Larian Studios

Engine speculation

Posted By: Dark_Ansem

Engine speculation - 13/07/19 09:03 AM

So, do you people believe that the BG3 engine will be an evolved version of the Divinity Engine?
Posted By: LostSoul

Re: Engine speculation - 13/07/19 09:17 AM

I think in one of the interviews larian said it was developed from the DOS2 engine, noting they have been working on BG3 for a little while.
Posted By: Dark_Ansem

Re: Engine speculation - 13/07/19 10:08 AM

Oh so it's a derivation, rather than an evolution, of the Divinity Engine, now that's quite interesting.
Posted By: Sordak

Re: Engine speculation - 13/07/19 10:56 AM

They said OS2 was the 3.0 edition, DE was 3.5 and this is gonna be 4.0
That beeing said, Dragon Commander was 1.0, so basically it means very little about the actual game.

I just hope they improve how surfaes work.
in OS2 everything, especialy characters, looked like plastic and thats the only thing that annoys me about the artstyle.
Posted By: Nobody_Special

Re: Engine speculation - 13/07/19 12:01 PM



It was in this video interview @8:02.

Posted By: Dark_Ansem

Re: Engine speculation - 13/07/19 04:14 PM

Originally Posted by Sordak
They said OS2 was the 3.0 edition, DE was 3.5 and this is gonna be 4.0
That beeing said, Dragon Commander was 1.0, so basically it means very little about the actual game.

I just hope they improve how surfaes work.
in OS2 everything, especialy characters, looked like plastic and thats the only thing that annoys me about the artstyle.


I hope surfaces are gone.
Posted By: Sordak

Re: Engine speculation - 14/07/19 07:47 AM

I hope you get soreley disappointed then.
Surfaces are amazing. They just need to be turned down slightly.
Posted By: Dark_Ansem

Re: Engine speculation - 14/07/19 10:42 AM

Originally Posted by Sordak
I hope you get soreley disappointed then.
Surfaces are amazing. They just need to be turned down slightly.


Surfaces are more important than combat skill, in a moment, that can't be left. Also, find them in D&D sources, it's not a matter of hope, in a way.
Posted By: Sordak

Re: Engine speculation - 14/07/19 01:41 PM

pardon me what?
For one thing, no, theres no surface rules in DnD, thats because DnD is a very simplistic system, however, i can tell you that almost every DM who once had enemies submerged in water was forced to houserule that exact effect at least once.

and yes, surfaces are overtuned right now, doens tmean they should be gone.
If you only want things that ar in the rules, youll have a very shallow game. 5Es rules are deliberatley simplistic and are more of a foundaiton than anything else.
Posted By: _Vic_

Re: Engine speculation - 14/07/19 05:28 PM

As far as I know (I´ve yet to play a 5e PA) the rules of "Difficult terrain" and "weather rules" still apply in D&D. Those are related to the use of surfaces and weather in DOS games.

https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/adventuring#DifficultTerrain

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/weather.htm

Enviromental interaction is one of the signature features of Larian games. I think they surely use it, they hinted at it in some interviews. And it is ok for me. I like that system. Albeit I think they have to nerf it a little if they plan to implement the "Concentration" checks based on CON for casters(there is still that rule in D&D). A surface can really make a number on you when you try to cast a spell and in DoS it is really easy to create surfaces (especially fire). In DoS you don´t have this problem because you cannot interrupt skills or spells and you have that "armor invulnerability to debuffs" thing.
Posted By: Lemernis

Re: Engine speculation - 14/07/19 05:59 PM

I do not expect BG3 to be modeled after D:OS 2 or BG1 and 2.

It will translate 5th edition D&D as best it can for what works best in a video game. Vinke and Mearles keep saying that they want this game to revolutionize the CRPG genre, and that they want for the game to feel like tabletop D&D--and therefore I think at the end of the day it will be turn based. I think they're looking to make the game engine's AI sophisticated enough to do a fairly respectable job at simulating a human DM. The emphasis will be on choices. Depending on how far they push with verisimilitude to tabletop play, if they go all the way with that then your NPC party members should behave like other thinking players at a tabletop game. There will be a synergy between the choices that the DM makes, that you make, and that the other party members make, that will significantly impact how the story unfolds.

In other words more freedom of choice than we're used to in a CRPG, and also a high degree of variation regarding the consequences of those choices.
Posted By: _Vic_

Re: Engine speculation - 14/07/19 06:13 PM

Well, if you want to translate the tabletop game It has to be turn-based, like the D&D game.

