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!

All you wanted to know about the next Beamdog's project

17677787981

Comments

  • MaurvirMaurvir Member Posts: 494
    I didn't mind the hooded man (Irenicus) because that was foreshadowing. In fact, I rather enjoyed it, as it implies that charname was merely the best alternative out of those remaining - rather than being "special" somehow.

    What I didn't care for was the extreme linearity. Sure, there were a few side-quests, but for the most part it was onward ho. Now, that is partly due to the fact that you are marching to a siege, however, there were plenty of times when camped where a proper side quest could have been completed in a few days. I felt there were a lot of lost opportunities.

    Which is precisely my complaint with ToB. It puts you on a pretty linear path with very, very few opportunities to wander off and smell the roses.

    QuartzKamigoroshiTimbo0o0o0
  • StummvonBordwehrStummvonBordwehr Member, Mobile Tester Posts: 852
    Well I loved SoD, but - as most people - think it’s was in dire need of a manual of bodily health and quickness of action as loot.

    If Trent ever needs directions on where to shove these babies, please feel free to shoot me a PM. Not strings attached!!

    But back on topic... future games:
    IWD 3 or KOTOR 3 would be both be wonderful. I will be ok with 5 ed rules on any of the games (because I have to).

    IWD 3 could be set some 20 years prior of BG1 (the timeline would make that possible), so it could have ties to that game. There could corny cameos and what not, and much of the lore we love and revere. Borderline tacky..

    KOTOR 3 could be a dark game where the RPing the light side was even more difficult, and being evil didn’t always pay off. A world of grey, where choices where less obvious and choosing sides meant you had to face real downsides. And lightsabers... off course.

    Buttercheese
  • rapsam2003rapsam2003 Member Posts: 1,636
    edited December 2019
    I will be ok with 5 ed rules on any of the games (because I have to).
    IWD 3 could be set some 20 years prior of BG1
    Actually, because the editions themselves have timelines, no, IWD 3 could not be set 20 years prior to BG1.

    IWD is set in 1281 DR, and 5th Edition starts in the 1480s DR (it's a little muddy as to the official start year).

    WotC won't allow something to be set 200 years or so prior to the timeline of their current edition.


    However, this is all moot because Beamdog isn't getting the clearance from WotC for any new D&D games (at least, not right now).

    Post edited by rapsam2003 on
    StummvonBordwehrThacoBellQuartz
  • mlnevesemlnevese Member, Moderator Posts: 9,771
    I think the most likely explanation is that people got so used to playing BG1 with the NPC project installed they forgot those personalities and stories are not official. Hence the complaints about changes personalities, etc.

    rapsam2003ThacoBellButtercheeseelminster
  • lroumenlroumen Member Posts: 1,985
    edited December 2019
    Nah, I never play with the mod and I still can recognise clear character traits in the generic voice over and interjections the npcs have in vanilla.

    The general rule of people interaction is that first appearances matter and by presenting each npc a little bit over the top their personalities were made dead right obvious. But these are shallow personalities and can be misinterpretations. Nevertheless, we accept them.

    In bg1 you never get to see more than party chatter and sound sets since very few npcs have extra content. Kivan does not react to tazok, Branwen does not react to tranzig, etcetera. Missed opportunities, maybe, probably the developers did not think of it or had no time or resource to implement these various interactions. I think only Coran has a bit of a side quest in the city and that's all.

    In bg2 however, each npc is fleshed out more due to their side quests and interjections that you get to learn they have a deeper story to tell than what is merely on the surface.

    For some this is why bg2 has better npcs, but for others the bg1 npcs resonate better because they can make up their personalities on their own with the little information given rather than the developers taking us by the hand and drawing it out for us.

    MirandelBelgarathMTHkanisathaKamigoroshi
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 10,279
    edited December 2019
    @lroumen "The second worst thing is that the motives of the main antagonist is so unclear until the end that I seriously wonder why the collective could not simply let them do whatever they want."

    She wanted to save her uncle. Full stop. Its not her motive that makes her interesting, its how similar she is to Sarevok despite being ostensibly "good". SoD is basically exloring the themes of BG1 (Sarevok being the flipped coin to charname) and the series as a whole (nature vs. nuture). While Sarevok was openly evil, he successfully masqueraded as a hero during a time of crisis. Caelar is an Aasimar paladin, but very quickly spreads deadth and destruction in much the same way that Sarevok wished too before he was stopped. Caelar, despite her heritage, isn't good. Even in her backstory we are told how arrogant she was and refused to listen to others because she simply thought she naturally knew better.

    megamike15spacejawsButtercheeseelminster
  • lroumenlroumen Member Posts: 1,985
    I wouldn't overanalyse it like that.
    She only needs one person with certain qualities to be in a certain location. She could have just gone to a person with those qualities and ask, hey, you know what? I think you can help me. Let me explain my predicament. Are you willing to help?

