Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

Dark Dreams of Furiae - a new module for NWN:EE! Buy now
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

Baldur's Gate III announced

1161719212261

Comments

  • ArdanisArdanis Member Posts: 1,714
    While it's not related specifically to BG3, the focus on streaming really does bother me a lot. As if internet already doesn't constitute several percent of greenhouse emissions.

    ThacoBellAdul
  • kanisathakanisatha Member Posts: 755
    @kanisatha @deltago says that his insiders say BG3 will have combat/view similar to the Elder Scrolls series (here - https://forums.beamdog.com/discussion/comment/1080328#Comment_1080328 , more on the Steam forum).

    @deltago can clarify, but I did not read his comment that way at all. Seemed to me he was just asking a hypothetical rhetorical question.

  • SorcererV1ct0rSorcererV1ct0r Member Posts: 1,759
    I think I addressed this one a few times already. I don't find the D:OS2 armor system "homogenized", I like it, and I understand why they switched to it from the D:OS1 armor system (which I also liked) - not to make the player able to stun/freeze/knockdown/blind/petrify all the enemies during the first turn due to higher initiative of your characters and their high stats resulting in over 100% chances of success for those crowd-control spells. When enemies have physical or magical armor, you have to go through it first to be able to crowd-control. This improves the combat, IMHO. "Got criticized" is a big statement. That point of view is common on the Codex. I don't see much criticism of that in game reviews. But that is, again, not relevant.

    I strongly disagree. The fact that mindflayers can enslave your party members on a failed save make then an much more tougher enemies and engage then become much more risk situation. And spells save or die/petrify/etc are amazing to make the combat tense. On Pathfinder Kingmaker, an rogue sneaked on my cleric that know freedom of movement and i casted finger of death on him. The encounter could change if he succeed on his save.

    Combat on D:OS is too much risk free IMO....

    And note, i think that this legendary creatures should be true legendaries. IMO Dragons on D&D/Pathfinder needs to be more deadly. If an sorcerer with draconic bloodline in 10 years managed to go from lv 1 to 20 and learn tp to stop the time and shape the reality with wish, imagine an ancient dragon that lived for very long time. IMO an ancient silver dragon should be able to cast 2 cold spells per turn, maximized and empowered and if you wanna kill one of then, he will not be stationary waiting you to be killed, trowing one dragon breath in few turns he will be flying and bombarding you from spells that he had millenniums to improve and even some lost spells that no man even knew of his existence. Try to dispel your magical effects(if you try to fly or cast protection from cold for eg), prepare traps on his lair, use constructs to distract the party while he bombard you from above, etc. Fight an old dragon should be an terrifying experience IMO. The party needs to hire mercenaries and an amazingly good plan to have any chance against any old dragon dragon. And ancient dragons should be demigod level powerful.

  • BallpointManBallpointMan Member Posts: 940
    kanisatha wrote: »

    Oh, one absolutely precludes the other, and in my estimation it is precisely the D:OS games that prove this. They are superficial, silly farce. They look and feel and play like a Nickelodeon TV show.

    Honest question - how am I (or is anyone) supposed to respond to this? You've stated your opinion as if it is fact - and in doing so, only contradicted my opinion.

    It feels like every time a new piece of news comes out, all we see is each side shouting their positions at each other.

    JuliusBorisovSkatan
  • kanisathakanisatha Member Posts: 755
    kanisatha wrote: »

    Oh, one absolutely precludes the other, and in my estimation it is precisely the D:OS games that prove this. They are superficial, silly farce. They look and feel and play like a Nickelodeon TV show.

    Honest question - how am I (or is anyone) supposed to respond to this? You've stated your opinion as if it is fact - and in doing so, only contradicted my opinion.

    It feels like every time a new piece of news comes out, all we see is each side shouting their positions at each other.

    No, I just responded to your statement. Mine is no more or less opinion/fact than yours which I was responding to.

  • ArcanisArcanis Member Posts: 377
    One thing that anoyed the hell out of me in BG1 (and to a much lesser degree BG2) is the ammount of luck in it.
    Many battles are, especially if you go into the game blind, more luck than actual skill.
    Too many encounter ending spells are simply luck based. Silent can make every caster trivial and web can make most melee enemies trivial. The main difficulty agaisnt Sarevok in 1 was that he was mostly imune to your standard cheap tricks thanks to his ridiculous MR.