But they also said that they are going to make a videogame ( they banned some high-level spells, have doubts about hits and misses, etc) so you have more options in the table. There is a chance that it would be RTwP, or a racing game, like Swen said in an interview ( jokingly, I hope). And they are adamant in hiding the combat so we will have to wait. The only thing they clearly said is that the combat is not for debate and there is only one system, not RTwP and TB like in PoE2 (See the interview threat)





Posted By: Dark_Ansem

Re: Engine speculation - 14/07/19 10:12 PM

Originally Posted by _Vic_
Well, if you want to translate the tabletop game It has to be turn-based, like the D&D game.

But they also said that they are going to make a videogame ( they banned some high-level spells, have doubts about hits and misses, etc) so you have more options in the table. There is a chance that it would be RTwP, or a racing game, like Swen said in an interview ( jokingly, I hope). And they are adamant in hiding the combat so we will have to wait. The only thing they clearly said is that the combat is not for debate and there is only one system, not RTwP and TB like in PoE2 (See the interview threat)


Which spells were banned?
Posted By: Omegaphallic

Re: Engine speculation - 15/07/19 01:51 AM

We don't know yet, but it's very few. My guess is Astral Projection
Posted By: _Vic_

Re: Engine speculation - 15/07/19 06:32 AM

Originally Posted by Dark_Ansem
Originally Posted by _Vic_
Well, if you want to translate the tabletop game It has to be turn-based, like the D&D game.

But they also said that they are going to make a videogame ( they banned some high-level spells, have doubts about hits and misses, etc) so you have more options in the table. There is a chance that it would be RTwP, or a racing game, like Swen said in an interview ( jokingly, I hope). And they are adamant in hiding the combat so we will have to wait. The only thing they clearly said is that the combat is not for debate and there is only one system, not RTwP and TB like in PoE2 (See the interview threat)


Which spells were banned?

http://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=654031#Post654031 Mike Mearls and Swen Vincke are as mysterious and laconic as always, but they said that some spells are a no-no.
Posted By: Dark_Ansem

Re: Engine speculation - 15/07/19 07:39 AM

Urgh. I wonder why.
Posted By: Sordak

Re: Engine speculation - 15/07/19 07:41 AM

Because some spells are so broken its not funny
Posted By: Dark_Ansem

Re: Engine speculation - 15/07/19 08:49 AM

Such as? Wish?
Posted By: Sordak

Re: Engine speculation - 15/07/19 12:03 PM

Yep wish is incredibly broken and i don tknow why they include it.
But mostly things that make other classes irrelevant.
Posted By: Nobody_Special

Re: Engine speculation - 15/07/19 12:10 PM

They probably included it for the fact that a wish spell can be cast as any spell 8th level or below.

Or they just put you in the dragon's cave if you ever wish for anything more. wink
Posted By: kanisatha

Re: Engine speculation - 15/07/19 12:45 PM

Player agency/freedom/choices are well and good but only if they also come with real consequences. I don't want the game to be where I can do anything I want, but the outcomes are, at the end of the day, all largely the same. For example, kill any NPC I want but the game/quests moving forward are not affected in any way.
Posted By: Dark_Ansem

Re: Engine speculation - 15/07/19 09:21 PM

Originally Posted by kanisatha
Player agency/freedom/choices are well and good but only if they also come with real consequences. I don't want the game to be where I can do anything I want, but the outcomes are, at the end of the day, all largely the same. For example, kill any NPC I want but the game/quests moving forward are not affected in any way.


Which consequences would you like?
Posted By: kanisatha

Re: Engine speculation - 16/07/19 02:00 PM

Originally Posted by Dark_Ansem
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Player agency/freedom/choices are well and good but only if they also come with real consequences. I don't want the game to be where I can do anything I want, but the outcomes are, at the end of the day, all largely the same. For example, kill any NPC I want but the game/quests moving forward are not affected in any way.


Which consequences would you like?

How would I know? I'm not the one writing the game. It would depend on the details of the game.
Posted By: Sordak

Re: Engine speculation - 16/07/19 02:27 PM

Real consequences can only be done in a simulationist game and those are few and far between.
Either you end up with a game with very direct consequences but very little input besides binary choices, which is the current format, or you get a game like dwarf fortress in whcih everything affects everything else, but also is hard to get in to and the opposit of tripple A
Posted By: Dark_Ansem

Re: Engine speculation - 18/07/19 07:43 PM

Originally Posted by kanisatha
Originally Posted by Dark_Ansem
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Player agency/freedom/choices are well and good but only if they also come with real consequences. I don't want the game to be where I can do anything I want, but the outcomes are, at the end of the day, all largely the same. For example, kill any NPC I want but the game/quests moving forward are not affected in any way.


Which consequences would you like?

How would I know? I'm not the one writing the game. It would depend on the details of the game.


