I actually think the PoE lore is great, but the problem is that there's quite a bit of depth to it and you really are thrust right into the world right from the get go. I didn't find it too bad, but I can see how some people would feel confused (actually, it's the feeling I get when I play a lot of JRPGs and they throw you right into a really weird world.) I think in Deadfire they had a good band-aid for this, in the form of dialogue links for lots of things that would come up with a small pop-up window and a brief description of what the person was talking about. But too bad Deadfire didn't do so well.
Deadfire is one of the reasons why I am a bit concerned. Here is a good YT video on what something like full VO could take from a CRPG (timestamp included)
That is Josh Sawyer from Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire. Note, Divinity Original Sin 2 was where the idea for full VO came from and when he thought it was too late to really build that in, he was overruled by the owners who insisted. Critical Role was also involved in voicing characters. Even Disco Elysium had to raise extra money after the fact for voice acting. This is more than just VO. You want mega interactivity? You need a game engine for that, which means building your own. You want a massive 3D world? You gotta spend the money for those assets. IIRC Larian has an owner capable of putting their own money into the studio to prevent bankruptcy when gambles don't pay out.
'Genre defining' has to be feasible for the genre. This is not a case of having a system or features that everyone uses going forward because BG3 doesn't have any special systems or formula or even game design like that. If DoS1 or 2 didn't do any genre defining, the same thing with more money is not going to do it. It is not feasible for every other company in the CRPG space right now to even attempt to be copycats, because the only thing they can copy is....roleplaying more? Or money.
EDIT I did read the OP @Warlocke
Even the sex concerns were about how others would be marketing their game going forward or how it's getting too much hype from thirst. I also read the moderator's note that being myopic on sex could not be the end all be all of the thread. So, your personal scoring on games you like and how other people's opinions don't matter is not relevant either way.
I think the framing here is a bit rhetorical, since that's what happens when a declarative statement is presented as a question, but since these are discussion boards... Is Baldur's Gate 3 bad for the genre?
I don't think so, but I also enjoy what I suppose we'd call low brow fantasy? I feel like that is somewhat in the spirit of the original. I just kinda enjoy when it goes all extra bawdy and libertine. I mean of course I like when it taps into some whimsy and romanticism too, but that's not really the first thing that comes to mind for me when recalling Baldur's Gate.
Mostly the criticism levelled against Larian is that they are too irreverent, but to me that's one of their strengths here. I think a team that was more precious with the source material would have really struggled to pull this off.
Basically we're getting Beneath the Planet of the Apes more than Planet of the Apes, if that makes sense. (Although honestly I still find the original Planet of the Apes to be the funnier film personally, so maybe its more that one hehe.) BG3 is basically an epic B flick.
It should probably be called a triple B game (BBB) rather than AAA, or AA with a AAA budget, or other shorthands I've heard.
Stuff like that is always gonna be a bit take it or leave it, and it's super hard to replicate or copy.
Origin and Genre are related terms, they share the same root, and to me, we can read a lot into how Origin means something rather different in DAO compared to BG3. Irony fell out of fashion from overuse in the aughts, but I think it's ironic that BG3 landed where it did. Somehow I accidentally ceremorphed from a hater to a booster, somewhere between the EA and the Full Release, but this is probably because I expected hardcore disappointment when instead I found myself quite enjoying it. But I don't think I could universalize or generalize why exactly.
ps. The Deadfire video is fascinating. He's very candid! Sawyer doing the mea culpa thing and falling on his sword for some of that stuff. It makes me like him all the more for just leaving it all on the field and being willing to air it out that way in the aftermath. Like what they learned from it all. To me the most interesting part is a few minutes later when he discusses the challenges of the early backer/early access phenomenon. I would love so much one day to hear something like that about how the BG3 EA felt from the other side, like on the receiving end of all this feedback and criticism.
Also not to dismiss the prompt, just that it primed me first to think of all the ways BG3 might be bad for the genre, but then I had to stop myself cause that would take a very long time to unpack and I'm not sure it'd really be on Larian so much as like the genre itself. That q activates my future construction disability/ability and dials it way up, inclines me to take stuff pretty far off the deep end. Then I had to pause and think for a good long spell about what BG3 reminded me of. And I just couldn't help hearing Dr. Zaius or the whole tribunal scene, which is the funniest thing ever filmed in my book. I think I like the laughs, but only when they're self depricating and self inflicted. Otherwise it seems sort of cruel. But I feel similarly about all the jokes and joking around. Where it's directed makes a big difference. When it seems like BG3 is poking fun at itself, or just faceplants like slapstick, that lands for me. When I feel like they're making fun of my nostalgia for the OG, not so much.
