Skip to content

A Message to Larian Studios: They Should ALTER The Work on Baldur's Gate 3

12467

Comments

  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • LookToWindwardLookToWindward Member Posts: 179
    edited March 2020
    I think that the only thing that is "wrong" with it is that its called BG3, which I take to mean the Real Time with Pause movement system, since for me, since the dawn of time that's how it's been. The fact that they call it BG3 gives a vision of me playing in RTwP style. For instance, I bought Div:OS (now in the Trash Can, well actually I emptied it right after to free up the space) on the strength of a Review that said it was as good as BG, so my expectation was it would by a RTwP type game. When it wasn't I decided I didn't want to play it, bit of a waste of money. Thanks to the Game Play video of BG3 I now know I won't be wasting my money on that!

    Just my 10 cents worth!
    ThacoBell
  • LookToWindwardLookToWindward Member Posts: 179
    edited March 2020
    With Imoen, it's easy to see how she may have come back, someone "Raised" her, perhaps a Priest that was hiding somewhere when she died.......
    byrne20
  • byrne20byrne20 Member Posts: 503
    edited March 2020
    @LookToWindward
    With Imoen, it's easy to see how she may have come back, someone "Raised" her, perhaps a Priest that was hiding somewhere when she died.......

    Love the above logic :smile: Random priest just hiding in the bush waiting to jump in and revive :)
    Post edited by byrne20 on
  • ZaxaresZaxares Member Posts: 1,325
    With Imoen, it's easy to see how she may have come back, someone "Raised" her, perhaps a Priest that was hiding somewhere when she died.......

    In my very first BG1 playthrough, I actually deliberated got ALL the companions who wasn't in my main party killed. XD I'm not sure why I did that; maybe because I had no idea there was going to be a sequel, so I wanted to "leave no loose ends" behind me. It wasn't until BG2 and the presence of the "canonical party" that I relented and allowed the various companions to survive until their appropriate demise in the later games. :P
    byrne20[Deleted User]
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • EnilwynEnilwyn Member Posts: 140
    I think I've made my peace with all this. If I decide to buy and play this game. As soon as Enilwyn leaves character creation she doesn't know that it's a game. The journey has no title unless I decide the fourth wall has been broken. Get in!!!

    The name is really the only thing I feel bad about (and how slow combat looks, another discussion perhaps). Too much 'head-canon' has been created since the early 'naughties.' Too much has happened with video games. I know WotC and Larian don't need long-time BG fans to be successful. And that's why to me it feels like they are crapping on my memories a bit.

    The reason for me the originals were so great was that due to technical limitations of the time my imagination filled in a lot of the gaps. If anyone else felt this way there isn't "one way" any of this happened. So I'm encouraging myself and others who might be hung up on this to rekindle that imagination and do what we're supposed to, play a role (or not).

    byrne20
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,235
    chimaera wrote: »
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    So let me get this straight. Because you let Imoen die in BG1, a game that was made in, I think, 2002 should somehow have a way to track that specific state, even though no one had ever been able to state tracking of that level to that point? And because of this, BG2 shouldn't be a sequel to BG1? Somehow I don't find this very sincere.

    Something you forgot to mention, is that Imoen only came back as a central character because the fans wanted it. BIoware and Black Isle listened to feedback from the fans of BG1. Something that Larian refuses to do, trudging on with dos3.
    So let me get this straight: you excuse Bioware writers, because there way no 'state tracking ' back then. Funny how quickly you turn on your own rules when it's a game you like. You don't need state tracking to keep track of the lore. You don't need state tracking to come up with an intro that doesn't actively erase the history of the player's character. Doesn't undo the choices a player has made.

    Something you forgot: not every fan back then was happy with how the writers handled the transition from BG1 to BG2. And I'd say this holds true even now, considering the discussion on this topic on these boards. But what I don't remember from back then is that anyone would attack Bioware writers for that.

    I guess it just demonstrates how the fanbase has changed over the years.