Well you must have an idea, no?
Posted By: kanisatha

Re: Engine speculation - 19/07/19 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by Dark_Ansem
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Originally Posted by Dark_Ansem
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Player agency/freedom/choices are well and good but only if they also come with real consequences. I don't want the game to be where I can do anything I want, but the outcomes are, at the end of the day, all largely the same. For example, kill any NPC I want but the game/quests moving forward are not affected in any way.


Which consequences would you like?

How would I know? I'm not the one writing the game. It would depend on the details of the game.


Well you must have an idea, no?

Well I gave the example from the D:OS games, where the claim is you can kill any NPC without hurting your ability to complete the game or any quests. For some people this is awesome as "player freedom." For me, this is a really stupid thing because when you go around killing NPCs there SHOULD be consequences, real, serious consequences. Another example is breaking into people's homes and robbing them blind. A true RPG should of course allow that, but there should be real consequences for doing that. This is what I mean.
Posted By: Nobody_Special

Re: Engine speculation - 19/07/19 02:09 PM

Posted By: _Vic_

Re: Engine speculation - 19/07/19 02:21 PM

I agree, but please do not go overboard with the consequences thing like... laugh

Posted By: Sordak

Re: Engine speculation - 19/07/19 03:37 PM

Ok and what are real consequences? tell me one game that pulls it off?
Because 99% of the time, if a game does it, its something pre scripted by the developer as a binary choice.

to make something like this work dynamically , youd have to do something completley simulationist.
Posted By: Raze

Re: Engine speculation - 20/07/19 01:57 AM

Originally Posted by kanisatha
Well I gave the example from the D:OS games, where the claim is you can kill any NPC without hurting your ability to complete the game or any quests.

No, the claim is that the main plot is completable if you kill most NPCs. Side quests can easily be broken that way, merchants can refuse to deal with you, etc, and it can be much more difficult to find required information for main plot quests.
In D:OS there are consequences for stealing if you are caught. D:OS 2 extended that so NPCs would search for the culprit when items were noticed missing, and guards could search character inventories (with a time limit). If you wanted to be completely realistic and immersive there would be much less random loot, and more than one or two missing items shortly after new people show up in town would have everyone assuming you were thieves, and depending on the setting, not necessarily shy about treating you that way.
Posted By: Sordak

Re: Engine speculation - 20/07/19 07:13 AM

pretty much that.
OS has consequences but they are not that severe, because its not an open world game, once you hit act 3 you cant exactly leave arx
Posted By: _Vic_

Re: Engine speculation - 20/07/19 10:08 AM

Yeah, it is kind of a bummer that you cannot go back to previous maps. Many people completed the quests of the act and then go on a killing rampage to get xp before continue to the next chapter o.O
Posted By: Sordak

Re: Engine speculation - 20/07/19 12:46 PM

my point is, if you were go full "hard consequence"; you murder one NPC and suddenly you are kill on sight for all guards in town.
It just doesnt work for a game like OS2, its too constrained.
Posted By: vometia

Re: Engine speculation - 20/07/19 05:19 PM

Originally Posted by _Vic_
Yeah, it is kind of a bummer that you cannot go back to previous maps. Many people completed the quests of the act and then go on a killing rampage to get xp before continue to the next chapter o.O

I suppose I never really understand people who do the whole "lol killing spree" thing anyway, whether or not from a role-playing perspective. Then again I'm that person who wrote a program complete with its own crappity scripting language to safeguard most of the NPCs in Oblivion because I was fed up with finding settlements to be deserted whether or not an NPC was especially "useful" (though I do have especially not fond memories of spending hours searching for skills trainer Bralsa Andaren who I only discovered afterwards was notorious for being beared to death thanks to aimlessly wandering about in the wilderness).
Posted By: Sordak

Re: Engine speculation - 20/07/19 06:05 PM

See i loved that about oblivion. but it annoyed me at the same time.
I still got pissed they toned it down in Skyrim.

I wanted more AI randomness not less, i just wish the NPC got replaced when they die, or just have more generic NPCs that do the traveling and getting itno hijinks

Still havent found a good mod, theres tons of mods that add more NPCs, but very few that add NPCs that just travel around and do things int he world.
the organized bandits mod is actually the closest one i found.
Posted By: vometia

Re: Engine speculation - 21/07/19 10:40 AM

My favourite "extra NPCs" mod for Oblivion was Modem's City Life which added a bunch of new characters who you'd often find roaming the wilds; including an insane Brienne-like woman called Gertrude who'd track you down once a week just to help out with random stuff before buggering off again. It also added a bunch of kids which may or may not be to everyone's taste, but for me it was a nice addition. They're just scripted to chase each other around during the day and their one line of dialogue is "sorry, but I mustn't speak to strangers"!

