Only Pool of Radiance was first edition. All the subsequent games were second. Pool of Radiance didn't even have Ranger or Paladin. BG ruleset is almost identical to the later Goldbox -- except when they made smart changes for the sake of the game: removing demihuman level restrictions, for one example.
Reading more here and going back and playing DOS1, I think some people really ought to give that game a shot or its sequel.
Seems like a sizable number of folks either complaining or preoccupied by some of the things Larian has said really ought to give those games a whirl. They are not games designed to be friendly to casual gamers. They're actually subtly complex RPG's and are clearly targeted at both fans of the CRPG and tabletop.
The combat might be a turnoff at first, but once you get accustomed to it, it does play out as being about your characters' powers -- not about solving some terrain puzzle. Yes, the terrain and area effects are important, but "solving the puzzle" won't win you the higher-level fights by itself. You need to have builds that can match up. You need to not just have leveled up characters, not just the best loot from your previous dungeons, but also have made the right purchases from the vendors (especially in the case of adding skills via the books). At least on the higher difficulty setting.
And the engine itself really is gorgeous and lends itself to a more diverse dungeon crawling experience than IE games could do. If you enjoyed the more complex dungeons like Durlag's Tower, the OS games deliver that kind of dungeon crawl, only with more complexity. Because of the engine and the kind of barebones implementation of the DnD rules, the IE games were greatly limited outside of combat and dialogue.
The original suffers a bit from slooow pacing in the opening act -- but hey, so did the original BG.
Only Pool of Radiance was first edition. All the subsequent games were second. Pool of Radiance didn't even have Ranger or Paladin. BG ruleset is almost identical to the later Goldbox -- except when they made smart changes for the sake of the game: removing demihuman level restrictions, for one example.
Not true. Read the description for Ranger in the Pools of Darkness Journal, it is clearly 1st edition with the mage spells. As for Pool of Radiance, that game just didn't implement all classes.
Reading more here and going back and playing DOS1, I think some people really ought to give that game a shot or its sequel.
Seems like a sizable number of folks either complaining or preoccupied by some of the things Larian has said really ought to give those games a whirl. They are not games designed to be friendly to casual gamers. They're actually subtly complex RPG's and are clearly targeted at both fans of the CRPG and tabletop.
Yeah, but well as I said, I played them, put a decent time into them, around 30 into the first game, 50 on the second. I really wanted to like them, but the battle system I grew to just detest and I don't even see the point of it now, I don't know what made them think it would be a good idea to have such a metagame style of combat with the skills. Its hollow, and once you see through it there's nothing to enjoy about the combat at all.
I also found that such RPGs without a certain effort put into them in terms of storytelling and theme and setting can easily lose my engagement and I just didn't care eventually. And I was doing OS2 in co-op, but I think my friend was similarly bored by the battle system and also not engaged with the story (though that would less bother him if he was enjoying the gameplay, which he wasn't really.)
I kinda get why they did so well, in terms of games now they're a novelty, they have a lot of sandbox parts where you can do whatever and try different things and I guess that works for a certain audience. It does seem in these days with all these survival sims that I barely recognise as games because I really see them as pointless. I'm just not in that audience, and I think Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 were made for a very different audience too, the one I'm in who want a bit more motivation and a bit more focus. I didn't mind that in comparison to Fallout, say, BG isn't as reactive. That isn't really what BG wanted to be, it wanted to be more of a story driven series, and it worked becaused the story was great.
Whereas with Original Sin 2, I would say Fallout and Fallout New Vegas are much better games that do a lot of the same things. People tend to be down on Fallout's combat, and its not without reason, but I'll take it over Original Sin, every time.
If that's true, why does the marketing seem to be targeted directly at old players? What would new customers care about BG3?
Being an old player myself, I don't see this game as being marketed mainly at old players, quite the opposite. Larian has a huge fanbase of their own; DOS & DOS2 sales went into millions. The comparisons to DOS are being made constantly in the interviews.
This works both ways, btw. I've seen some Larian fans coming over at other forums like reddit, asking about BG 1&2, because they got interested in these games after hearing Larian is making BG3, only to be driven off by the vitriol.
Yeah, that's why the new, unrelated game is called "BG3", because all the Larian fans who know nothing about BG will get so excited because of the title. Its also why every single interview HAS to mention BG1 and/or 2. Because this game is definitely not being aggressivley associated with the franchise or marketed in a way to make people think its a sequel.
If that's true, why does the marketing seem to be targeted directly at old players? What would new customers care about BG3?