    Other opinions vary but personal I cannot say that I find her special or compelling. The adventure is fun though. Just some of the main plot and foreshadowing is just distracting from all the good stuff that SoD has.

  • KamigoroshiKamigoroshi Member Posts: 5,502
    Her wanting to lay "siege" to a whole plane of existance was a bad joke in and of itself. At least Kaelyn the Dove had settled for a much smaller target: the Wall of the Faithless. And also had the backing of powerful creatures as well in order to at the very least attempt her goal. But Caelar...? Nah. I found that aasimar to be a rather annoying megalomaniac, all things considered. The only things she has in common with Sarevok are them being both fighters, sword users and wearing equipable flashlights-for-eyes. He may also be a megalomaniac, but at least he does things smarter than Caelar.

    Then again I'm part of the vocal minority who thinks crusades of any kind are a horribly booooring plot idea to explore in fiction. So feel free to take my personal opinion with a spoonful of sulfur-flavoured salt.

  • SjerrieSjerrie Member Posts: 1,092
    edited December 2019
    rapsam2003 wrote: »
    One thing about "good" in D&D. It doesn't mean "nice".

    If we take into account the black, white, and single shade of grey that is the alignment chart, I wouldn't exactly call Caelar Lawful Good anymore by the time we meet her. Lawful? Possibly. But more Lawful Stupid or Lawful Unhinged than anything, since she either does not see the death and destruction she wreaks on innocents (Stupid) or no longer cares that's she's sacrificing however many innocents to potentially save just one man (Unhinged).

    Post edited by Sjerrie on
    Balrog99ThacoBell
  • spacejawsspacejaws Member, Mobile Tester Posts: 354
    edited December 2019
    But isn't that the dangerous thing about Lawful Good is that their pursuit of righteousness can blind them to the damage they are causing?

    I can't remember if any lines reflected it but if Caelar is justifying her crusade that she is absolutely offering people a chance at something they want, which is to reclaim their loved ones from the hells, exactly what she is trying to do too then her crusade is justified to her as 'good' internally, whereas others could absolutely challenge that. In a sense she has warped her morality to believe her actions are still worthy, all the while battling that notion inside.

    So, in DnD, if you 'believe' full heartedly you are acting on the side of righteousness and good, can your alignment still reflect that even if you are misguided?

    If a Lawful Good alignment is lead astray by an evil third party are they still in essence good if their actions serve evil deeds?

    The biggest shade of grey in the alignment system is the system itself maybe.

  • scriverscriver Member Posts: 1,854
    Quartz wrote: »
    but even if you look at purely professional reviews... Metacritic says the average critic review for SoD is 77, compared to BGII's 95 and BG1's 91. That's a staggering difference.

    And one should keep in mind that professional reviews rarely if ever go below 7 or 70 unless the game is completely bored. So SoD basically got an average score of 7/30 from professional reviewers.

    megamike15Quartz
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 10,279
    @Kamigoroshi "Her wanting to lay "siege" to a whole plane of existance was a bad joke in and of itself. At least Kaelyn the Dove had settled for a much smaller target: the Wall of the Faithless. And also had the backing of powerful creatures as well in order to at the very least attempt her goal. But Caelar...? Nah."

    THat's kind of the point. Arrogance is what caused Caelar's fall. She trusted in her nature to see her through, thinking that good was all she could ever be.

    Buttercheese
  • lroumenlroumen Member Posts: 1,985
    I still do not see the parallel other than the plans of a war.

    Sarevok knows he is not good. He goes through subterfuge to get to his goals all the while posing as good to the grand dukes in order to get in the right political position to further his agenda.

    Caelar may not know she is doing the wrong thing, but it is much different from how Sarevok handles things. Moreover, there is nothing special about paladins going astray. It is one of the most common tropes in DnD. I mean... Aribeth for instance?
    And did Caelar need a war? No. She took maybe 10-20 crusaders through the portal and faced end boss alone by the time she got there.

    KamigoroshiSjerrieQuartz
  • KamigoroshiKamigoroshi Member Posts: 5,502
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    THat's kind of the point. Arrogance is what caused Caelar's fall. She trusted in her nature to see her through, thinking that good was all she could ever be.
    Hence her being insufferable annoying. That's all Caelar sums up to, really.

    Quartz
  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 7,192
    whew! 51 new comments and so I thought I missed something.

    But just knowing the new game is going to use unreal engine, which I already knew back in like 2016.