How I felt about the difference in their treatment of Jaheira compared to
their treatment of Viconia
maybe? That would be a good inflection point to tease out for me. Since I love the way they handled the one, but felt totally burnt by the other. I think I'm a bit of a sucker for a redemption arch, which may be a big factor there for me. Again though, not sure what to make of it on that larger front. I guess I got one foot in the river here and the other still on the banks.
But yeah, none of the sex scenes I've seen in BG3 have seemed all that shocking (granted I've only seen Lae'Zel and SH) and, like...this was done a long time ago. I think maybe what people are annoyed at, more than the sex scenes, is how everyone (well, ALMOST everyone) is playersexual and, because the game is actually narratively pretty short, they start their flirting ASAP - which can lead to feeling bombarded by flirtatious comments for a while, until you reject everyone and settle on someone.
Yeah, I think this was a bug. Ever since Larian patched it, this kind of behaviour stopped for me. I would need to see in the new game to be sure, though, because it's possible, that I simply closed all the angles for other companions to flirting. But this horny companion behaviour was so unnatural, that I had a feeling this was a bug all along.
DAI was a bad game from a gameplay, UI and camera point of view, but it still had this Bioware magic when it comes to storytelling and companions. And of course lore, they really know how to introduce lore to the game (unlike Obsidian in PoE).
I actually think the PoE lore is great, but the problem is that there's quite a bit of depth to it and you really are thrust right into the world right from the get go. I didn't find it too bad, but I can see how some people would feel confused (actually, it's the feeling I get when I play a lot of JRPGs and they throw you right into a really weird world.) I think in Deadfire they had a good band-aid for this, in the form of dialogue links for lots of things that would come up with a small pop-up window and a brief description of what the person was talking about. But too bad Deadfire didn't do so well.
Oh, I agree the lore in PoE is very detailed and well thought, the problem is that I don't want to read a damn encyclopedia to learn some things about the lore. Dragon Age does introduce lore right, a perfect mix of learning through dialogues or game events with additional background from codex entries. PoE just floods you with long encyclopedia entries that has no emotional value. The Elder Scrolls games are somewhere in the middle, the problem there is mediocre main stories that are not engaging at all, but most of the side content does a pretty good job of introducing the lore.
PoE1? PoE1 is just Chris Avellone let loose with his (sometimes) incoherent rambling about the world. It's like a book, only the one you didn't enjoy to read.
Deadfire is better than PoE1 in introducing the lore, not only that, but also culture, in one playthrough you probably *know" what "Agracima", "per complanca" means and myriad other of native language within the deadfire - that's not only fantastic story telling but culture telling.
BioWare is sucks at making RPG (I'd argue they never made a proper RPG since Baldur's Gate 2, but then again, Baldur's Gate 2 is actually shallow if you scratch behind the story, it had 1-2 dialogue checks where you can express who/what is your character apart from what the game define your character as "Balls" spawn) -- but they good at story telling (DAO, DA2, DAI, KOTOR, ME1/2/3), until they don't (Andromeda, Anthem) --- so it's not a surprise that BioWare has better sense at delivering story compared to Larian (but it's sucks at making RPG).
Bioware is dead and gone. They got sold to EA, because they wanted to make a MMORPG.
Bioware was Baldurs Gate 1+2. Also, these are masterpieces and some of my favorite games ever. While they might not have the design principle of BG3 that theres a TON of splits in the story, well, that wasnt in fashion back then and frankly isnt actually in fashion nowadays, either.
Unfortunately, current rpgs have the false goal of being foolproof. If you go to the Pillars of Eternity (first one) page there is, or at least was, a video there by the lead designer who described all the (horrible and misguided, IMO) things he and they did to remove from their game everything that makes Wizardry 8 great for example.
1) making character choices foolproof so even a new player blundering through the process will have a party capable of playing and finishing the game without extreme difficulty
2) removing all of the strategy by redefining attributes so every character needs all of them and so their effects are "linearized", i.e. so there is no major impact for raising attributes to a certain level. 2a) all characters needing all attributes is to destroy what he derogatorily calls, "min maxing", i.e. all of the strategic aspects of character creation and development which enable the characters and party to sink or swim depending upon the quality and wisdom of the choices. 2b) Strength for example is required by casters because for them it has been made to translate into the strength of their spells. 2c) The linearizing is to eliminate anything powerful from the character design process. A little bit more of an attribute means a little bit more only of whatever it does. Something like the Expert Skills in Wizardry 8 or the Novice-Expert-Master-Grandmaster exponential curve of abilities and spell effectiveness in the Might and Magic games is vigorously avoided. Overall these measures are directly intended to make the entire creation and development process for characters less meaningful and important, instead there is a focusing on just the tactics, exploration and story aspects and eliminating character creation and development as an important part of the game (in large degree).
