|
|
|
addict
|
addict
Joined: Apr 2020
|
In my opinion, BG III shouldn't be trying to copy the limitations of a PC game made in 1998 that was then designed to try and simulate another game designed to be played with pen and paper and people's imaginations. That is an idiotic idea.
BG III needs to stretch what is possible in 2020 with today's computer tech. It ought to foremostly attempt to bring the creativity, sense of awe, excitement and RPG elements of the truly imaginative strengths of D&D to the computer.
One can do this today much better than one could in 1998. The computer can now simulate things that were abstracted greatly in 1998, and it also does not need the abstraction found in D&D to portray real world physics that only happen "in your head" using very abstract simplified rules found in pen and paper.
Larian was chosen for this game because of their skills at portraying exciting, turn based combat that features a tactical, thinking approach and the use of strategy in a fantasy setting. They are quite good at this. Their earlier game has spells and physical combat, under a different ruleset than D&D. Upon moving to Baldur's Gate, they have changed to D&D's use of the game's races, classes, spells, and combat rules, as well the D&D setting. Still trying to make sense of this. How exactly BG3 apply modern technology to the game apart from cosmetics? In fact, it has fairly obselete mechanics and I would even say BG2 had more complex mechanics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Nov 2020
|
I disagree. As a longtime Baldur's Gate fan, BG3 feels more Baldur's Gate than BG2. I'd be interested to hear your reasons why you feel this way.
Last edited by Etruscan; 18/12/20 11:08 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
|
In my opinion, BG III shouldn't be trying to copy the limitations of a PC game made in 1998 that was then designed to try and simulate another game designed to be played with pen and paper and people's imaginations. That is an idiotic idea.
BG III needs to stretch what is possible in 2020 with today's computer tech. It ought to foremostly attempt to bring the creativity, sense of awe, excitement and RPG elements of the truly imaginative strengths of D&D to the computer.
One can do this today much better than one could in 1998. The computer can now simulate things that were abstracted greatly in 1998, and it also does not need the abstraction found in D&D to portray real world physics that only happen "in your head" using very abstract simplified rules found in pen and paper.
Larian was chosen for this game because of their skills at portraying exciting, turn based combat that features a tactical, thinking approach and the use of strategy in a fantasy setting. They are quite good at this. Their earlier game has spells and physical combat, under a different ruleset than D&D. Upon moving to Baldur's Gate, they have changed to D&D's use of the game's races, classes, spells, and combat rules, as well the D&D setting. Still trying to make sense of this. How exactly BG3 apply modern technology to the game apart from cosmetics? In fact, it has fairly obselete mechanics and I would even say BG2 had more complex mechanics. In what way?
Lover of non-haughty elves and non-smutty lesbian romance
"1404. I will not spoil the adventure's mandatory ambush by using the cheesy tactic of a "scout"." - From "Things Mr. Welch is no longer allowed to do in a (tabletop) RPG"
|
|
|
|
|
|
member
|
|
member
Joined: Feb 2020
|
i agree with the day and night cycle and the teleporting. funnly enaugh neither of htose have anyhting to do with the ruleset beeing used... I beg to differ. Because long rests are always 8 hours long, and short rests are always 1 hour long, having a day/night cycle really does make sense to exist. This isn't like D&D 3.5 where resting could potentially only take 4 hours (or 1-2 hours with specific magic items). Resting in D&D 5e has a very strict effect on the time of day, so having a day and night cycle is important for both the ruleset and immersion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
|
In my opinion, BG III shouldn't be trying to copy the limitations of a PC game made in 1998 that was then designed to try and simulate another game designed to be played with pen and paper and people's imaginations. That is an idiotic idea.
BG III needs to stretch what is possible in 2020 with today's computer tech. It ought to foremostly attempt to bring the creativity, sense of awe, excitement and RPG elements of the truly imaginative strengths of D&D to the computer.
One can do this today much better than one could in 1998. The computer can now simulate things that were abstracted greatly in 1998, and it also does not need the abstraction found in D&D to portray real world physics that only happen "in your head" using very abstract simplified rules found in pen and paper.