    This does mean they are finally working on something new, and not throwing out DLC for NWN:EE or moving one of their existing titles to another platform. But if the team is just getting a crash course in Unreal, I can't phantom how far along they are with it figuring they are hiring a Narrative Designer now, they probably have a concept, setting, arcing storyline and basic game mechanics down.

    I just also want to say it better be that western with the demons that still has artwork on beamdog.com's title page. All the concept artwork I have seen for that makes me want to play it.

    ButtercheeseBlackbɨrd
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 10,279
    lroumen wrote: »
    I still do not see the parallel other than the plans of a war.

    Sarevok knows he is not good. He goes through subterfuge to get to his goals all the while posing as good to the grand dukes in order to get in the right political position to further his agenda.

    Caelar may not know she is doing the wrong thing, but it is much different from how Sarevok handles things. Moreover, there is nothing special about paladins going astray. It is one of the most common tropes in DnD. I mean... Aribeth for instance?
    And did Caelar need a war? No. She took maybe 10-20 crusaders through the portal and faced end boss alone by the time she got there.

    And those 10-20 crusaders were all slaughtered inside of 5 mintues. So yeah, the army was probably necessary. Its only really charname's intervention that anybody makes it out. Also, its a flipped parallel. Sarevok intends to unleash war and murder because he thinks he should as a Bhaalspawn. Caelar actually succeeded despite having "good" intentions. Again, it ties back into the nature vs. nuture theme that the series as a whole follows. What you are doesn't determine what you become, only your actions. Sarevok thought he was evil because of his heritage, his birthright if you will. Likewise Caelar thought she was good because of her heritage. Yet she was successful beynd what Sarevok was when it came to widescale murder.

    GrimjackMV
  • lroumenlroumen Member Posts: 1,985
    edited December 2019
    And only she survived meaning she did not need them.
    I will agree with you that I do not see the parallel. Let's leave it at that.

    Edit: I would like the next project to be futuristic with new types of weapons that make no sense whatsoever.

    Post edited by lroumen on
  • megamike15megamike15 Member Posts: 2,130
    Caelar was sod trying to be more grey in what can be considered a very black and white game series.

    all the other villains are clearly evil while caelar they make it a point that she may be doing the right thing. then they throw alll that out the window with her adviser being the real villain and his master being the final boss.

    Quartz
  • semiticgodsemiticgod Member, Moderator Posts: 14,094
    There were really only two people in the crusade who actually could have posed any threat to Belhifet at all: Caelar and that one guy with the +3 short sword, the only two people with +3 weapons on the side of the crusade. Anyone else would have been unable to harm him unless the right mages happened to make it to the fight with Lower Resistance, and even then he's a tough cookie to say the least. Fail to take down Belhifet, and the influx of devils would be nearly unstoppable. By the time greater powers from the Material Plane got involved (Drizzt or Elminster or Khelben or something), the devils probably could have wiped out a sizable fraction of the Sword Coast.

    ThacoBellSjerrie
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 10,279
    lroumen wrote: »
    And only she survived meaning she did not need them.
    I will agree with you that I do not see the parallel. Let's leave it at that.

    Edit: I would like the next project to be futuristic with new types of weapons that make no sense whatsoever.

    Only because of Charname's direct interference. Caelar would not win that battle alone. Also, totes not fair rebutting and then asking to stop before your rebuttal can be addressed :P

    @megamike15 It looks like that at first, but by the end her actions are demonstrably evil and selfishly motivated.

  • QuartzQuartz Member Posts: 3,851
    mlnevese wrote: »
    I think the most likely explanation is that people got so used to playing BG1 with the NPC project installed they forgot those personalities and stories are not official. Hence the complaints about changes personalities, etc.
    @mlnevese I mostly agree. I've seen this many times on this forum. That said, I've never used the NPC project and I cry about the personality changes all the time. Although, again, some changes were pretty indisputably for the better (Skie, Safana).
    scriver wrote: »
    Quartz wrote: »
    but even if you look at purely professional reviews... Metacritic says the average critic review for SoD is 77, compared to BGII's 95 and BG1's 91. That's a staggering difference.
    And one should keep in mind that professional reviews rarely if ever go below 7 or 70 unless the game is completely bored. So SoD basically got an average score of 7/30 from professional reviewers.
    @scriver Thanks for your thoughts. This is absolutely true. The relationship between game publishers and game critics has a lot of quid pro quo. Game "journalists" aren't likely to put a game on blast because they might not get early access to demos, etc. going forward. videogamedunkey has a great video on this.

    Meanwhile, I've noticed other critics can be more, well, critical. e.g., music. If you look up music albums on Metacritic, you're hard-pressed to find any average higher than like, 70/100. Oof.

    mlnevese
  • MaurvirMaurvir Member Posts: 494
    70 percent is a C - an average grade. By definition, most music isn't significantly above (or below) average in terms of subjective quality, so this seems fair.