Being an old player myself, I don't see this game as being marketed mainly at old players, quite the opposite. Larian has a huge fanbase of their own; DOS & DOS2 sales went into millions. The comparisons to DOS are being made constantly in the interviews.
This works both ways, btw. I've seen some Larian fans coming over at other forums like reddit, asking about BG 1&2, because they got interested in these games after hearing Larian is making BG3, only to be driven off by the vitriol.
Yeah, that's why the new, unrelated game is called "BG3", because all the Larian fans who know nothing about BG will get so excited because of the title. Its also why every single interview HAS to mention BG1 and/or 2. Because this game is definitely not being aggressivley associated with the franchise or marketed in a way to make people think its a sequel.
Because the name is still well known. But the player base is not there anymore. And even back then it was much smaller. Look up the steam data for the most popular currently played games, for example. You won't find the BG EEs on that list, but you will find D:OS2, competing with TW3 and Skyrim.
Yes, because compare an PC only game made with relative small budget with massive famous AAA games available on consoles is very fair... And if DOS is so good, why he don't make DOS 3 and leave BG in peace? About SKyrim, what maintain Skyrim alive is mods. Nobody will play Skyrim if wasn't by mods.
My fear is that will be a lot of awful cooldown,stats linked towards gear, gimmicky puzzle like battles, bows with 13m, etc; on BG3 and people will think that BG1/2 are the same as SCL feat D:OS...
Reading more here and going back and playing DOS1, I think some people really ought to give that game a shot or its sequel.(...).
Reading more here and going back and playing IWD:EE
No nerf toy bows, no cooldowns, tons of epic spells like stop time, tons of classes to choose, no wiz8 like slow animations, no enemies that require to be impaled 1000 times in the head to die, but never evade, no armor that never deflects your blows, etc.
[
Whereas with Original Sin 2, I would say Fallout and Fallout New Vegas are much better games that do a lot of the same things. People tend to be down on Fallout's combat, and its not without reason, but I'll take it over Original Sin, every time.
Yes, Fallout 1/2 has an awful combat but i take FL1/2 over D:OS any time.
Can you imagine an fallout combat using D:OS mechanics?
- Trow an grenade? Wait 10 turns to trow again, doesn't matter if you have more grenades on your backpack. Grenades are on cooldown.
- Found this impressive 14.5x114mm anti materiel rifle? His range is 8m but you can never miss.
- See this power armor? Can't deflect even an .22 LR shot. Only works to boost your HP.
- Instead of an tactical approach trying to see what to invest, decide, etc; you spend most of the time solving environmental puzzles
- See this ghoul? You need to fire with an full auto 12 gauge shotgun 20 times into the head to kill him.
If that's true, why does the marketing seem to be targeted directly at old players? What would new customers care about BG3?
Being an old player myself, I don't see this game as being marketed mainly at old players, quite the opposite. Larian has a huge fanbase of their own; DOS & DOS2 sales went into millions. The comparisons to DOS are being made constantly in the interviews.
This works both ways, btw. I've seen some Larian fans coming over at other forums like reddit, asking about BG 1&2, because they got interested in these games after hearing Larian is making BG3, only to be driven off by the vitriol.
Yeah, that's why the new, unrelated game is called "BG3", because all the Larian fans who know nothing about BG will get so excited because of the title. Its also why every single interview HAS to mention BG1 and/or 2. Because this game is definitely not being aggressivley associated with the franchise or marketed in a way to make people think its a sequel.
Because the name is still well known. But the player base is not there anymore. And even back then it was much smaller. Look up the steam data for the most popular currently played games, for example. You won't find the BG EEs on that list, but you will find D:OS2, competing with TW3 and Skyrim.
No infintiy engine game suffers from slow pacing. Even an battle that lasts 10 turns, lasts only one minute thanks to RtWP system.
Yeah, it does. Candlekeep->Friendly Arm->Beregost->Nashkel all before you enter your first dungeon, and first true lengthy experience with the only real system of challenges in the IE games, it's just waaay too much town. And even when you enter that dungeon it's like one and a half levels of still talking to townsfolk!
And please don't tell me that you don't *have* to play it that way, I realize as much. But that's what the plot of the game tells you to do, and thus is going to be most players' first run.
Also editing to add: your descriptions of the OS games are simply false. There's not this grenade cooldown when I'm playing.
Yeah, it does. Candlekeep->Friendly Arm->Beregost->Nashkel all before you enter your first dungeon, and first true lengthy experience with the only real system of challenges in the IE games, it's just waaay too much town. And even when you enter that dungeon it's like one and a half levels of still talking to townsfolk!
