Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General The importance of this game.

I just bought and started playing pathfinder kingmaker, reading some of the comments about it on this forum, it is a great game.
Yes it is a spiritual successor to BG2 and if you add some story elements and some more budget it could have been called BG3.

im glad it isnt.
Pathfinder devs realize that while they still want the IE formular, they dont wanna chase the past and want to actually innovate.

Thats why you got kingdom management and upcoming sutff like mounted combat.

Im glad theyre having their own identity.

Yes I agree that dragon age 2 and 3 are trash, but origin is one of my favourite....

The companions are done way better, than in DAO1/DAO2.
RPG elements, npcs, world building are also very nicely done.
It also has great combat system, dynamic and action oriented, with just enough variety, so you can easily follow the fights, but with limited skill system, so you never get overwhelmed, even if you do not know dnd or any tabletop games.

What I meant, that Owlcat seems like as if it is building on BG2, but adds innovations.
Larian is reinventing Baldur's Gate and making a spiritual successor to divinity...
Which will be a great game, but it seems very-very different...

I found Pathfinder pretty cool. It has some flaws and weird moments but I had much more fun than in PoE. PoE1 is solid game but this awfully pompous way of storytelling is not my thing. And I agree with overbalancing and generally dull attitude towards gameplay in Obsidian's series. Pathfinder kept IE games spirit and added some fresh things. It's the good way.

I suppose that depends on what you liked in BG2 and what BG2 was for you. I have a soft spot for Pathfinder and even backed the sequel as I think company has a heart in the right place, but that said, from what I played I thought Kingmaker was pretty bad. As a spiritual successor to BG1 - I might see it. As a successor to BG2 - definitely not.

BG2 laid foundation for what became Bioware RPG - a story driven, character driven RPGs. While people praise BG2 for it's "simulation" 1) there wasn't much of it 2) I really don't think that was Biowares intent - at least not in the end. While it's complexity and scope blew me away at the time, looking back at BG1&2 and comparing it to other RPGs I think streamlining was it's biggest success, not complexity. For a long time I thought Bioware took a drastic turn with KOTOR forward, but nowadays I think that was always their intent - or at the very least least they reacted to what really worked in Baldur's Gates - more and better voice acting, set story arcs for companions, strong narrative and villain, defined protagonist, bigger focus on presentation of the story with limited but impactful imput from the player.

In that regard Pathfinder is really really awful. I do like it's commitment to some systems though - like resting and time management. I don't think they are well done or interesting - like assigning resting duties isn't an interesting system to interact with (on second thought - not many of them are). From gameplay standpoint (again) I thought both PoEs did it better - easier to use, more choices to make, better impact. However, there is in-world consistency to it, characters doing chores, that I found it really compelling. Also banter was nice, even if nothing of worth is being said, and I loved that you actually set up a visible camp on the location if you rest in "tactical" view. That is something I would like to see in BG3, I think, instead of generic camp ala Dragon Age:O. But dialogues trees are some of the worst I have seen in a long time, and I am not talking about tone - I like the lighter tone.

I don't think that Larian is making BG3 a successor to DOS2.

I mean, except by the artstyle, the game is nothing like DOS2

• Leveling and character building is D&D like not DOS like
• Itemization is BG like with handcrafted items
• The magic system seems like D&D, not divinity. IE - no cooldowns but has spell slots
• Skill checks everywhere.
• The numbers aren't like dos2, you have far lower numbers on BG3
• A class vs a classeless system
• Saves instead of armor and magical armor
• The bestiary seems far more forgotten realms than DOS2
• (...)

D&D mechanics aren't "simulations", 2e had his fair share of optional rules for more simulation but is far more simplistic abstractions of situations. A simulation would be like GURPS which has a chapter of a book only to describe walking on frozen lakes. The fact that plate armor is far more likely to deflect a sword than a mace being translated to a better AC vs slashes than blunt attack is not a perfectly simulation of medieval combat. It is just a simplistic abstraction.

That said, modern RPG's tends to not care about making mechanics and lore in line. Eg? You can use blood magic in front of templars on DA:O. They often come with cooldowns with no explanation to why i need to wait X seconds/turns to do another shield bash for eg. On Dragon Age Inquisition, literally one of the first dialog options is that the PC don't need a staff to be deadly but all spells scales with weapons regardless if this fact would contradict the dialog and make all previous lore irrelevant(why control mages if they are weaklings with no staves?) and has no explanation behind it. Even most games which tries to be old school like Underrail tends to put his fair share of modern BS. Like cooldowns on grenades. With zero explanation, why? VtMB is not a perfect "simulation" but if i use blood boil in front of kine, it is a masquarede breach and humanity loss(killing with no reason). It is not a perfectly simulation of what would happen if vampires with such powers existed and used on front of kine, but is good enough.