    How many "classics" live significantly beyond their initial release, and what percentage of music released in that same period was forgotten within a year or two?

  • megamike15megamike15 Member Posts: 2,130
    edited December 2019
    reviewers now adays never go below a 7 when they review something. it may as well be a 5 point system.

    Quartz
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 5,793
    megamike15 wrote: »
    reviewers now adays never go below a 7 when they review something. it may as well be a 5 point system.

    Well, with a 5 point system they'd probably never go below a 3...

    megamike15mlnevesesemiticgod
  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 7,192
    I wrote up a how to read a review score on here before, let me see if I can find it...

    found it:
    https://forums.beamdog.com/discussion/comment/763595/#Comment_763595

    Ok, lets take a closer look and put it into context on how game rating works. I am going to use Metacritic here to illustrate averaging scores and what they mean. I will only be looking at games where the player controls one or more individuals to further a story (not always meaning RPG).

    Score of 9.5-10
    Highly unattainable as getting a score this high means the game can not be improved on further. It is a masterpiece, one that will change gaming forever. It is also usually reserved for games that can match the hype of its release. Think Grand Theft Auto V

    Score of 9.0
    Are usually reserved for sequels that outpace their former titles while still holding true to their series. The developers have greatly improved the gaming experience for both new and old players to the franchise and titles will probably hit Game of the Year status. Think Dark Souls III, Witcher III

    Score of 8.5
    Considered critically acclaimed. Newer franchises that haven't developed a proper following, but introduce amazing/unique game play and story telling generally fall into this area. Think Life is Strange.
    Criticall acclaimed franchises with games that equal, or are slightly lower than their predecessors usually get this rating as well. Think Mortal Kombat XL, Rise of the Tomb Raider

    Score of 8 (SoD falls here in metacritic with a 78)
    Usually for above average games with some flaws that can be overlooked. Majority of games fall into this area as play style preference usually skews individual reviewers score. The games are usually technically sound however (completely playable) and interesting. Remastered games usually fall into this area as well.
    It is also for over hyped games that did not live up to their expectations due to bugs, or other problems may fall into this area.

    Score of 7.5
    Usually reserved for expansions that do not add anything to the game. The price does not match the contents, but is worth a look if it goes on sale.
    Average games with some glaring issue (graphics, UI, combat mechanics etc) that may hinder a person's enjoyment also falls into this category.

    Score of 7.0
    Once again, average games with minor bugs and a couple of glaring issues. Usually games that didn't port well from one console to another: Think BG2:EE for the iOS and all the problems it had when it was first released and Batman: Arkam Knight for the PC.

    Score of 6.5
    A slightly below average game where it leaves the reviewer wanting more. Usually If the game was developed a little bit more before released it would have received a higher score. Criticism is usually constructive in these types of reviews as the reviewer still enjoyed the game to a degree, but would probably shelf it after a while. Think Among the Sleep.

    Score of 6.0
    A niche type game that steers away from conventional gaming. There will be one or two critics that completely love the game, but many more who think it is pointless and boring. Most reviewers will fall in the middle of these two extremes realize the beautiful implication of the game but harp more on the negative experience. Think Beyond Eyes; Armikrog; and Subject 13.

    Score of 5.5
    Below average game, usually reserved for ones that seem to be outdated upon its release. Could be completely bug ridden with CTD issues, but still playable. Think Son of Nor, Warhammer Quest

    Scores below 5
    Only 4% of games released in 2015 received a score of 5 and lower. Scores in this end are usually reserved for games whose bugs or mechanics make the game completely unplayable. To top it off, if it is story driven, the story is considered bland, cliched or unacceptable. Think Duke Nukem Forever (49), or Ride to Hell: Retribution (19).

    StummvonBordwehrelminstersemiticgod
  • KamigoroshiKamigoroshi Member Posts: 5,502
    Reviews can be pretty accurate. It's just that readers have to divide their given scores by 1.5 first. :p

  • BlackbɨrdBlackbɨrd Member Posts: 58
    All I want to know about Beamdog's next project: Confirmation of a new game being released.

    What I actually know about Beamdog's next project: *Silence*

    Balrog99kanisathaTimbo0o0o0
  • modestvoltamodestvolta Member Posts: 80
    Blackbɨrd wrote: »
    All I want to know about Beamdog's next project: Confirmation of a new game being released.

    That would be great, but if you give a mouse a cookie, he's going to want a glass of milk. And if you give him a glass of milk...

    As a whole, we as customers haven't let Beamdog stop at one question/answer. Eventually, someone (or everyone) else will be vocal about needing more info.

Sign In or Register to comment.