Also editing to add: your descriptions of the OS games are simply false. There's not this grenade cooldown when I'm playing.
Spend a lot of time outside of dungeons is not "slow pacing" IMO
About cooldowns, i think that you understood my point. Old RPG's never used this mechanic and is one factor that made then better than modern ones.
And to add even further... you *do* have to shoot bullet sponge enemies in the fallout games
Depends a lot. On new vegas, if you have an 9mm SMG and wanna kill an heavy armored super mutant, will take a lot of time and it makes sense. Pick an M1 garand with armor piercing bullets, you don't need to pick anti materiel rifles or similar heavy weapons. They will fall in few seconds
Yeah, it does. Candlekeep->Friendly Arm->Beregost->Nashkel all before you enter your first dungeon, and first true lengthy experience with the only real system of challenges in the IE games, it's just waaay too much town. And even when you enter that dungeon it's like one and a half levels of still talking to townsfolk!
Also editing to add: your descriptions of the OS games are simply false. There's not this grenade cooldown when I'm playing.
Spend a lot of time outside of dungeons is not "slow pacing" IMO
About cooldowns, i think that you understood my point. Old RPG's never used this mechanic and is one factor that made then better than modern ones.
The opening hours of BG are undeniably slow-paced. There's next to no plot progression. The only sidequests you can do are fetch quests. Until you do the mines.
Secondly, I'm not sure you understand why cooldowns exist OS. There's no resting mechanic. There's no other way to limit strong abilities. There's nothing inherently inferior about cooldowns. It's just a different combat/dungeon crawling experience.
Yeah, it does. Candlekeep->Friendly Arm->Beregost->Nashkel all before you enter your first dungeon, and first true lengthy experience with the only real system of challenges in the IE games, it's just waaay too much town. And even when you enter that dungeon it's like one and a half levels of still talking to townsfolk!
Also editing to add: your descriptions of the OS games are simply false. There's not this grenade cooldown when I'm playing.
Spend a lot of time outside of dungeons is not "slow pacing" IMO
About cooldowns, i think that you understood my point. Old RPG's never used this mechanic and is one factor that made then better than modern ones.
The opening hours of BG are undeniably slow-paced. There's next to no plot progression. The only sidequests you can do are fetch quests. Until you do the mines.
Secondly, I'm not sure you understand why cooldowns exist OS. There's no resting mechanic. There's no other way to limit strong abilities. There's nothing inherently inferior about cooldowns. It's just a different combat/dungeon crawling experience.
I almost fell sleep on the first D:OS2 hours, the starting area of BG doesn't have much combat, but has an cool world exploration and if you wanna a lot of combat, play IWD. About cooldowns, you din't get. They are just an ARTIFICIAL limitation that makes no sense. The charname needs to wait X turns to trow fireball, but can raise an wall of fire or even create an rain of meteors. Why? And limiting storng abilities by X casts / combat like PoE2 did is much better.
D:OS abilities are animating an very weak undead(and you can't have 2 of then) or using assassinate, providing that your target is at 13m range, because your master archer that practiced his entire life can't hit an elephant sized target at 14m and then, needing to wait 5 turns to use this boooooooooooring ability again. Maybe i will install the game to "cure" my insomnia....
About cooldowns, you din't get. They are just an ARTIFICIAL limitation that makes no sense.
I'll never understand why certain gamers make these arguments about "artificial" limitations. It's not an argument. What's hilarious to me is that I read this *exact* same argument leveled against spells-per-rest in a debate about Deadfire and PoE.
Yes, it's an artificial limitation. It's an artificial limitation that bishops can only move diagonally. It's an artificial limitation that there's an offside rule in soccer or that runners are only "safe" when touching a base in baseball. That's how games work. With artificial rules.
It's actually you who doesn't seem to understand. In a game without limited spell usage, either via mana or resting or something else, you have to limit powerful abilities somehow. Larian didn't want to center their dungeon crawling around resting and spells-per-rest, and it worked out perfectly fine. It's no more "artificial" than resting and memorization. One method only feels "natural" to you, likely because it's how you got started. But none of it is natural.
@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.
@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.
Yes, i will try focus more on possible BG3 things. But my point is. I wanna do all types of cool stuff that i can on pnp, even if they change a little the rules. My fear is that all types of cool stuff that i can do on BG i can't do on BG 3 because for the lead designer, "doesn't work on video games"
Yes, it's an artificial limitation. It's an artificial limitation that bishops can only move diagonally. It's an artificial limitation that there's an offside rule in soccer or that runners are only "safe" when touching a base in baseball. That's how games work. With artificial rules.