Larian was chosen for this game because of their skills at portraying exciting, turn based combat that features a tactical, thinking approach and the use of strategy in a fantasy setting. They are quite good at this. Their earlier game has spells and physical combat, under a different ruleset than D&D. Upon moving to Baldur's Gate, they have changed to D&D's use of the game's races, classes, spells, and combat rules, as well the D&D setting. Still trying to make sense of this. How exactly BG3 apply modern technology to the game apart from cosmetics? In fact, it has fairly obselete mechanics and I would even say BG2 had more complex mechanics. Agreed. The chaining mechanic is obsolete. With BG2EE my characters move where I want them to when I want them to. My toons do block the enemy but they don't block other party members. When I want to separate a character, I simply click and move them and when I want the party to move as a group I just click a single button. If I want to move two or three I use and shift and click. No tiresome: unchain-unchain-unchain / chain-chain/ move / unchain / select / chain, chain, chain. The amount of micromanaging you need to get your party to move is irritating and 20 year old game does party control sooo much better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Sep 2016
|
Also there is a important condition about how this game will go on: "Playable for everyone"
Yes, one thing that Larian wants (every SH wants beacause it's important to survive in actual videogames market), is to make Baldur's Gate 3 and D&D mechanics in general just more appeal and ideal also for Newbie-Friendly. USe a 20 years-old mechanic with late '90 videogame mechanics is not so newbie-friendly for today standards.
Last edited by Il_Rettile; 02/01/21 09:28 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
|
Also there is a important condition about how this game will go on: "Playable for everyone"
Yes, one thing that Larian wants (every SH wants beacause it's important to survive in actual videogames market), is to make Baldur's Gate 3 and D&D mechanics in general just more appeal and ideal also for Newbie-Friendly. USe a 20 years-old mechanic with late '90 videogame mechanics is not so newbie-friendly for today standards. But the irony is that the 20 year old movement mechanic is superior to the one we have now both in terms of functionality and in newbie-friendliness. It's the same mechanic that PoE, Numenera and Solasta use.
|
|
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Also there is a important condition about how this game will go on: "Playable for everyone"
Yes, one thing that Larian wants (every SH wants beacause it's important to survive in actual videogames market), is to make Baldur's Gate 3 and D&D mechanics in general just more appeal and ideal also for Newbie-Friendly. USe a 20 years-old mechanic with late '90 videogame mechanics is not so newbie-friendly for today standards. But the irony is that the 20 year old movement mechanic is superior to the one we have now both in terms of functionality and in newbie-friendliness. It's the same mechanic that PoE, Numenera and Solasta use. Agreed. Its like saying clicking on characters is an obsolete mechanic because we started using it all the way back in the 90s when mouses were added... DOS2 & BG3 party controls are awful. I never had less responsive and unprecise controlls of my party as this 'modern' approach. It tries to iterate on NWN2 (didn't play NWN1, so maybe its there as well) and its a typical console approach where you controll a single character and the AI takes care of the rest. On top of that the party reacts slowly to your character's movement and this delay causes formations to be disrupted (not that you could set them up properly anyway). The whole controls are clunky and slow in BG3 and not at all newbie friendly (actually it requires to adjust to BG3's approach from those that you would use based on experience with other games in the same market).
