Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Time to STOP

If anything I'd like to see Larian take another crack at Dragon Commander. The game has a lot of interesting ideas that didn't come to fruition because of financial circumstance.

+1 lots of compelling stuff there, just not fleshed out enough (for anyone not in the now. Dragon Commander was supposed to be the big release, while D:OS1 was a side project, but after seeing how it was turning out Larian decided to pull out all stops to make D:OS1 as good as it could be. DC was sacrificed in the process).

I'm telling you, cinematic, character-driven, grand strategy RPG.
Dragon Commander meets Baldur's Gate 3 with a little bit of Crusader Kings (or other Paradox game).

Thank you yes this:
Cyberpunk Ray tracing? Unreal 5 can do same effects as Ray tracing with new technology and clearly less system requirements. UNREAL 5 engine beats BG3 engine but BG3 is towards end of it production line to change to UNREAL 5 now would be wrong and create long time delay and lets keep the current engine and full release at August 2023. BG3 will have enough good graphics though if speak of best engine I would say Unreal 5 engine is that.

Only MMO:s use Unreal 5? No lots of upcoming single player games will use the very powerful Unreal 5 engine and even the next Witcher whenever that will be released will use Unreal 5 engine at least that is the current plan.
"Both Cyberpunk 2077 and The Witcher series were developed on an in-house game engine called RED Engine. Starting with The Witcher 4, CD Projekt RED will switch to Unreal Engine 5, collaborating with Epic Games."

Even Dungeons Dragons MMO will use Unreal 5:
Dungeons Dragons MMO (Neverwinter ONLINE exist, but it is outdated) with Unreal 5 graphics. Developed in USA.
Release date?: Unknown Guess 2025-2028. Even the name is unknown for this MMO.

However how to to use UNREAL 5 if have like BG1 or BG2 I do not know. However it is the best graphics you can do and system ok ok system requirements.

Why would so many really many buy UNREAL 5 for much money? Because it is best. I do not say UNREAL 4 was best even before long time before UNREAL 5, but UNREAL 5 is much better then UNREAL 4. Unreal 4 was perhaps good, but UNREAL 5 is excellent better then UNREAL 4 and more then only better graphics.

More and more buy UNREAL 5 because it is NOT only better graphics. It is powerful system requirements is ok even you would have really big battle. I do know at least 5 big budget AAA fantasy MMO that will use UNREAL 5 the first one will come during 2023 that fantasy MMO is Throne of Liberty aka Lineage 3 MMO full release during 2023. That is actually the very first UNREAL 5 engine fantasy MMO that will be full release.

Other games that are not fantasy MMO that would be a very long list of games that will use UNREAL 5 however example solo fantasy game Witcher 4 will use Unreal 5.

Unreal 5 is of course an engine and graphics. Of course artist make could create different worlds with that engine and you could argue some Unreal 5 games will have better looking world then as another Unreal 5 game world. One reason WOW MMO was successful because it was not realistic graphics the people liked the art the Style they did WOW MMO. If you go on saying which painting is best in an art gallery oh well I refuse to argue with that and there is also subjective taste.

Unreal 5 is for gaming PC and the very best consoles.
In fact EPIC has already have show where they showed Unreal 5 engine on Playstation 5. Well and game developers have used it for PC games. Unreal 5 is not for older consoles like Playstation 4. Well and best Xbox should run Unreal 5 engine at least I believe so.

Actually Unreal 5 can function on some lesser systems but every game will have their own system requirements and if you want to play all Unreal 5 games then I think it is best for best Consoles or ok gaming PC.

Did you seriously just write 28 times UNREAL 5 in your post? This is 120% unreal.

"Um.... is this a troll post? Spells slots has been in Dungeons and Dragons for a long time... maybe since it's inception? I know it was around when I started playing 3rd edition in the early 1990s and still exists today in 5e. It's a staple of Dungeons and Dragons. It seems to me that you just don't like the mechanics of D&D."

No this is NOT a troll post but perhaps you are right on my dislike for the "concept" of spell slots!

What don't you like about them? That one needs to rest to regain them? That they are too limiting? That one can't use the same few spells over and over again on a loop?

Or Larian can try Obsidian's way used in Pillars of eternity II: a dual system with the option for the player to choose classic turn based, full real time combat or a mixed system in wich you can use "pause" to strategize [the turn system on video games is a bit weird even when in D & D based games, not all that comes from the table top can be transferred on video games, it breaks immersion: first one character (NPC or player controlled) makes a move, then another one, due to the fact that chances of more characters rolling the same initiave, the result is a sort of ballet. Now I'm not a battle specialist but I think that in real battles there's no thing as turns but an incoherent real time battle in wich reflex and perception play the bigger part. The D & D logic videos from Vive la dirt league have funnily and brightly highlighted the weirdness of turn based battles, that again in a tabletop role play game are compulsory, and of long rest not only replenishing stamina, magic, faith, but also healing deadly wounds, bone fractures, burns, cold burns, infections, intoxications, every thing in the same amount of time and with the same amount of supplies, in BG3 is 40.