    You completely missed the point of all my above arguments if you think a single retcon is both the entire point of my position on the game and the sole reason I'm not excited for Larian's new game. I've never criticised anyone else here for their opinions on the game, nor insulted anyone. I've even said multiple times across this section of the forums that the people who are excited for the game have fully legitimate opinions. I ask that you extend the same courtesy to me.
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
    BelleSorciereDinoDinEnilwynBallpointMan
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,235
    @chimaera So you think that the literal BG games with bugfixes and a couple added npcs is equivalent to a Divnity game with a D&D skin?
    megamike15
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited March 2020
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,235
    @chimaera "Yep, that is what I am talking about. I've seen the EEs called just reskins too"

    Its literally the same game and engine. Its in no way remotely equivalent to swapping in an engine from a completely different series and changing every single element of gameplay.
  • megamike15megamike15 Member Posts: 2,666
    the only people i see complain about the ee were gog and rpg codex. and atlest with gog they were really elitist about the fact the ee existed at all. as they just thought they were beamdog stealing mods.

    when that is further from the truth as there is alot of engine tweaks in the ee that make then better then the originals.
    ThacoBellEnilwynBalrog99
  • Dyzmen22Dyzmen22 Member Posts: 9
    edited April 2020
    Personally, I could live with the turn based combat, even though I would prefer RTwP. But I think the problems lie much deeper than the combat system.

    What makes the BG saga so great to me, are the characters, the quest design, the cities and towns that feel like real places, the world just waiting to be explored, well-struck balance between dark, serious themes and satire, plus the attention to even the tiniest details. I guess all of this could be summed up in one sentence. Baldur's Gate games are an "adventure".

    I've played Divinity OS and it just doesn't evoke the same feelings. The humour is forced, the characters are easily forgettable, the writing is boring. Gameplay is serviceable for a time, but gets tedious. The soundtrack is simply atrocious (that's subjective I guess). They are decent games, but far from masterpieces imo.

    Tbh, I think we're focusing on the wrong issue here. Let's be honest, even if the game was RTwP, do you think it would be a worthy sequel to BG2? I don't think so. From everything we've seen so far, this game just doesn't have the soul of Baldur's Gate.

    Pre-made protagonists with their own back stories? Dialogues written from the 1st person perspective? Goofy humour and shoe throwing? Generic companions? Not even RTwP could salvage this.

    I don't mean to be overly critical, even though it might sound like I am. I actually expect it to be a fairly solid game. I will probably pick it up on sale and have at least one go at it. I just wish it wasn't called Baldur's Gate.
    ThacoBellkanisathaRedRodentenergisedcamel
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,235
    @Dyzmen22 Turn based is definitely not the only problem. But a completely different game style from the originals will never feel like Baldur's Gate, regardless.
    kanisathakingnight
  • DinoDinDinoDin Member Posts: 1,567
    Dyzmen22 wrote: »
    Personally, I could live with the turn based combat, even though I would prefer RTwP. But I think the problems lie much deeper than the combat system.

    What makes the BG saga so great to me, are the characters, the quest design, the cities and towns that feel like real places, the world just waiting to be explored, well-struck balance between dark, serious themes and satire, plus the attention to even the tiniest details. I guess all of this could be summed up in one sentence. Baldur's Gate games are an "adventure".

    I've played Divinity OS and it just doesn't evoke the same feelings. The humour is forced, the characters are easily forgettable, the writing is boring. Gameplay is serviceable for a time, but gets tedious. The soundtrack is simply atrocious (that's subjective I guess). They are decent games, but far from masterpieces imo.

    Tbh, I think we're focusing on the wrong issue here. Let's be honest, even if the game was RTwP, do you think it would be a worthy sequel to BG2? I don't think so. From everything we've seen so far, this game just doesn't have the soul of Baldur's Gate.

    Pre-made protagonists with their own back stories? Dialogues written from the 1st person perspective? Goofy humour and shoe throwing? Generic companions? Not even RTwP could salvage this.

    I don't mean to be overly critical, even though it might sound like I am. I actually expect it to be a fairly solid game. I will probably pick it up on sale and have at least one go at it. I just wish it wasn't called Baldur's Gate.

    Shoe-throwing is more a product of D&D 5e rules, so I'm not sure I get the issue here. Moreover you've made some complaints here that are incoherent. "Pre-made protagonists with their own back stories" and "Generic companions"?

    Either you didn't quite get everything Larian said about the game so far, or you seem to be seeking a pre-text to criticize the game. According to what Larian has said, there's nothing stopping a player from generating their own character and then playing with companions with backstories -- just like how you played the original game. It's just that you also have the option of playing the game in a different way -- as one of those companions. And in what way are they generic? If anything, imo, they're all a little too far out. They're certainly less "generic" than a number of BG1 companions.