No, other mechanics makes more sense. Example, conjuring an ultra powerful fire
- Makes sense that exhausts much so limits how often you can use on Dark Souls 2 with Forbidden fire
- Makes sense that an hellfire warlock using an fire that can burn anything take CON damage by using hellfire(dnd/nwn2)
- But he trowed it then needs to wait (insert arbitrary number) to trow again makes zero sense
And cooldowns on bows makes less sense either. With magic, maybe you can find an explanation, like an spirit that needs time to reform, an pact with an crazy entity that establish time limit to re use, but with bows, makes no sense. "but in chess, or in baseball", this are competitive sports. Not role playing games. The rules on D&D makes perfectly sense on most parts except how SR is handled on pre 3.5e(someone can be immune to an conjured fire but not to natural fire)
RPG's aren't about being an competitive sport or strategy game. Are about create fictional immersive believable worlds, and CDs, never miss, health inflation, etc breaks the spirit of the genre.
That is how BG1/2 worked and how BG3 should work.
edit : imagine seeing legolas on LoTR missing an elephant at 14m and needing to wait some minutes to fire his bow in the same way that he fired "X" seconds ago. Will be silly
@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.
edit : imagine seeing legolas on LoTR missing an elephant at 14m and needing to wait some minutes to fire his bow in the same way that he fired "X" seconds ago. Will be silly
These are games first and simulations of fantasy worlds second. What's that phrase people on here use to describe mages in BG2 duking it out?
Combat in BG is fun to the degree it resembles a competitive strategy game (it was literally made RT because of RTS popularity). So yes, I think my examples are much more germane than "imagine Legolas ..."
@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.
edit : imagine seeing legolas on LoTR missing an elephant at 14m and needing to wait some minutes to fire his bow in the same way that he fired "X" seconds ago. Will be silly
These are games first and simulations of fantasy worlds second. What's that phrase people on here use to describe mages in BG2 duking it out?
Combat in BG is fun to the degree it resembles a competitive strategy game (it was literally made RT because of RTS popularity). So yes, I think my examples are much more germane than "imagine Legolas ..."
There are a lot of "gaming first" nowdays. How many RPG's make you feel like you are living in another world?
I believe that one of the main reasons to play an RPG is escapism and more immersion = more escapism.
Yes, because compare an PC only game made with relative small budget with massive famous AAA games available on consoles is very fair... And if DOS is so good, why he don't make DOS 3 and leave BG in peace?
Because WotC agreed, which is the point you miss. They want an AAA title and not a small budget game. And the market nowadays is different from what it was when BG came out.
That only makes me lose more hope. Yes, the market changed a lot.
See Dark Souls, an game that is considered hard. If was launched on 90s/earlier 00s, will be just another game. Not an "hardcore" game. Modern game Journalists "P:K **** because you can't kill an insect swarm with an axe and skeletons are too resistant to slashing" corroborate to my impression. Not trying to deviate the topic to PCMR, but dark aliance and similar games on console shows that the console market is far different than the pc market...
Yeah, it does. Candlekeep->Friendly Arm->Beregost->Nashkel all before you enter your first dungeon, and first true lengthy experience with the only real system of challenges in the IE games, it's just waaay too much town. And even when you enter that dungeon it's like one and a half levels of still talking to townsfolk!
Also editing to add: your descriptions of the OS games are simply false. There's not this grenade cooldown when I'm playing.
Spend a lot of time outside of dungeons is not "slow pacing" IMO
About cooldowns, i think that you understood my point. Old RPG's never used this mechanic and is one factor that made then better than modern ones.
The opening hours of BG are undeniably slow-paced. There's next to no plot progression. The only sidequests you can do are fetch quests. Until you do the mines.
Secondly, I'm not sure you understand why cooldowns exist OS. There's no resting mechanic. There's no other way to limit strong abilities. There's nothing inherently inferior about cooldowns. It's just a different combat/dungeon crawling experience.
I almost fell sleep on the first D:OS2 hours, the starting area of BG doesn't have much combat, but has an cool world exploration and if you wanna a lot of combat, play IWD. About cooldowns, you din't get. They are just an ARTIFICIAL limitation that makes no sense. The charname needs to wait X turns to trow fireball, but can raise an wall of fire or even create an rain of meteors. Why? And limiting storng abilities by X casts / combat like PoE2 did is much better.
Wow, someone here never saw a necro with "Grasp of the starved", or an HLA archer in an elevated position, mages with Epidemic of Fire, Thunderstorm or meteor shower, warfare´s Overpower, etc etc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZg4AnBKEas
First, in DoS you rarely evade unless you are using uncanny evasion, smoke cover, etc...