But those incoherences are part of the charm of the game, just like the fact that you can not heal a character taht is not tied to the story, use resurrection spells or scrolls other than on the party.. ... ]

Side comment, this is the longest period Larian has gone without releasing a game since the gap between Beyond Divinity and Divinity II.

To be fair, this is the trend of the industry. As production value ramps up, game sequels are taking longer an longer to make. Just look at elder Scrolls and GTA.

I get your point and agree with you, but TESVI is very much not in proper development until after Starfield's release. the 2018 trailer was just so people would shut up about it.
Morrowind (2001-2)-->Oblivion (2006)-->Skyrim (2011) is fairly consistent.

Disco Elysium is a good example. The skill system is superb, you shape a whole character.
In BG3 you look for a a few Triggers to fuck your teammates. Maybe it gives you a Archivment when you fucked the whole party?
The graphic is nice but the Immersion Level is the same as 20 years ago.

This argument doesn't fly when BG3 is supposed to be a sequel of BG1 and BG2, which were *not* turn-based despite also being based on D&D. Not to mention that a computer game doesn't have the same physical limitations as a pen-and-paper tabletop, which are turn-based by necessity. They shouldn't be treated the same.

I think it's a perfectly good argument. Fizzwick didn't say a D&D game had to be turn-based, only that it is in keeping with the source material which it is. Sure there are other games, including BG1 & BG2, based on D&D or similar rule-sets that aren't turn-based, but that doesn't mean the choice to make BG3 so isn't valid, or that there is anything wrong with trying to make a game that is more true to the experience of playing PnP D&D in this respect. And much as I love BG1 and BG2, I don't think their combat mechanics are something to aspire to in 2023.

An argument that I don't think flies is that because computer D&D games don't need to be turn-based given that they don't have the same limitations as PnP, they shouldn't be turn-based.

BG1 and 2 are turn based. You can Stop every time and give new commands. The Game logic in the background is turn based.
The only problem are the people who cant live with the fact that they have no 100% control over every aspect of the game. What is bullshit itself because D20.
In BG or Dragon Age Origin you are more leader. In Turn based games you take possession of the character. Thats the fundamental difference.
D&D source is Tabeltop game with people. Do you patronize the turn of your sit neighbor and say in every aspect what he has to do?
To say turn based is more PnP Experience is a weird argument. Maybe you have solo sessions, i doubt it.
The only thing that sucked in BG was Caster with stacked multiple protection spells and instant Death Spells but that Bullshit was D&D rules of this time.

Not really - RTwP doesn't grant players any less control over the characters than turn-based does, it just adds an aspect of reactrion time and keeping a track of multiple actors doing things at the same time. Not too challenging in BG1&2 as casters are the only one demanding a lot of attention. Perhaps, as a player who tends to minimise AI and micromanage each unit for efficency I just don't see the change to be that major.

Okay, fair point. I guess it would be more accurate to say BG1 & BG2 don't force you to play in a turn-based mode, than that they aren't turn-based.


I don't know who you're talking about here. Perhaps there are people who want 100% control over every aspect of the game though it's not something I think I've seen anyone on these forums demanding. Especially given, as you say, randomness is built into the fabric of D&D. And it's a good job these people probably don't exist here, as they might understandably be a bit upset to be called a "problem" or their imagined position "bullshit"!

I assume you're not saying that the only reason that someone might want turn-based combat is because they can't live with not having 100% control over every aspect of the game, because that's definitely not true.

But I'll stop there as there is already a 95 page long turn-based vs RTWP mega-thread, so I don't think I have anything to say on the topic that's not been said many times before.

They said the OP doesn't have a point because D&D is turn-based ("if they were making almost any other sort of game, you might have a point, but..."), implying that turn-based is the only option that makes sense.


Thing is, BG1/BG2 were never trying to replicate the experience of playing PnP D&D. They built off the base ruleset but changed a fair amount of it, in order to make a fast-moving *real-time* RPG game that was uniquely its own. The BG3 approach of trying to replicate PnP D&D is... not what the BG1/2 games were about. That's mainly my issue.

Put another way: BG1/B2 were RPGs that had elements of D&D. BG3 is trying to be a full-on D&D 5e computer game. If it weren't meant to be a sequel to the Baldur's Gate series, I'd have no problem with it, but it's distinct from the approach of BG1/BG2.


You don't think 20+ years of game development could improve RTwP from the original BG days? Plenty of other games have successfully implemented RTwP in similar settings.

I vastly prefer RTwP over turn-based combat. I'd take BG1/2 combat over BG3 combat any day.


And I'm not saying that. In a perfect world I'd like BG3 to have an option for both, so all parties can play the way they want to play. I just strongly disagree with any stance that D&D is turn-based therefore BG3 being turn-based is the only thing that makes sense.

Ok, so a bit about RTwP, I played PoE:Deadfire and I played it with RTwP! and it was great, in some aspects it was exciting, I would take control of a character if another character needed help or the character needed to get the hell away, etc... otherwise it was fun.
The Ai for setting up the RTwP was OK, nothing complicated and any game company should be able to create/recreate it.

But I must say, PoE:Deadfire was a BORING game, didn't like any faction or character for that matter!

I think Larian can do better!