    Anyways, strongly disagreed with some aspects of your take here. I think maybe you should check over again a bit more closely what Larian has said about the game so far.
  • ZaxaresZaxares Member Posts: 1,325
    I actually LIKED the shoe/boots throwing part of the demo. XD Believe it or not, that was actually the moment that made me go "Alright, Imma give this a go." It was precisely the kind of weird, spontaneous, the DM gives you a "You're doing WHAT now?" look, action that evokes the feeling of being in a table-top D&D game. It reminds me of the time one of my own players did something totally off-the-cuff and it resulted in one of the most memorable table-top stories I have to share. It was at the end of a dungeon and the players were up against a custom monster called an Oculus Demon. True to its name, the Oculus Demon had dozens of eyes all over its body, and each one of those eyes could fire an energy ray, making it capable of dealing devastating damage per round (and because they were rays, they used ranged TOUCH attacks, ignoring most of my power-gaming party's AC stacking).

    The battle was not going well for my players, until one of them suddenly said to me, "Zax, I'm taking my tent out of my backpack." Cue the "You're doing WHAT now?" look from me and an "Oooookaaaaay... Removing that from your backpack will consume your round's action." Next round, he goes "Right, I'm unfurling the tent and then I'm jumping onto the demon to cover it with the tent!" Looking at the rest of his baffled friends, he continues "It can't fire its rays at what it can't see, right?" Light-bulb moment.

    And just like that the rest of the battle was the party desperately trying to grapple the demon and keep the tent covering it while the sorcerer and the cleric threw spells and blows down on the demon until it died. Everybody was laughing at the sheer absurdity of it all. In hindsight, it occurs to me that I could have simply ruled the demon fires its eye rays AT the tent and destroy it that way, but it was such a creative and ingenious approach that I thought it was better to let it stand.

    Anyway, the whole "I throw my boots at it!" moment just brought to mind that same kind of randomly inspired antics that only table-top roleplaying can provide. XD
    DoubledimasBallpointManDinoDinJuliusBorisov
  • DinoDinDinoDin Member Posts: 1,567
    Agreed, and I think Larian deserve big credit for advancing the genre in a more open way with their OS titles here. I think it will work in BG, even if it's a gameplay element that doesn't have precedent in the series. Do we really want a BG3 game that only has the limited environment/item interaction of the first two games? Can only speak for myself, but I want a sequel that's willing to open up some novel gameplay.
    JuliusBorisovbyrne20
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,235
    Wait, using a decades old gameplay style (turn based) is advancing the genre? Okay, weird take.
  • DinoDinDinoDin Member Posts: 1,567
    I'm not sure why you insist on using the strawman fallacy when responding to me. And I'm not sure what that does to produce good discussion about the game here. I'm happy to debate our difference of opinion on BG3, but not if you're going to mis-represent what I say. I never do this to you.
    Adam_en_tiumbyrne20Blackbɨrd
  • kanisathakanisatha Member Posts: 1,308
    edited April 2020
    DinoDin wrote: »
    Agreed, and I think Larian deserve big credit for advancing the genre in a more open way with their OS titles here. I think it will work in BG, even if it's a gameplay element that doesn't have precedent in the series. Do we really want a BG3 game that only has the limited environment/item interaction of the first two games? Can only speak for myself, but I want a sequel that's willing to open up some novel gameplay.
    There's environment/item interaction that is realistic and meaningful and interaction that is silly, asinine and gimmicky. Shoe throwing, pushing over walls, and blowing up oil barrels all definitely fall into the latter category for me, and as such this only serves to degrade and trivialize the genre rather than advance it, turning the RPG genre into a joke.

    Side note: If you throw your boots at someone, the ONLY outcome from that ought to be you are now running around in bare feet. Nothing else.
    ThacoBell
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,235
    @DinoDin You love labeling anything you don't agree with a fallacy, don't you?
  • DinoDinDinoDin Member Posts: 1,567
    edited April 2020
    Can you point to where I said the turn-based combat mechanic was advancing the genre? If not, then yes, you are guilty of the strawman fallacy. Again, I never treat you like this. I don't understand why you cannot extend the same elementary courtesy.
  • DinoDinDinoDin Member Posts: 1,567
    kanisatha wrote: »
    DinoDin wrote: »
    Agreed, and I think Larian deserve big credit for advancing the genre in a more open way with their OS titles here. I think it will work in BG, even if it's a gameplay element that doesn't have precedent in the series. Do we really want a BG3 game that only has the limited environment/item interaction of the first two games? Can only speak for myself, but I want a sequel that's willing to open up some novel gameplay.
    There's environment/item interaction that is realistic and meaningful and interaction that is silly, asinine and gimmicky. Shoe throwing, pushing over walls, and blowing up oil barrels all definitely fall into the latter category for me, and as such this only serves to degrade and trivialize the genre rather than advance it, turning the RPG genre into a joke.