Bows, crossbows, and wands have double range if you are in an elevated position, like a tower, balcony, etc, EVEN more with the Farsight skill.
13 m is a long distance ingame, about 1turn or more of running for a melee character without haste, and you can even run and fire in the same turn, and learn a perk to avoid attacks of opportunity while doing that, so I think in that (nor in other game mechanics of dos2 ) is fairly balanced. Archers are über enough as they are now, if 13/28 m is not enough for your ranged character, you are doing it wrong.
And about exploration, just only in the prologue and first maps you have hidden doors, puzzles, quests, secret loot, buried treasures, etc. And the maps are always full: there is no more than 3 m of map without a npc, loot, door, enemies or puzzles ... and unlike the ie games it is a 3D game, so you have places you can only reach by jumping or flying,buildings and ruins with two or more floors, puzzle-sealed loot, moving crates, paintings or doors...
I like more the Bg series then DoS but concerning exploration ( with cool places to find, maps full of secrets and meaningful loot) DoS>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>BG, PoE,Tyranny, IWD
edit : imagine seeing legolas on LoTR missing an elephant at 14m and needing to wait some minutes to fire his bow in the same way that he fired "X" seconds ago. Will be silly
D:OS abilities are animating an very weak undead(and you can't have 2 of then) or using assassinate, providing that your target is at 13m range, because your master archer that practiced his entire life can't hit an elephant sized target at 14m and then, needing to wait 5 turns to use this boooooooooooring ability again. Maybe i will install the game to "cure" my insomnia....
You can fire your bow , fire special arrows and use items or grenades non-stop, cooldowns are only for your skills and spells, and even then when one skill is in cooldown you can use the other abilities you learnt, use items, move, heal, flee or attack... you can even run and fire in the same turn as an archer
[Edit] Almost forgot:there is an entire school of magic called summoning, not only necromancers conjure creatures (And mods added like 30 sumonning types more, from bears to trees to angels).
I understand if DoS games are not your cup of tea, but 90% of your complaints about the game are plainly false. Maybe you only played the prologue or so...?
PsicoVic 23k to 25841 damage. The numbers on D:OS looks inflated like Zimbabwe currency. I really wish that huge number inflation will stay away from BG3. Can you imagine "roll 250 D100" or something ridiculous like that?.. An skill being good only because can trow a lot of numbers is much less interesting than an skill being good because he is very powerful. And being very honest, this skill looks like "burning hands" but with necrotic energy... About for range, 13m is ridiculous and you said that he can reach you in one turn. Nobody will fear being sniped.
To be honest, Grasp of the Dead(sorcerer of undead bloodline on P:K) looks much more impressive. And with an better range.
On D&D long range spells/bows has 400 feet + 40 / level, so you can have 1200 feet range, an human on this range needs more than 10 turns to reach you.
About "exploration", meaningful loot on D:OS is mostly because you are very gear dependent on D:OS. I wish that BG 3 maintain like IWD, where i can solo the game as a sorcerer without eqquiping an single piece of eqquipment.
o.O It was you who said that there is not strong abilities in DoS like Wail of the banshee, that was the point.T There are several in the last chapters, but Grasp of the starved was broken with an endgame character, to be honest. Also requires essence and you need high requirements so you cannot use it much (I do not use it much because it is the abi-dalzim horrid wilting of the DoS)
The point is not the gear, the point is that you have to "explore" to find them: seek buried treasures, hidden doors, locked chests, balconys you can only reach by flying, ruins full of puzzles, jumping from cliffs to cliffs, distract the guards so you can sneak and grab them... etc And in the end you do not have another dagger and an opal, you have something different each time.
And as I said, the maps in both DoS games are full of those.
About for range, 13m is ridiculous and you said that he can reach you in one turn. Nobody will fear being sniped.
On D&D long range spells/bows has 400 feet + 40 / level, so you can have 1200 feet range, an human on this range needs more than 10 turns to reach you.
Yeah, that 13/28 meters mean that you have to climb a tower, or snipe from an cliff to increase your reach, have your companions stop the enemies with debuffs, use your strongest character to put some barriers with crates or barrels and use your tanks to lure the enemies because if not, you are gonna be in trouble. And in case you are threatened, you can run and fire, turn invisible or fight until they fall or your companions get them.
If my melee characters have to spend 10 turns only running and drinking potions to reach a sniper while being fired upon every time, or my marksman just sits 1km away from the fight firing arrows while having tea and pastries.... I do not think I would be able to enjoy this type of TB game. That would be really boring.
