Larian Banner: Baldur's Gate Patch 9
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 8 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Joined: Oct 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Sharet
The problem is that the MC is way too bland and replaceable.

It's an artistic choice, not a good one in my opinion but an artistic choice nonetheless. They want to put the focus on the party, not on a single character, because this is really a game thought to be cooperative, with single-player mode as a bonus.

Its kind of strange, but I think there is this idea floating around in the aether for some time now, that Dungeons and Dragons really can't be a worthwhile solitary or single-player experience, just because of how things necessarily work in PnP. The Wizards have really run away from the idea of a single-player in D&D. All their marketing and pop culture promotion would seem to suggest that D&D is a game meant only for groups, and any new computer or video game that comes out in this franchise has to pay lip service to that central idea now.

But I think in the old days, whoever was running TSR understood that D&D also had a pretty strong appeal to lone individuals who might not actually have a gaming group, and so those old crpgs all tried to simulate the party based experience, but with an almost exclusively single player focus. So they gave us companions to help bridge the gap, and give the lone player an experience that was like the best of what might happen in group play. It represented a sort of idealized version of group play, but which still knew that it was really presenting something meant to be enjoyed by a single player alone.

I call that design emphasis "God Mode" (single player, but controlling multiple characters) which was sort of a hybrid between what it felt like to be a lone Player Character, but in a way also what it felt like to be a DM, like viewing things from the outside perspective or the party as a whole. They took that dual perspective and married it to the idea of a fantasy novel script or a choose your own adventure YA book, but where the protagonist was left blank slated so the lone player could fill that part in.

This design style created a separate D&D lineage, one that was pretty distinct from standard PnP D&D group modules or campaigns, at least in my view. It's a lineage that began with the old Gold Box PC games and hit its apex and most fully realized form in BG1/2, when the internet was still in its infancy.

Now, because its possible to actually create multiplayer D&D games that work to emulate the PnP experience more exactly, that other style of game has sort of gone by the wayside. Like a relic of the past or something, which is sort of a shame, because it actually hooks a different kind of player, or a different kind of kid I think, and also gives them a way into this thing, that they might not otherwise get.

Most of the source books and materials I purchased as a newb, mainly for the artwork or the figurines or the stories, were never actually used in PnP sessions. Cause I just didn't have a bunch of nerdy friends who obsessed over fantasy stuff the way I did. I had plenty of friends to be sure, they just weren't into D&D like I was. It wasn't like in the movies or Strangers Things, with 5 kids in a basement all amped up to play in each others imagination. Maybe it was like that in the early 80s, when I was still to young to understand the rules lol. Instead it was like me trying to convince one other person to "check this out", but that never quite worked, because you can't really play PnP D&D with just 2 people either haha. For me D&D was always a more solitary thing, and I much preferred the computer games over like drama class antics around a table or trading magic cards. Did I miss out on something special there? Probably. But you know, not everyone has siblings or can pal around with a gang of 4 at the constant ready, and so things like Baldur's Gate crpgs stepped in to fill that role for people in those kinds of situations.

I can understand exactly why the Wizards would look at a successful co-op game developer and say, "Yep, that's exactly what we want! Give them the golden goose!!!" but I just think its kind of a poor fit for Baldur's Gate. BG was like perfecting the single player Gold Box form, a long form game with a lot of reading and down time and solitary style emersion, not like a casual arcade or console game, grab and go with 4 controllers. They should have picked a different campaign module, with a less storied past, if that's what they wanted to make.

Joined: Aug 2021
A
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
A
Joined: Aug 2021
I agree, Elk. Except I don't understand why Wizards (and Larian) would decide to take this path, because as far as I know the numbers simply do not support the claim that co-op RPGs will actually keep up steam for all that long. Once a game stops being the hot new thing, the MP people tend to move on. And if the single player aspect was left utterly mediocre (since all design considerations were focused on multiplayer) then the SP crowd will abandon it too, and then the game is just stone dead. And dead games don't sell, dead games don't attract positive attention, dead games don't constitute a strong communication channel to existing players, dead games do not build customer loyalty.

On top of that, sacrificing one of the strongest single player franchises to push a co-op title that is barely trying to be even a spiritual successor to the old titles, I don't see how that really works out to be a long term win. Does anyone really want a co-op Baldur's Gate all that much? The brand pulls in all the old timers that loved the original, but do they want to constantly bang their heads against design nonsense purely and exclusively centered around some modern co-op bullshit? I don't know about anyone else, but I sure don't. Is the current market for co-op RPGs really that big? Are DOS and DOS2 currently pulling in big player counts in co-op? If not then where's the long term win here?

Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
Originally Posted by ArvGuy
I agree, Elk. Except I don't understand why Wizards (and Larian) would decide to take this path, because as far as I know the numbers simply do not support the claim that co-op RPGs will actually keep up steam for all that long.
I mean Larian thing is Coop RPGs, and D:OS2 sold better then it singleplayer competitors. WotC wouldn't hire Larian if they weren't interested in that kind of RPG for Baldur's Gate3.

Originally Posted by ArvGuy
Are DOS and DOS2 currently pulling in big player counts in co-op? If not then where's the long term win here?
I don't think so, but there is no monetization in D:OS1&2 - so whenever people continue playing it for long time after buying, or even play it for more then 5-10 hours is irrelevant from business perspective - the only money Larian made for those were initial sales, and those sold better then Pillars or Kingmaker. If "coop RPG" will ships more copies (or will ship a copy and the couple extra copies for coop buddies that will get bored and abandon campaign 1/4 through on top) that a financial win.

EDIT: There is a reason why Bethesda is reselling Skyrim over and over again, and why they tried the abomination that is Fallout76, and tried to monetize mods - making a one-purchase, lengthy, replayable experience just isn't a good business practice nowaydays. Not that I would put Larian in that basket - while I dislike their creative decision, I am still convinced they are creative decisions - I don't think greed has much to do with it. They want to make interactable RPGs which have strong multiplayer component. That's absolutely fine, even if I am somewhat cross that they use BG IP for that.

Last edited by Wormerine; 26/08/21 11:14 AM.
Page 8 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5