    I often read that Baldurs Gate offers great tactical combat, but most of the time you did not need any tactics aside from having a handful spells which turn nearly every combat into a cakewalk with just a bit of luck!

    The first real enemy in the game is Tarnesh, who has only three spells: Horror and two MM.
    At level one the chance to fail your save against horror is pretty high and the missiles can end your career if you where unlucky with your hp (or played a squishier class).
    Couple that with the fact that he comes right out of nowhere and you have a battle that has nothing to do with tactics at all.

    If you need to know the battle beforehand, aside from some scouting of course, is not a sign of a challenging game - all normal battles should be beatable by people who do not have a walkthrough/know the game and it should be possible without reloading.

    Of course that does not count for bonus bosses, like optional dragon fights and such, but you also should not really just stumble upon them without warning..

    On the topic of TB battles:
    Most D&D games to date are actually turn-based. Infinity Engines "live turns" are the exception.
    Turn based combat gives yo uthe chance to test the tactical skill of the player instead of his reaction.
    D&D in itself is turn based, because it wants you to play tactical.
    Changing a D&D game to true real time (instead of the simulated live turns of BG) makes *more* skills and feats obsolete than just changing the armor system. Why? Because the move range and initiative are actually part of the armor calculation.

    And lastly about the silly feel of Larians game:
    Baldurs Gate has loads of silly and absurd moments. Especially the first part.
    When I played the games I played a serious, if light-hearted game - but only because I did not get the references BioWare put in the game.
    Also, the main story of BG1 was not really that dark, it was mostly clichéd.
    BG2 started of dark as hell, yes, but unless you rushed through the chapters (as you should, storywise) the game is also rather light hearted. Why? Because our dear main character seems to forget being tortured surprisingly well during his myriad on side-quests.
    On top of it, the dark main quest is actually a reason to have light-hearted content.
    If you have a depressed (or even depressive) friend, you do not tell him that everything is doomed, but you try to show him lives bright side.
    How much of Minscs over the top hammyness in the second part is really genuine and how much is an (subconcious) attempt to raise the spirit of the group?
    Any good story balances the light with the dark, the funny with the dramatic.


    After my ramblings, one question:
    What is so bad with the story of D:OS? I am not that far into the game because RL gets in the way, but so far it is fun. Most criticism I heard is "it is jokey and bright" which is not really any criticism at all.
    I mean, why wouldn't it be? If a world I would like to live in because it is a nice place full of friendly people is threatened, I am way mroe invested helping it compaired to a world that is already down the drain and full of rude people.
    The people of D:OS have problems but try to live anyways, try to overcome it without becoming overly jaded and rude - that are people I want to help.

    JuliusBorisovSkatan
  • BallpointManBallpointMan Member Posts: 940
    kanisatha wrote: »

    No, I just responded to your statement. Mine is no more or less opinion/fact than yours which I was responding to.

    So - my initial comment was to say that a TB system can simultaneously cater to someone new and to someone experienced. This was in response to you suggesting it's an either/or proposition. Rather than responding to that, you said the equiavalent of "No. you're wrong. One procludes he other, and D:OS is awful". - I don't know how to respond to that, because rather than advancing the conversation to evidence/logic/philosophy, it was just a flat shutdown.

    It's not lost upon me that the first word in your response to my next question was "No".

    Look. I don't know if you want to have a good natured conversation about this or if you're interested in only expressing your opinion on the subject and leaving it there. I'm interested in the former, but I understand not everyone is.

    ThacoBellSkatan
  • JuliusBorisovJuliusBorisov Member, Administrator, Moderator, Developer Posts: 20,143
    Arcanis wrote: »
    What is so bad with the story of D:OS?

    Yep. I don't think that story is bad. The more I progressed into the story, the richer it seemed. Under layers of "brightness" it showed seriousness and darkness, and I grew attached to my companions (Jahan and Wolgraff). And I liked the fun moments as well.