I got a bit carried away doing the AI in my own mod in an attempt to make my characters interesting, which they weren't especially as they had no extra dialogue. But it was much too ambitious and as a result never saw the light of day.
Posted By: Sordak

Re: Engine speculation - 21/07/19 12:10 PM

gotta check that one out, i havent played oblivion in ages
Posted By: Dark_Ansem

Re: Engine speculation - 21/07/19 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by Raze
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Well I gave the example from the D:OS games, where the claim is you can kill any NPC without hurting your ability to complete the game or any quests.

No, the claim is that the main plot is completable if you kill most NPCs. Side quests can easily be broken that way, merchants can refuse to deal with you, etc, and it can be much more difficult to find required information for main plot quests.
In D:OS there are consequences for stealing if you are caught. D:OS 2 extended that so NPCs would search for the culprit when items were noticed missing, and guards could search character inventories (with a time limit). If you wanted to be completely realistic and immersive there would be much less random loot, and more than one or two missing items shortly after new people show up in town would have everyone assuming you were thieves, and depending on the setting, not necessarily shy about treating you that way.


Harsh, but true.
Posted By: vometia

Re: Engine speculation - 21/07/19 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by Sordak
gotta check that one out, i havent played oblivion in ages

Same. It's the game that really immersed me for the first time (a bit sad considering I've been gaming on and off since the late '70s... RPGs had somehow passed me by for 30 years, though) so I'll always have a soft spot for it; especially as it's the game that also got me involved in modding. Last time I played it I did think it was looking a bit long in the tooth though that might simply be because I've sunk so many hours into it. I nearly wrote that it "now looks a bit dated" but I don't think that's especially relevant given that right now I'm enjoying Kingdoms of Amalur which deliberately capitalises on the somewhat nostalgic, cartoony look and isn't the worse for it. If anything it's The Grimdark Era that followed Oblivion that now looks quite dated. But I digress, this entire area is so subjective as to be meaningless and I've kinda lost track of what point I was even making!

In more general terms, I think games studios need to make an effort with random NPCs, whether they're simply "background scenery" or people who give interesting side-quests. I often don't want to be bothered progressing the main story and just want to wander off and do something random or speak to someone who has something to say that I haven't heard before.
Posted By: Sordak

Re: Engine speculation - 21/07/19 03:18 PM

well i personally think that the issue is that simulationism is no longer cool.
I mean what were the last big budget simulationist RPG? Daggerfall?
Right now theres Dwarf fortress and Rimworld which doesnt have an RPG mode and Mount and Blade is probably the closest you get.

i had high hopes for Everquest Next, but then it got canceled.
Oblivion at least tried, Skyrim took a step back, not a big fallout fan but knowing Bethesda it probably isnt any better.
Simulating a world is in my opinion something to work towards.

Right now, it doesnt work well, but it already creates cool stuff.
Developers already realized that players consume content much faster than its created, and that emergent gameplay will always rule supreme.
Thus the new (non tripple A) trend towards open world crafting multiplayer, letting players create their own stories.
But those worlds are only player driven.

I think the next big revolution, which Everquest Next tried to do, is to make the AI proactive. Make a world that can exit without the players (but maybe one that is doomed, there goes a cool premise for an RPG, have a compleltey simulated fantasy world that will absoluteley be destroyed if you dont stop it, and you got a complete free hand on how you choose to stop the uncoming desaster, id play that)

And then put it together.
thats the great RPG dream i think. Play In a world rather than through it.
a world that exists on its own, that dynamically reacts to you.
Where not only players create content for you, but the AI aswell.:


THe problem is, the tiny little baby steps in that direction? They dont do a lot, they are not impressive and thats why the market doesnt move towards it.
But if you put enaugh effort and several iterations of games into this idea, you could create something far more impressive than any hand crafted RPG.

Or partly handcrafted. I think procedual generation is a dead end.
Ideally, developers would hand crat a world that can live on itself, with a set history, created to be interresting and beautifull, and then send the world on its path.
It mixes the best of hand crafted worlds with the best of emergent gameplay.

its the far future of RPGs, i hope i live to see it

EDIT: on a note: i think those developers who actually attempt this sort of game, are too preoccupied with realism.
Having more depth and more systems allow for more hijinks and cool stuff to happen, however, simulation shouldnt be in the way of good gameplay.
A simulated world, should simulate a world on the parameters that make a good game.
For example, a good , not realistic, combat system.
Also the focus is too much on simulating the creation of items from a gorillion of materials, rather than simulating the interplay between AI individuals, and diversifying their descision making process
Posted By: Dark_Ansem

Re: Engine speculation - 23/07/19 06:27 PM

Preoccupation with realism is like a traffic light.
© 2020 Larian Studios forums