Almost every old school RPG makes me fell like i an in another fictional world. Almost every modern RPG makes me fell like i an doing a consequenceless busywork.


-------------------------

In fact, survival games often comes with better and more immersive RPG elements than most of modern RPG's.

Everything you talked about comes from D&D and the Forgotten Realms....

What about everything else ?

New rules and new lore doens't mean It has nothing to do with it right ? PoE has nothing to do with BG ?

When I say simulation, I don't mean simulating-real-life, but systemic simulation vs. smaller, isolated systems, hand-crafted and scripted interaction.

But I think you touch on an interesting point in an RPG, and that's interaction between different planes of gameplay.

I think we can divide a traditional Baldur's Gate like (be it pathfinder, Dragon Age, PoEs or Divinity) into at least three planes - combat, exploration, conversation. I think what you hint at, is that many modern RPGs keep those seperate: you can't use exploration problems with a combat ability, you can perform combat ability, but not have it acknowledged by an NPC. That is something that makes POEs feel more artifical then IE games for example - mages spells could be used for both utility and combat making them a more consistent part of the world, while in PoE they are limited to combat (scripted interactions expanded that, especially in PoE2. Overall, PoE2 feels much better in that regard but seperation between combat/exploration/conversation is very preset throughout the design). And while BGs had moments systemic interactivity (I remember being able to see through a ruse when being a Paladin and using "Detect Evil") I don't think BGs had that much of systemic simulation. It relied mostly on hand crafted scenarios when compared for Fallouts which used systems when creating problems to solve, allowing for wider range of creative and unique-per-character solutions. While some systemic simulation exists (passing time, day&night cycle, stealing in BG1) I don't think they were a focus of BGs and some of them were dropped for BG2 and following Bioware games. That a distinction I wanted to make between BGs and Pathfinder, which I think has more of an ambition to create a more simulationist enviroment.

I do think that this kind of universal use of same tools across various gameplay planes is really important. And that something old Tim Cains RPGs did really well - with skill use, combat, conversation being tools for solving quests available based on player's build, rather then pre-determined scripted events (now dialogue, avoidable combat, now exploration, now mandatory bossfight). That's also something I liked about D:OSs system - how same abilities would be used for both combat and exploration - that way character we make has impact on various aspects of the game, rather then just one.

EDIT:

That's not the first time I see that argument, and BG3 is definitely NOT a reskin of D:OS2. However, I have my doubts about priorities of BG3 vs BG1&2. The simplest way I can explain it is, that IE consist of 3 distinct series BG, Icewind Dales and Planescape. While similar in some respect, those are three very different IPs, with different appeals and focuses. BG3 being based on DnD, doesn't make it automatically a spiritual successor to BG1&2. I think it is possible that Larian RPG is quite a unique thing, just as Bioware or Bethesda RPG is. And Larian RPG might not appeal to some people who liked original Bioware RPGs.

I am just happy that a modern DnD RPG is being made, the fact that it is Larian Studios and the Baldur's Gate series is just frosting on the cake.

Yep. But the ideal is to having everything(lore, artstyle, combat, exploration and dialogs in line), i hate for eg, when warlocks are teleporting, conjuring hordes from nine hells and doing all cool stuff on nwn2 OC during dialogs, dungeons and cutscenes only to when join in your party lose the ability to teleport(which is on P&P), to control multiple summons can't grapple enemies with chilling tentacles. Or when a cleric can revive the dead, but only the dead which died in combat. the dead who died on cutscenes can't be brought back to life. BG1/2 is not perfect, but is far better than other games. Eg : Slayer form on BG2 can impact your party relations and when you have to deal with mindflayers, the temptation to use the slayer form is huge trade off.

Other old school games did the ability to use supernatural stuff off combat better. You can use domination on dialogs on vtmb, can use disciplines to help you with hacking, or lockpicking, or even to help on stealth, your social skills are very important, even on combat since ammo is expensive as hell, and highly social skills makes purchasing expensive ammo cheaper. Mainly .50 AE for DE and flamethrower fuel. BG is not bad in that aspect. On Arcanum, if you are a necromancer, you can even talk to the dead to get information and solve the quests in a alternative route. On Gothic 2, people threat you differently if you are a Fire Magician of Innos or if you are a Mercenary for eg.