  • SorcererV1ct0rSorcererV1ct0r Member Posts: 1,759
    edited July 2019
    OlvynChuru wrote: »
    While I know nothing about the BG3 game engine, even a 2D game can implement a flight mechanic. I've created a flight mechanic for BG:EE, which lets a character float toward their destination, going over normally impassable areas like houses, walls and rivers.
    o2epms3ao6dn.png
    My BG:EE implementation really just lets a character go through walls; it can't distinguish between walls someone could fly over and walls that couldn't be flown over (e.g. a wall that goes up to the ceiling). But since the latter are almost always indoors, I simply only let flight work outdoors. I also made a similar ethereal mechanic that lets characters go through walls both indoors and outdoors.

    Ironically modern ""rpg's"" offers way less verticality than even DOS era cRPG's. You can fly and climb on Daggerfall and dungeons has many "floors" linked in a 3D way. Nowadays with physics engine, with 3D photorealistic graphics, game devs instead of making archery more realistic or fun, they limit your archery range to 13m, instead of animating blowd bouncing in armor they say that missing doesnt work(Despite it worked on tons of games), instead of allowing an 'caster' do cool stuff like animate objects in the scenario, they limit casters to one summon, instead of destructive involvement with consequences from destroying it, they hand hold the player into boring lever puzzles... The first thing that M&M devs did after they moved from grid based todoom 2.5D 3D based was add fly and verticality. Something that modern game devs hate.

    Modern RPG's could do much more than 90s RPG's but thanks to the homogenization/balance above everything else.... And the armor system that LArien will copy into BG3 will probably reduce all tense and risk of engaging on battles.

    Adul
  • sarevok57sarevok57 Member Posts: 5,044

    And note, i think that this legendary creatures should be true legendaries. IMO Dragons on D&D/Pathfinder needs to be more deadly. If an sorcerer with draconic bloodline in 10 years managed to go from lv 1 to 20 and learn tp to stop the time and shape the reality with wish, imagine an ancient dragon that lived for very long time. IMO an ancient silver dragon should be able to cast 2 cold spells per turn, maximized and empowered and if you wanna kill one of then, he will not be stationary waiting you to be killed, trowing one dragon breath in few turns he will be flying and bombarding you from spells that he had millenniums to improve and even some lost spells that no man even knew of his existence. Try to dispel your magical effects(if you try to fly or cast protection from cold for eg), prepare traps on his lair, use constructs to distract the party while he bombard you from above, etc. Fight an old dragon should be an terrifying experience IMO. The party needs to hire mercenaries and an amazingly good plan to have any chance against any old dragon dragon. And ancient dragons should be demigod level powerful.

    well, dragons do sleep a lot, they are more like cats, just born natural predators, and when they aren't hunting, they are just sleeping, and plus perhaps they don't improve on tactics because if the ones they use already work, why attempt to improve them?

    i've never seen our cat do push ups or squats to get her muscles in better shape for hunting

    although she should, holy jeebus she literally takes up half the top of the cat post when lying down

    ThacoBellSkatansemiticgod
  • SorcererV1ct0rSorcererV1ct0r Member Posts: 1,759
    edited July 2019
    sarevok57 wrote: »

    And note, i think that this legendary creatures should be true legendaries. IMO Dragons on D&D/Pathfinder needs to be more deadly. If an sorcerer with draconic bloodline in 10 years managed to go from lv 1 to 20 and learn tp to stop the time and shape the reality with wish, imagine an ancient dragon that lived for very long time. IMO an ancient silver dragon should be able to cast 2 cold spells per turn, maximized and empowered and if you wanna kill one of then, he will not be stationary waiting you to be killed, trowing one dragon breath in few turns he will be flying and bombarding you from spells that he had millenniums to improve and even some lost spells that no man even knew of his existence. Try to dispel your magical effects(if you try to fly or cast protection from cold for eg), prepare traps on his lair, use constructs to distract the party while he bombard you from above, etc. Fight an old dragon should be an terrifying experience IMO. The party needs to hire mercenaries and an amazingly good plan to have any chance against any old dragon dragon. And ancient dragons should be demigod level powerful.

    well, dragons do sleep a lot, they are more like cats, just born natural predators, and when they aren't hunting, they are just sleeping, and plus perhaps they don't improve on tactics because if the ones they use already work, why attempt to improve them?

    i've never seen our cat do push ups or squats to get her muscles in better shape for hunting

    although she should, holy jeebus she literally takes up half the top of the cat post when lying down

    There are a difference. Your cat doesn't have 24 INT/CHA as an silver dragon on pathfinder ( his stats ) Anyone with 18-20 INT is considered an genious. And no human can go above 20 without supernatural "conditions" like godly favors, vampirism, etc. Wyvern i agree that an 5~10 INT Wyvern(7 on pathfinder) casting time stop would not make any sense. And note that metalic dragons tends to live among humanoid races, they are not bestial savage beasts. Silver dragons for eg love technology, art, artifacts, etc.