PsicoVic, what do you think that happened on Battle of Agincourt? Anyway, you can like D:OS mechanics and etc, but i like D&D rules, i like D&D spells, i like D&D weapons, i like D&D lore, i like the way that D&D deals with attributes, the alignments, etc(...) and fear that BG3 will sacrifice it in order to have an ""system that works on a video gam""" accourding to the lead design.
Making an analogy, imagine that D:OS is bacon and BG1/2 is Ice cream. Mix the two can lead to an distasteful food, even for those who like then both.
And seeing comments like "this thing that worked on tons of games doesn't work on video games" made me worry if they will not add pizza, bacon, etc into an amazing ice cream that nobody produces from an long time.
@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.
Comments
Don't forget all the desserts that became monsters for falling on the table during the creator's games
Seems like a sizable number of folks either complaining or preoccupied by some of the things Larian has said really ought to give those games a whirl. They are not games designed to be friendly to casual gamers. They're actually subtly complex RPG's and are clearly targeted at both fans of the CRPG and tabletop.
The combat might be a turnoff at first, but once you get accustomed to it, it does play out as being about your characters' powers -- not about solving some terrain puzzle. Yes, the terrain and area effects are important, but "solving the puzzle" won't win you the higher-level fights by itself. You need to have builds that can match up. You need to not just have leveled up characters, not just the best loot from your previous dungeons, but also have made the right purchases from the vendors (especially in the case of adding skills via the books). At least on the higher difficulty setting.
And the engine itself really is gorgeous and lends itself to a more diverse dungeon crawling experience than IE games could do. If you enjoyed the more complex dungeons like Durlag's Tower, the OS games deliver that kind of dungeon crawl, only with more complexity. Because of the engine and the kind of barebones implementation of the DnD rules, the IE games were greatly limited outside of combat and dialogue.
The original suffers a bit from slooow pacing in the opening act -- but hey, so did the original BG.
Not true. Read the description for Ranger in the Pools of Darkness Journal, it is clearly 1st edition with the mage spells. As for Pool of Radiance, that game just didn't implement all classes.
Absolutely. Follow the example of @BillyYank.
Yeah, but well as I said, I played them, put a decent time into them, around 30 into the first game, 50 on the second. I really wanted to like them, but the battle system I grew to just detest and I don't even see the point of it now, I don't know what made them think it would be a good idea to have such a metagame style of combat with the skills. Its hollow, and once you see through it there's nothing to enjoy about the combat at all.
I also found that such RPGs without a certain effort put into them in terms of storytelling and theme and setting can easily lose my engagement and I just didn't care eventually. And I was doing OS2 in co-op, but I think my friend was similarly bored by the battle system and also not engaged with the story (though that would less bother him if he was enjoying the gameplay, which he wasn't really.)
I kinda get why they did so well, in terms of games now they're a novelty, they have a lot of sandbox parts where you can do whatever and try different things and I guess that works for a certain audience. It does seem in these days with all these survival sims that I barely recognise as games because I really see them as pointless. I'm just not in that audience, and I think Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 were made for a very different audience too, the one I'm in who want a bit more motivation and a bit more focus. I didn't mind that in comparison to Fallout, say, BG isn't as reactive. That isn't really what BG wanted to be, it wanted to be more of a story driven series, and it worked becaused the story was great.
Whereas with Original Sin 2, I would say Fallout and Fallout New Vegas are much better games that do a lot of the same things. People tend to be down on Fallout's combat, and its not without reason, but I'll take it over Original Sin, every time.
Yeah, that's why the new, unrelated game is called "BG3", because all the Larian fans who know nothing about BG will get so excited because of the title. Its also why every single interview HAS to mention BG1 and/or 2. Because this game is definitely not being aggressivley associated with the franchise or marketed in a way to make people think its a sequel.
Yes, because compare an PC only game made with relative small budget with massive famous AAA games available on consoles is very fair... And if DOS is so good, why he don't make DOS 3 and leave BG in peace? About SKyrim, what maintain Skyrim alive is mods. Nobody will play Skyrim if wasn't by mods.
My fear is that will be a lot of awful cooldown,stats linked towards gear, gimmicky puzzle like battles, bows with 13m, etc; on BG3 and people will think that BG1/2 are the same as SCL feat D:OS...
Reading more here and going back and playing IWD:EE
No nerf toy bows, no cooldowns, tons of epic spells like stop time, tons of classes to choose, no wiz8 like slow animations, no enemies that require to be impaled 1000 times in the head to die, but never evade, no armor that never deflects your blows, etc.