Pathfinder Kingmaker also did a amazing job. You can depending the quests decisions and kingdom management decisions, have even alterations on the final chapter, if you researched some stuff or not. Or even if your capital will have undead workers which construct things quicker than normal workers but a lot of people hate it or not. If you have golems protecting your capital. Depending on your alignment, your buildings are different. Lawful guys can't construct brothels. Evil guys can solve the quest involving lizardfolk in a different way. IF you play as a Wizard, the scrolls which merchants on your city can sell you are tied to your realm's arcane rank. so you invest a lot of arcane buildings and researches if you plan to play as a wizard. And so on. Hell, even a unique adviser exists depending on your alignment. Chapter 4 spoilers bellow.



And i can only judge BG3 by the gameplay videos. But seem amazing how dialog checks seems to be able to affect your relation to party members. I really wish that BG3 will be a amazing ROLE PLAYING game. And have impactful decisions.

I do not think PF wanted to be a spiritual sucessor of BG, I think they wanted to make a "Pathfinder TT" videogame. It is known that many of the Owlcat´s devs are Pathfinder "nerdys". When the time came to make another game they chose another Classic AP of PF1e: Wrath of the Righteous adding more mechanics of the PF ruleset: Mounted combat, Mythic paths, etc.

I mean, the game is the classic AP "Pathfinder: kingmaker" of Paizo, with all the rules of PF1e and the features and classes of the PNP campaign, like the kingdom management, NPCS, Story, even the difficulty spike in combats and skillchecks... with many improvements.

And if you played the original campaign you can see they made a very faithful depiction of the campaign and the feel of the experience of playing PF in a videogame. Kudos to them.

But one thing that Larian did greatly is to make turn based mainstream again. I mean, from 1998 to very recent, almost all TT adaptations was RtWP. The exception was ToEE and ToEE din't sold well like NWN1. With DOS1/DOS2, now people are making TB games again and even games which aren't turn based, like deadfire and kingmaker, are now receiving optional turn based modes.

cough XCOM 2012 cough

You are spot on there. Perhaps they are thinking turn-based fantasy rpg which has either been RTWP or arcade action-based.
Not to go off-topic but, speaking of XCOM, I really think that mechanic of strategy and tactical would be perfectly positioned well for a game similar to Pathfinder Kingmaker.
It has a strategy layer as you build your kingdom, and then tactical battles as you explore the map. But if they were to have done it more XCOM style I think the strategy layer could have been so much more while maintaining the existing tactical.

Yes TB never stopped being mainstream. What the D:OS games did was to push studios towards a mindset that TB is now the ONLY way an RPG should be made. So not mainstream but exclusiveness.

What universe do you live in, and can I get 2000-2012 games from that universe?

When publishers started to pursue consoles certain genres were abandoned. IPs that didn't fit in, like Syndicate or XCOM for that matter, they would be rebooted into shooters. Until XCOM-2012 turn-based games would be PC exclusive and mostly unexistent. What turn based games were there? Civ series, that's the one that survived. Heroes of Might and Magic died off releasing cheaply produced sequels. There are japanese games, but they comes from a bit different market.

Most strategy games were, and still remain, TB. And why should we separate out Japanese games? They have quite a bit of a following in the US.

I was talking about TT adaptations to Video Games. Yes, after DOS2 success, deadfire got turn based mode and even kingmaker will get a turn based mode. Before DOS 1/2, every game trying to bring back BG style of game, was RtWP. If not a completely bastardization of the ruleset. I don't consider DOS 1/2 old school like in any aspect. In fact, between dos2, pfkm and deadfire, dos2 is the more modern like and kingmaker the most old school like.

And XCOM was dumbed down to consoles ( https://steamcommunity.com/app/200510/discussions/0/864949483128719266/ )

Anyway, about kingmaker, Xamenos on RPG codex has a good explanation on the differences between TT and CRPG kingmaker. Obvious spoilers on this link https://rpgcodex.net/forums/threads...august-18th.125267/page-693#post-6796713

Maybe the term "dumbed down" could be read as rude, but I have to point out that when a game is made with a console in mind, it usually need a more simplified UI (fewer buttons in consoles), it´s not optimized for the use of the mouse, sometimes has some clunky inventory sorting and the icons tend to be bigger, more simplified and fewer if they ported the game directly to the PC.
IF someone played Dao, Command and conquer, Skyrim, etc in console they know what I´m talking about.


Just take a look at the SkyUI for TES: Skyrim. In this case, the PC allows more options and the original UI was a little clunky because it´s the same they use in consoles.