    If you wanna an savage primal beast, then use Wyverns. Dragons should be more intelligent than humans IMO.

    sarevok57Zaxares
  • kanisathakanisatha Member Posts: 755
    kanisatha wrote: »

    No, I just responded to your statement. Mine is no more or less opinion/fact than yours which I was responding to.

    So - my initial comment was to say that a TB system can simultaneously cater to someone new and to someone experienced. This was in response to you suggesting it's an either/or proposition. Rather than responding to that, you said the equiavalent of "No. you're wrong. One procludes he other, and D:OS is awful". - I don't know how to respond to that, because rather than advancing the conversation to evidence/logic/philosophy, it was just a flat shutdown.

    It's not lost upon me that the first word in your response to my next question was "No".

    Look. I don't know if you want to have a good natured conversation about this or if you're interested in only expressing your opinion on the subject and leaving it there. I'm interested in the former, but I understand not everyone is.

    Ok, let me try this one more time.

    You said a game can be both approachable and deep at the same time. This was specifically what I was disagreeing with, although I can add some nuance by saying it is not strictly black and white but rather a trade-off between the two.

    You then further said that for you D:OS is an example of a game that is both. I again disagreed because for me D:OS is the perfect example of a game that sacrificed depth to be more approachable.

    You made an absolute statement that a game can be both. I disagreed in kind. How is my position any different from yours?

    scriver
  • chimaerachimaera Member Posts: 997
    edited July 2019
    kanisatha wrote: »

    You said a game can be both approachable and deep at the same time. This was specifically what I was disagreeing with, although I can add some nuance by saying it is not strictly black and white but rather a trade-off between the two.

    Ironically, approachable but not deep is how I'd describe vanilla BG2. I didn't bother learning the spell system until playing the Ascension battles (or rather the original improved tougher encounters, as the mod was called, I think it wasn't even weidu back then), because there was no point. And outside of the spell system there is not much tactical variation in combat, because there are only few special attack abilities related to kits, the rest of the time it's auto-attack.
    Arcanis wrote: »
    One thing that anoyed the hell out of me in BG1 (and to a much lesser degree BG2) is the ammount of luck in it.
    Many battles are, especially if you go into the game blind, more luck than actual skill.
    Too many encounter ending spells are simply luck based. Silent can make every caster trivial and web can make most melee enemies trivial. The main difficulty agaisnt Sarevok in 1 was that he was mostly imune to your standard cheap tricks thanks to his ridiculous MR.

    I often read that Baldurs Gate offers great tactical combat, but most of the time you did not need any tactics aside from having a handful spells which turn nearly every combat into a cakewalk with just a bit of luck!
    Oh, definitely. I've recently replayed the original BG1 (call it nostalgia) and I was reminded why I don't actually bother with vanilla. Ended up speeding through the game, because it was just left-click most of the time.

  • BallpointManBallpointMan Member Posts: 940
    edited July 2019
    kanisatha wrote: »

    You made an absolute statement that a game can be both. I disagreed in kind. How is my position any different from yours?

    By saying something "can" be something else, I am also implicitly saying it can be not that thing - making it not an absolute statement.

    The difference as I see it is that I was trying to advance the conversation by offering a counter point rather than deciding that you're right or wrong. I could have said "You're wrong. D:OS is great".

    Regardless - I'm afraid my interest in the question has been lost in a sea of semantics (A sea partially of my own making, to be sure).

    Post edited by BallpointMan on
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 10,279
    @kanisatha Well, look at Pokemon. Probabke THE most accessible rpg out there. It can be pretty easily approached by children (being designed that way after all). Any tactics the main story throws at you can be beaten with rock paper scissors. Have enougb of each and you win. Even if you don't, powerlevelling can more than make up the difference. Simple, easy to get into, conquerable for just about any skill level.

