar solution. At least i hope that he make an easily moddable game, so people will able to mod 5e or maybe even 3.5e rules into it.
edit : Around 48m, he talks about how the combat is too slow on D:OS, but his solution is to make combat more puzzle like instead of more fast, speed up animations or etc
I don't think so. Might & Magic VI-VIII offer both. Real itme and turn based. In turn based, the game doesn't have environmental gimmicky,