No infintiy engine game suffers from slow pacing. Even an battle that lasts 10 turns, lasts only one minute thanks to RtWP system.
Yes, Fallout 1/2 has an awful combat but i take FL1/2 over D:OS any time.
Can you imagine an fallout combat using D:OS mechanics?
- Trow an grenade? Wait 10 turns to trow again, doesn't matter if you have more grenades on your backpack. Grenades are on cooldown.
- Found this impressive 14.5x114mm anti materiel rifle? His range is 8m but you can never miss.
- See this power armor? Can't deflect even an .22 LR shot. Only works to boost your HP.
- Instead of an tactical approach trying to see what to invest, decide, etc; you spend most of the time solving environmental puzzles
- See this ghoul? You need to fire with an full auto 12 gauge shotgun 20 times into the head to kill him.
Yeah, it does. Candlekeep->Friendly Arm->Beregost->Nashkel all before you enter your first dungeon, and first true lengthy experience with the only real system of challenges in the IE games, it's just waaay too much town. And even when you enter that dungeon it's like one and a half levels of still talking to townsfolk!
And please don't tell me that you don't *have* to play it that way, I realize as much. But that's what the plot of the game tells you to do, and thus is going to be most players' first run.
Also editing to add: your descriptions of the OS games are simply false. There's not this grenade cooldown when I'm playing.
Spend a lot of time outside of dungeons is not "slow pacing" IMO
About cooldowns, i think that you understood my point. Old RPG's never used this mechanic and is one factor that made then better than modern ones.
Depends a lot. On new vegas, if you have an 9mm SMG and wanna kill an heavy armored super mutant, will take a lot of time and it makes sense. Pick an M1 garand with armor piercing bullets, you don't need to pick anti materiel rifles or similar heavy weapons. They will fall in few seconds
The opening hours of BG are undeniably slow-paced. There's next to no plot progression. The only sidequests you can do are fetch quests. Until you do the mines.
Secondly, I'm not sure you understand why cooldowns exist OS. There's no resting mechanic. There's no other way to limit strong abilities. There's nothing inherently inferior about cooldowns. It's just a different combat/dungeon crawling experience.
I almost fell sleep on the first D:OS2 hours, the starting area of BG doesn't have much combat, but has an cool world exploration and if you wanna a lot of combat, play IWD. About cooldowns, you din't get. They are just an ARTIFICIAL limitation that makes no sense. The charname needs to wait X turns to trow fireball, but can raise an wall of fire or even create an rain of meteors. Why? And limiting storng abilities by X casts / combat like PoE2 did is much better.
Note that is not as if D:OS has strong abilities to begin with it. Any spell strong like time stop? Wail of the Banshee? Evard's black tentacles? Flesh to Stone? Horrid wilting? Implosion? Bigby's crushing hand? Wish? Any way to do that? https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder_Kingmaker/comments/9noamx/summoning_on_this_game_is_epicaka_not_limited_to/
D:OS abilities are animating an very weak undead(and you can't have 2 of then) or using assassinate, providing that your target is at 13m range, because your master archer that practiced his entire life can't hit an elephant sized target at 14m and then, needing to wait 5 turns to use this boooooooooooring ability again. Maybe i will install the game to "cure" my insomnia....
I'll never understand why certain gamers make these arguments about "artificial" limitations. It's not an argument. What's hilarious to me is that I read this *exact* same argument leveled against spells-per-rest in a debate about Deadfire and PoE.
Yes, it's an artificial limitation. It's an artificial limitation that bishops can only move diagonally. It's an artificial limitation that there's an offside rule in soccer or that runners are only "safe" when touching a base in baseball. That's how games work. With artificial rules.
It's actually you who doesn't seem to understand. In a game without limited spell usage, either via mana or resting or something else, you have to limit powerful abilities somehow. Larian didn't want to center their dungeon crawling around resting and spells-per-rest, and it worked out perfectly fine. It's no more "artificial" than resting and memorization. One method only feels "natural" to you, likely because it's how you got started. But none of it is natural.