|
|
|
|
|
|
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Also there is a important condition about how this game will go on: "Playable for everyone"
Yes, one thing that Larian wants (every SH wants beacause it's important to survive in actual videogames market), is to make Baldur's Gate 3 and D&D mechanics in general just more appeal and ideal also for Newbie-Friendly. USe a 20 years-old mechanic with late '90 videogame mechanics is not so newbie-friendly for today standards. But the irony is that the 20 year old movement mechanic is superior to the one we have now both in terms of functionality and in newbie-friendliness. It's the same mechanic that PoE, Numenera and Solasta use. Agreed. Its like saying clicking on characters is an obsolete mechanic because we started using it all the way back in the 90s when mouses were added... DOS2 & BG3 party controls are awful. I never had less responsive and unprecise controlls of my party as this 'modern' approach. It tries to iterate on NWN2 (didn't play NWN1, so maybe its there as well) and its a typical console approach where you controll a single character and the AI takes care of the rest. On top of that the party reacts slowly to your character's movement and this delay causes formations to be disrupted (not that you could set them up properly anyway). The whole controls are clunky and slow in BG3 and not at all newbie friendly (actually it requires to adjust to BG3's approach from those that you would use based on experience with other games in the same market). I'm of the opposite opinion on controlling the party. I find it very easy and smooth to use, personally, and rarely have issues since the update that lets the party jump with you (before that, my only real issue was getting my party to follow me over gaps), in spite of the fact that my main character is the fastest of my party by far after clearing out the goblin fort (between natural elven speed and crusher's ring, her speed is 13.5 meters per round). In fact, I would say going back to 90s would be a step backwards, if only because I still remember the godawful pathfinding in BG I and II. Trying to leave a map and hearing "You must gather your party before venturing forth" repeatedly because Minsc or Jaheira decided to take a long, circuitous, or completely blocked route was far, far more frustrating than DOS 2 and BG III movement ever was at its worst, in my opinion. (also, I literally never saw the point of formations, so there is that) The only issue I can think of off the top of my head was when Lae'zel, leading the trapped man from the burning inn while following my Tav headed up to a burning room on the other side of the inn instead of actually following her out, but that happened all of once and that was back when the camera liked going above the ceiling.
Lover of non-haughty elves and non-smutty lesbian romance
"1404. I will not spoil the adventure's mandatory ambush by using the cheesy tactic of a "scout"." - From "Things Mr. Welch is no longer allowed to do in a (tabletop) RPG"
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
|
In fact, I would say going back to 90s would be a step backwards, if only because I still remember the godawful pathfinding in BG I and II. Trying to leave a map and hearing "You must gather your party before venturing forth" repeatedly because Minsc or Jaheira decided to take a long, circuitous, or completely blocked route was far, far more frustrating than DOS 2 and BG III movement ever was at its worst, in my opinion. (also, I literally never saw the point of formations, so there is that) Which have nothing to do with what people are complaining about? Bad pathfinding is bad pathfinding regardless of how you control the characters. If there was bad pathfinding that would just make the chaining system even worse because every time a character took a detour you'd have to go through the tedious chore of unchaining and rechaining the characters before you take control of them and lead them right, otherwise your whole party will just turn around on the spot and run back to the detoured character instead of staging where you want them. See for example Astarion in the Owlbear cave choosing to rather run a lap around the whole area, straight into the face of the Owlbear, rather than pass over the tiniest stream of running water with the rest of your party. Talk about great pathfinding >_>
Optimistically Apocalyptic
|
|
|
|
|
|
member
|
|
member
Joined: Oct 2020
|
In fact, I would say going back to 90s would be a step backwards, if only because I still remember the godawful pathfinding in BG I and II. Trying to leave a map and hearing "You must gather your party before venturing forth" repeatedly because Minsc or Jaheira decided to take a long, circuitous, or completely blocked route was far, far more frustrating than DOS 2 and BG III movement ever was at its worst, in my opinion. (also, I literally never saw the point of formations, so there is that) Which have nothing to do with what people are complaining about? Bad pathfinding is bad pathfinding regardless of how you control the characters. If there was bad pathfinding that would just make the chaining system even worse because every time a character took a detour you'd have to go through the tedious chore of unchaining and rechaining the characters before you take control of them and lead them right, otherwise your whole party will just turn around on the spot and run back to the detoured character instead of staging where you want them. See for example Astarion in the Owlbear cave choosing to rather run a lap around the whole area, straight into the face of the Owlbear, rather than pass over the tiniest stream of running water with the rest of your party. Talk about great pathfinding >_> That's probably because he would take damage, and it would be even more annoying if he just walked straight through something that would injure him than taking the long road around.
I honestly hope you have a most marvelous day!
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Of course it is because he would take damage. 1d4 or whatever. The point is -- how much damage don't you think he takes from running, solo, straight into the Owlbear while the rest of the party is still hanging out looking at corpse containers at the other side of the cave? It's shit pathfinding all the same.
Optimistically Apocalyptic
|
|
|
|
|