    THEN WE HAVE COMPETTITIVE. What's your pokemon's nature? There's dozens of possibilities, and 1-3 of them out of dozen will be optimal, and you will need the best one. What about IVs? EVs? The games don't really tell you what these values are, but you will NEED to figure them out. This is days to weeks of prep work breeding the perfect pokemon with the right stat min/max, the right nature, and the right abilities. WEEKS. Now do this for a team of six. Now make sure all your party members have synergy and their abilities/attacks can back each other up. Also be prepared to deal with counters to your chosen strategy. Congrats! You've spent 1-3 months building a competitive viable team. Now you have a CHANCE to be competitive. Seriously, its crazy.

    SorcererV1ct0rBallpointManbyrne20
  • kanisathakanisatha Member Posts: 755
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    @kanisatha Well, look at Pokemon. Probabke THE most accessible rpg out there. It can be pretty easily approached by children (being designed that way after all). Any tactics the main story throws at you can be beaten with rock paper scissors. Have enougb of each and you win. Even if you don't, powerlevelling can more than make up the difference. Simple, easy to get into, conquerable for just about any skill level.

    THEN WE HAVE COMPETTITIVE. What's your pokemon's nature? There's dozens of possibilities, and 1-3 of them out of dozen will be optimal, and you will need the best one. What about IVs? EVs? The games don't really tell you what these values are, but you will NEED to figure them out. This is days to weeks of prep work breeding the perfect pokemon with the right stat min/max, the right nature, and the right abilities. WEEKS. Now do this for a team of six. Now make sure all your party members have synergy and their abilities/attacks can back each other up. Also be prepared to deal with counters to your chosen strategy. Congrats! You've spent 1-3 months building a competitive viable team. Now you have a CHANCE to be competitive. Seriously, its crazy.

    Ok, fair enough. Only recently did I even come to know that Pokemon is considered to be an RPG. I would never have classified it as such, but that's the thing about labels - they have a certain amount of subjectivity to them. But, I was speaking strictly about games that fall in the cRPG genre. Those are the only games I have exposure to because I am extremely selective about the games that interest me. Other than literally a handful of exceptions (ex. Civilization, Operational Art of War), every game I've ever played has been a cRPG. And among those games, I discern a clear pattern of accessibiltiy and depth being trade-offs (allowing for rare exceptions to the rule as there are with any rule).

    sarevok57
  • sarevok57sarevok57 Member Posts: 5,044
    kanisatha wrote: »
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    @kanisatha Well, look at Pokemon. Probabke THE most accessible rpg out there. It can be pretty easily approached by children (being designed that way after all). Any tactics the main story throws at you can be beaten with rock paper scissors. Have enougb of each and you win. Even if you don't, powerlevelling can more than make up the difference. Simple, easy to get into, conquerable for just about any skill level.

    THEN WE HAVE COMPETTITIVE. What's your pokemon's nature? There's dozens of possibilities, and 1-3 of them out of dozen will be optimal, and you will need the best one. What about IVs? EVs? The games don't really tell you what these values are, but you will NEED to figure them out. This is days to weeks of prep work breeding the perfect pokemon with the right stat min/max, the right nature, and the right abilities. WEEKS. Now do this for a team of six. Now make sure all your party members have synergy and their abilities/attacks can back each other up. Also be prepared to deal with counters to your chosen strategy. Congrats! You've spent 1-3 months building a competitive viable team. Now you have a CHANCE to be competitive. Seriously, its crazy.

    Ok, fair enough. Only recently did I even come to know that Pokemon is considered to be an RPG. I would never have classified it as such, but that's the thing about labels - they have a certain amount of subjectivity to them. But, I was speaking strictly about games that fall in the cRPG genre. Those are the only games I have exposure to because I am extremely selective about the games that interest me. Other than literally a handful of exceptions (ex. Civilization, Operational Art of War), every game I've ever played has been a cRPG. And among those games, I discern a clear pattern of accessibiltiy and depth being trade-offs (allowing for rare exceptions to the rule as there are with any rule).

    i agree with that i never considered pokemon an RPG either, and that always annoyed me, its seems like these days that if there is level ups and experience points to be gained that automatically makes it an RPG, while in reality there is NO role playing what so ever in pokemon, minus starting at third gen where you can choose to be a male or female, but if that is the RP behing pokemon than Turok 3 should be considered and RP then

    every pokemon game is the same ( or at least up to 6th gen, i never played 5th or 7th ) where is about going on an adventure to be the top pokemon master and catching them all, that is your "RP"