Yes, i will try focus more on possible BG3 things. But my point is. I wanna do all types of cool stuff that i can on pnp, even if they change a little the rules. My fear is that all types of cool stuff that i can do on BG i can't do on BG 3 because for the lead designer, "doesn't work on video games"
No, other mechanics makes more sense. Example, conjuring an ultra powerful fire
- Makes sense that exhausts much so limits how often you can use on Dark Souls 2 with Forbidden fire
- Makes sense that an hellfire warlock using an fire that can burn anything take CON damage by using hellfire(dnd/nwn2)
- But he trowed it then needs to wait (insert arbitrary number) to trow again makes zero sense
And cooldowns on bows makes less sense either. With magic, maybe you can find an explanation, like an spirit that needs time to reform, an pact with an crazy entity that establish time limit to re use, but with bows, makes no sense. "but in chess, or in baseball", this are competitive sports. Not role playing games. The rules on D&D makes perfectly sense on most parts except how SR is handled on pre 3.5e(someone can be immune to an conjured fire but not to natural fire)
RPG's aren't about being an competitive sport or strategy game. Are about create fictional immersive believable worlds, and CDs, never miss, health inflation, etc breaks the spirit of the genre.
That is how BG1/2 worked and how BG3 should work.
edit : imagine seeing legolas on LoTR missing an elephant at 14m and needing to wait some minutes to fire his bow in the same way that he fired "X" seconds ago. Will be silly
What do you guys think?
These are games first and simulations of fantasy worlds second. What's that phrase people on here use to describe mages in BG2 duking it out?
Combat in BG is fun to the degree it resembles a competitive strategy game (it was literally made RT because of RTS popularity). So yes, I think my examples are much more germane than "imagine Legolas ..."
There are a lot of "gaming first" nowdays. How many RPG's make you feel like you are living in another world?
I believe that one of the main reasons to play an RPG is escapism and more immersion = more escapism.
That only makes me lose more hope. Yes, the market changed a lot.
See Dark Souls, an game that is considered hard. If was launched on 90s/earlier 00s, will be just another game. Not an "hardcore" game. Modern game Journalists "P:K **** because you can't kill an insect swarm with an axe and skeletons are too resistant to slashing" corroborate to my impression. Not trying to deviate the topic to PCMR, but dark aliance and similar games on console shows that the console market is far different than the pc market...
Wow, someone here never saw a necro with "Grasp of the starved", or an HLA archer in an elevated position, mages with Epidemic of Fire, Thunderstorm or meteor shower, warfare´s Overpower, etc etc
First, in DoS you rarely evade unless you are using uncanny evasion, smoke cover, etc...
Bows, crossbows, and wands have double range if you are in an elevated position, like a tower, balcony, etc, EVEN more with the Farsight skill.
13 m is a long distance ingame, about 1turn or more of running for a melee character without haste, and you can even run and fire in the same turn, and learn a perk to avoid attacks of opportunity while doing that, so I think in that (nor in other game mechanics of dos2 ) is fairly balanced. Archers are über enough as they are now, if 13/28 m is not enough for your ranged character, you are doing it wrong.
And about exploration, just only in the prologue and first maps you have hidden doors, puzzles, quests, secret loot, buried treasures, etc. And the maps are always full: there is no more than 3 m of map without a npc, loot, door, enemies or puzzles ... and unlike the ie games it is a 3D game, so you have places you can only reach by jumping or flying,buildings and ruins with two or more floors, puzzle-sealed loot, moving crates, paintings or doors...
I like more the Bg series then DoS but concerning exploration ( with cool places to find, maps full of secrets and meaningful loot) DoS>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>BG, PoE,Tyranny, IWD
To be honest, Grasp of the Dead(sorcerer of undead bloodline on P:K) looks much more impressive. And with an better range.
On D&D long range spells/bows has 400 feet + 40 / level, so you can have 1200 feet range, an human on this range needs more than 10 turns to reach you.
About "exploration", meaningful loot on D:OS is mostly because you are very gear dependent on D:OS. I wish that BG 3 maintain like IWD, where i can solo the game as a sorcerer without eqquiping an single piece of eqquipment.
I don't like this "gear playing games"
The point is not the gear, the point is that you have to "explore" to find them: seek buried treasures, hidden doors, locked chests, balconys you can only reach by flying, ruins full of puzzles, jumping from cliffs to cliffs, distract the guards so you can sneak and grab them... etc And in the end you do not have another dagger and an opal, you have something different each time.
And as I said, the maps in both DoS games are full of those.
If my melee characters have to spend 10 turns only running and drinking potions to reach a sniper while being fired upon every time, or my marksman just sits 1km away from the fight firing arrows while having tea and pastries.... I do not think I would be able to enjoy this type of TB game. That would be really boring.
Making an analogy, imagine that D:OS is bacon and BG1/2 is Ice cream. Mix the two can lead to an distasteful food, even for those who like then both.
And seeing comments like "this thing that worked on tons of games doesn't work on video games" made me worry if they will not add pizza, bacon, etc into an amazing ice cream that nobody produces from an long time.
@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.