    Side note: If you throw your boots at someone, the ONLY outcome from that ought to be you are now running around in bare feet. Nothing else.

    Hitting someone with a hurled boot doesn't cause damage? Okay
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,235
    DinoDin wrote: »
    Can you point to where I said the turn-based combat mechanic was advancing the genre? If not, then yes, you are guilty of the strawman fallacy. Again, I never treat you like this. I don't understand why you cannot extend the same elementary courtesy.

    Can you point out a system the games has that Isn't turn based? Because that's all the game play we've seen.
  • DinoDinDinoDin Member Posts: 1,567
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    DinoDin wrote: »
    Can you point to where I said the turn-based combat mechanic was advancing the genre? If not, then yes, you are guilty of the strawman fallacy. Again, I never treat you like this. I don't understand why you cannot extend the same elementary courtesy.

    Can you point out a system the games has that Isn't turn based? Because that's all the game play we've seen.

    Outside of combat, yes, the game is realtime, with an optional turn-based mode. I guess you didn't pay close enough attention to the gameplay videos to see this. Now that I've answered your question, I'd like to see if you can practice some courtesy and answer mine.
  • JuliusBorisovJuliusBorisov Member, Administrator, Moderator, Developer Posts: 22,714
    The last few comments in this thread are not constructive and bring nothing but personal snipes. This behaviour is not encouraged, so if such comments continue they'll be deleted.
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,235
    DinoDin wrote: »
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    DinoDin wrote: »
    Can you point to where I said the turn-based combat mechanic was advancing the genre? If not, then yes, you are guilty of the strawman fallacy. Again, I never treat you like this. I don't understand why you cannot extend the same elementary courtesy.

    Can you point out a system the games has that Isn't turn based? Because that's all the game play we've seen.

    Outside of combat, yes, the game is realtime, with an optional turn-based mode. I guess you didn't pay close enough attention to the gameplay videos to see this. Now that I've answered your question, I'd like to see if you can practice some courtesy and answer mine.

    So you weren't talking about combat at all in your comment? But if all you have for "the future" is that, "the game is realtime, with an optional turn-based mode. " how is that innovative?
  • DinoDinDinoDin Member Posts: 1,567
    edited May 2020
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    DinoDin wrote: »
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    DinoDin wrote: »
    Can you point to where I said the turn-based combat mechanic was advancing the genre? If not, then yes, you are guilty of the strawman fallacy. Again, I never treat you like this. I don't understand why you cannot extend the same elementary courtesy.

    Can you point out a system the games has that Isn't turn based? Because that's all the game play we've seen.

    Outside of combat, yes, the game is realtime, with an optional turn-based mode. I guess you didn't pay close enough attention to the gameplay videos to see this. Now that I've answered your question, I'd like to see if you can practice some courtesy and answer mine.

    So you weren't talking about combat at all in your comment? But if all you have for "the future" is that, "the game is realtime, with an optional turn-based mode. " how is that innovative?

    None of what you're saying here accurately reflects what I said. Either represent what I say accurately or stop asking me questions. The "innovative" gameplay element was specifically greater item/enviroment interactivity, which could exist in both realtime or turn-based games. Either respond to what I said or stop replying to me, please. I think I've done a decent job of being respectful here despite you insisting on arguing with me about something I did *not* say. And, again, I'm going to note that I have never mis-represented what you say on here. I still do not see why you're unable to take me at my word.

    What I said: "Do we really want a BG3 game that only has the limited environment/item interaction of the first two games?"

    It's also important to note that whether BG3 is realtime or turnbased has next to nothing to do with innovating the genre, as both modes have now long existed. So the argument you seem to be trying to advance is baffling, honestly.
  • DinoDinDinoDin Member Posts: 1,567
    The last few comments in this thread are not constructive and bring nothing but personal snipes. This behaviour is not encouraged, so if such comments continue they'll be deleted.

    You guys are free to run this forum however you want. But can I make a suggestion? When you see one person blatantly misrepresenting another forumer, while constantly replying to and tagging them in their posts, maybe focus on that person instead? Otherwise you're just enabling this kind of behavior.

    I'll certainly cop to being guilty of taking the trollbait, and maybe I should try to be better, but come on!
Sign In or Register to comment.