    F that noise, what i want to be pokemon breeder? what if i what to become a pokemon gym person, what if i dont want to be the very best, like no one ever was? what if catching them wasnt my true test but i wanted to make pokemon treats instead?

    to me, pokemon is an adventure game not an RPG, why cant i join team rocket or magma or whatever the "antagonist" team is? hell i can't even join the opposite team either, its basically that your character just accidentally gets in the way of some team's plans and you mess 'em all up while trying to become a pokemon master which unfortunately is the only thing you are allowed to do

    and any time when an NPC would ask you a question, it wouldnt matter what you would answer because either a) they won't accept your answer until you answer what THEY want you to say or b) it doesnt matter anyway because the scripted event is going to happen with absolutely no change from either answer anyway

    so the RP in pokemon is extremely weak if non existent, the only thing that is left is the G part of the equation because it is indeed a game

    kanisatha
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 10,279
    Well, there is experience and levels, you collect and build a party. Yup, RPG. Its funny how picky some people get about "role playing" too. You play a role in literally every game ever created. That being said, you can rp about your character motivations, not to mention the make up of their team.

    BallpointMan
  • MonoCanallaMonoCanalla Member Posts: 291
    edited July 2019
    (Because I read about using psions in BG3 halfway in this thread).

    When I played my beloved Psion character in 3ed edition, I remember they were a weakling class for the lazy munchkin. All of its destructive power is lower than the wizard counterparts per level. Creating weapons from thin air was amazing in some table top situations, though. But what made them effective and unique were all the mind control, mind reading, and other “peaceful” powers like fly, invisibility, trespassing walls, etc... Also the fact that you could cast secretly and quietly, even as still as a statue. All table top D&D advantages of course. If able to translate into a video game, that’d be awesome: sacrifice combat power for story power. But that would have to bend the game just for one specific class, like they do in Vampire Masquerade when you choose certain vampire factions.

    I remember my character was almost indestructible, but almost useless damage dealing wise. I had to be creative, like stunning or dominating an adversary and pushing them through the window with my own hands.

    It would be so cool to have his on BG3...

    Skatan
  • ArcanisArcanis Member Posts: 377
    edited July 2019
    Funily enough, I usually agree with the definition @ThacoBell gives for RPGs..

    BUT the older the RPG the less your character is defined beyond "goes into a dungeon, kills stuff, gets loot and levels up".
    Originally RPG really just ment "you have stats and levels" and story or an actual character was ..optional.

    I however grew up with BG1 as my first RPG and thus I expect a story and some assistance in creating a character in my head! >_<
    ...Actually, it is possible that I played DSA on pc first.. anyways my point still stands.

    I also used to say that Diablo 1 isn't really an rpg, because there is little real story and your characters have less personality than the dungeon levels!
    But yeah, bottom line: A lot of games with no story and no ..role to play are technicly rpgs.

    Also, Pokemon is an RPG. Your character is not the focus of the customization, yes, but your team actually gives you character. Are you just using the strongest monsters? Do you use a Theme?
    The possibilites are limited, but there are still there.
    (I also often think that people overestimate the importance of customization for rpgs, but I think that is a slightly different topic..)

  • JuliusBorisovJuliusBorisov Member, Administrator, Moderator, Developer Posts: 20,143
    A new interview.

    Q: Original Sin 2 has very humorous writing which works well in the context of the game. For Baldur’s Gate 3, are you getting influenced by the work you have done so far or are you going to go into a completely different direction?

    A. Baldur’s Gate 3 is a different world than the one of Divinity, because of Dungeons and Dragons. The world of Divinity: Original Sin 2 world is big so there are a lot of serious things in there, but also, there was humor. This is the same in Baldur’s Gate 1 and 2. It was not all serious, you know, there was also fun to be had. So you should expect something similar.

    Q: On the subject of gameplay, is it going to be influenced by Original Sin or are you trying to make something that’s closer to the original Baldur’s Gate games?

    A: We are moving forward, so we don’t want to go look backward. We want to innovate within the RPG genre and we have a bunch of ideas. We took the D&D fifth edition ruleset, we ported it to video game format, and we saw the things that didn’t work. So we started working on that. And then we also added systems that would replace the game master because there’s no human sitting inside of your computer. And that allows you to do things that you would otherwise not be able to do. And so that is pretty much the approach that we’ve taken. All the core values that were important to us in Original Sin, like the fact that the game reacts to what you did and that the story would change in a logical way are still in, except that we are doing more.

    More at https://wccftech.com/larian-studios-interview-innovating-baldurs-gate-3/

    SkatanArcanisBallpointMan
  • sarevok57sarevok57 Member Posts: 5,044
    A new interview.

    Q: Original Sin 2 has very humorous writing which works well in the context of the game. For Baldur’s Gate 3, are you getting influenced by the work you have done so far or are you going to go into a completely different direction?

    A. Baldur’s Gate 3 is a different world than the one of Divinity, because of Dungeons and Dragons. The world of Divinity: Original Sin 2 world is big so there are a lot of serious things in there, but also, there was humor. This is the same in Baldur’s Gate 1 and 2. It was not all serious, you know, there was also fun to be had. So you should expect something similar.

    Q: On the subject of gameplay, is it going to be influenced by Original Sin or are you trying to make something that’s closer to the original Baldur’s Gate games?

    A: We are moving forward, so we don’t want to go look backward. We want to innovate within the RPG genre and we have a bunch of ideas. We took the D&D fifth edition ruleset, we ported it to video game format, and we saw the things that didn’t work. So we started working on that. And then we also added systems that would replace the game master because there’s no human sitting inside of your computer. And that allows you to do things that you would otherwise not be able to do. And so that is pretty much the approach that we’ve taken. All the core values that were important to us in Original Sin, like the fact that the game reacts to what you did and that the story would change in a logical way are still in, except that we are doing more.

    More at https://wccftech.com/larian-studios-interview-innovating-baldurs-gate-3/

    first i have to say; HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    are you serious? "We are moving forward, so we don’t want to go look backward." to me that sounds like they are saying; " the original baldur's gate series can go pound sand, we are going to do it the way we want to do it, and we don't give a damn sort of deal"

    and i love how they continue to "claim" that they are trying to be innovative and going forward and all this jargon and yet rumors abound that they want to use a combat system that is older than dinosaurs themselves ( with their turn based shenanigans )

    at this point, i think this company is just using the baldur's gate name as a selling feature so then they don't have to waste as much money on advertising, i predict that its just going to be a clone or something similiar to their OS games and just pooping on the BG name "claiming that there game is actually better" somehow

    sorry fam, but as the saying goes "extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence" and this company has been making some extraordinary claims indeed, with nothing to back them up

    i hope im wrong, but i just cant wait to be disappointed and waste my colorful silly looking canadian dollars on this just to say; "what is this nonsense? this isn't baldurs gate, this is just some cash grab wanna be, *sigh*"

    SorcererV1ct0rkanisathaThacoBell
  • SorcererV1ct0rSorcererV1ct0r Member Posts: 1,759
    edited July 2019
    sarevok57 wrote: »
    (...)at this point, i think this company is just using the baldur's gate name as a selling feature so then they don't have to waste as much money on advertising, i predict that its just going to be a clone or something similiar to their OS games and just pooping on the BG name "claiming that there game is actually better" somehow"

    Nailet it.

    And believe or not, this works. See Diablo 3, millions of people purchased expecting to be similar to D2, but the game barely resembles Diablo. Is an isometric wow, with all wow BS like cooldown, stat linked towards gear(how my boots can determine my muscle mass?), cartoonish graphics, etc.

    Jay "fu** that loser" Wilson criticizing things that "doesn't work on d2" and added a lot of wow stuff is not much different than an guy that thinks "D&D/BG is the best RPG of all time, except by D20 that was an success in every game that implemented it, the resting, the combat where armor can deflect blows, spell slots, saves, lore, and everything that is not D:OS2"

    Is possible for an company make an good strategy and a good RPG, see Might & Magic/HoMM for eg, but they din't tried to mix the two. The unique game that combined well both IMO is mount & blade.

  • ArdanisArdanis Member Posts: 1,714
    Except Diablo 3 never happened, that project was replaced with Diablo Online. If anyone bought it hoping for the same experience as D2, then I say serves them right :D

  • LottiLotti Member Posts: 66
    sarevok57 wrote: »
    first i have to say; HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    this company has been making some extraordinary claims indeed, with nothing to back them up

    "what is this nonsense? this isn't baldurs gate

    Your Baldur's Gate was finished a generation ago.

    You love it. Congratulations.

    The new Baldur's Gate will be for new people, who may like it.

    Larian is putting its own money on the line, money that they earned honestly with the Original Sin games, now they are investing it into something they hope that will entertain a lot of people.

    So, they back up their claims with a whole lot of money of their own. Which I find more impressive than some aspies who are convinced that nothing will top their precious precious.

    byrne20jonesr65Ardanis
  • byrne20byrne20 Member Posts: 397
    The fact of the matter is that Larian are never gonna please everyone no matter what they do. They are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. I’m very much looking froward to seeing what they have in store for Baldur’s Gate 3. Turn based or Real time with pause? I don’t care. I appreciate that Larian want to make their own game and want it to be as successful as possible and I trust them. DOS and DOS2 both are great games so they have my faith :smile:

    ArcanisJuliusBorisovjonesr65
  • sarevok57sarevok57 Member Posts: 5,044
    Lotti wrote: »
    sarevok57 wrote: »
    first i have to say; HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    this company has been making some extraordinary claims indeed, with nothing to back them up

    "what is this nonsense? this isn't baldurs gate

    Your Baldur's Gate was finished a generation ago.

    You love it. Congratulations.

    The new Baldur's Gate will be for new people, who may like it.

    Larian is putting its own money on the line, money that they earned honestly with the Original Sin games, now they are investing it into something they hope that will entertain a lot of people.

    So, they back up their claims with a whole lot of money of their own. Which I find more impressive than some aspies who are convinced that nothing will top their precious precious.

    not really sure what you mean by that statement, why would someone have aspergers for liking a game they hold dear?

    anyway

    i think people aren't really understanding what is happening

    so when BG 1 first came out, it was a great game back in 99 or 98 whenever that was

    and what made the bg series even better was when BG 2 came out, BG 2 was a "pefect" sequel because it didn't break anything that wasn't broken, and fixed everything else, and basically made everything better in every way, like how a sequel should be

    now, i have no problems with them modernizing the bg series to appeal to a bigger audience, but taking a beloved classic and running it through the mud claiming that their version is better, nah bra

    if larian wanted to make a new cool RPG game using 5th edition elements and taking place inside BG the city, i have NO problems with that what so ever, but to call it BG3 is insinuating that this is a sequel to BG 2 which it is not ( or at least is not as far as we know ) and it's definitely not a prequel because this takes place after

    what they should have done was call it something like; Baldur's Gate Armageddon or something like that and not make it seem its a continuation of BG 2

    imagine all the people who loved the half-life series, and then some company comes along and claims that they are going to make half-life 3, the internet would be on fire for the hype, but then said company says; our game is going to be awesome, because we are going to make it "new" and "innovative" and by doing so they just make a fortnite clone, because that is what all the kids are playing these days, if that company so dared to do that to the half-life series, there would be millions of half-life fans raising their pitch fork and torches and would burn that company down to the ground for its sacrilege

    we all have games that we hold dear to us, and we hate and despise the fact that companies sometimes come in and shit all over games that had such a good REP of being great, and now their REP has been soiled because companies have used that "nostalgia advertising" for their own benefit and left them in the dust

    i just have a feeling that this will be a nail in the coffin for the BG series, something that started so great and was pretty damn epic, is now just going to be more AAA fodder thrown to the side once its complete

    SorcererV1ct0rkanisathaThacoBell
  • LottiLotti Member Posts: 66
    sarevok57 wrote: »
    ...but taking a beloved classic and running it through the mud claiming that their version is better, nah bra

    ... insinuating that this is a sequel to BG 2

    what they should have done ...

    ... there would be millions of half-life fans raising their pitch fork and torches and would burn that company down to the ground for its sacrilege

    ... come in and shit all over games ...

    ... a nail in the coffin for the BG series

    ... more AAA fodder thrown to the side once its complete

    Oh, man, you have issues.

  • AdulAdul Member Posts: 1,988
    "We're making Baldur's Gate 3. Also, we don't look back, only forward."

    Does not compute.

    ThacoBellscriver
Sign In or Register to comment.