Modern rpgs can be fun, but do not expect an in-depth and meaningful creation of the party that opens up the possibility of utter failure. The utter lack of this in current rpgs is directly, overtly and shamefully saying players cannot handle a meaningful creation and development of characters and parties that allows them to fail utterly.
Last edited by Count Turnipsome; 26/09/2301:39 PM.
It just reminded me of the bowl of goat's milk that old Winthrop used to put outside his door every evening for the dust demons. He said the dust demons could never resist goat's milk, and that they would always drink themselves into a stupor and then be too tired to enter his room..
Oh right. Of course! BG3 cheerleading is legit. But BG3 criticism is gatekeeping.
Well let me proudly engage in some "gatekeeping" by declaring that all claims to BG3 being a cRPG are bullshit. BG3 is the worst form of AAA game, a game carried entirely by cinematics and sex and a big fat zero on everything that makes an RPG meaningful.
No, criticism is perfectly fine. Better than fine, it’s necessary. But saying when something is made for mainstream audiences with mass appeal in mind (including sex in the game) is inherently bad is tedious gatekeeping.
There is literally only one other AAA CRPG series in existence, and it’s horny as fuck. Dragon Age was doing sex way before BG3, so suggesting that all of the sudden BG3 is now ruining the genre by encouraging the inclusion of sex is utter nonsense.
And yeah, this is the official BG3 forum, there are going to be cheerleaders. Those are called fans, and we will naturally congregate here, and we are going to get tired of the same people talking about how much they hate the game in almost ever single thread. I’m not talking about you, I’m talking about the OP of this thread and a small handful of others.
Okay. Thank you for the clarification. I very much appreciate it, and for my part I am now back to being good with you.
Unfortunately, current rpgs have the false goal of being foolproof. If you go to the Pillars of Eternity (first one) page there is, or at least was, a video there by the lead designer who described all the (horrible and misguided, IMO) things he and they did to remove from their game everything that makes Wizardry 8 great for example.
1) making character choices foolproof so even a new player blundering through the process will have a party capable of playing and finishing the game without extreme difficulty
2) removing all of the strategy by redefining attributes so every character needs all of them and so their effects are "linearized", i.e. so there is no major impact for raising attributes to a certain level. 2a) all characters needing all attributes is to destroy what he derogatorily calls, "min maxing", i.e. all of the strategic aspects of character creation and development which enable the characters and party to sink or swim depending upon the quality and wisdom of the choices. 2b) Strength for example is required by casters because for them it has been made to translate into the strength of their spells. 2c) The linearizing is to eliminate anything powerful from the character design process. A little bit more of an attribute means a little bit more only of whatever it does. Something like the Expert Skills in Wizardry 8 or the Novice-Expert-Master-Grandmaster exponential curve of abilities and spell effectiveness in the Might and Magic games is vigorously avoided. Overall these measures are directly intended to make the entire creation and development process for characters less meaningful and important, instead there is a focusing on just the tactics, exploration and story aspects and eliminating character creation and development as an important part of the game (in large degree).
Modern rpgs can be fun, but do not expect an in-depth and meaningful creation of the party that opens up the possibility of utter failure. The utter lack of this in current rpgs is directly, overtly and shamefully saying players cannot handle a meaningful creation and development of characters and parties that allows them to fail utterly.
I've never played Wizardry 8 so I can't speak to the comparison, but your perspective here is an interesting one that I don't entirely disagree with. I can't say I agree entirely either but asI said, I haven't played some of the games you've cited so I can't really givea fully informed opinion. But the stuff you say about character creation in particular catches my interest. It makes me thinkofadiscussion that I've seen brought up in regard to Pathfinder 2e and its comparison to D&D5e, which is that in Pathfinder you "can't win at character creation." Basically the idea that you can't just select the optimal feats and just walk through the game doing the same things, andthat the choices you make during each individual combat as a group will be what leads most to victory. It sounds like that's the direction crpgs as a whole have gone to some degree, though obviously they can have gone too far in some instances.
And other things you mention do feel to me like more a question of preference and design goals. Like,I can't see an inherent reason why exponential growth would be inherently better or more satisfying than more linear growth. However I can agree that all characters needing all attributes is more often than not a less than desireable approach. And also I'd be wary about assigning too much intention to the why of design changes like these. There are usually multiple reasons, sometimes technical as well as experience-based for such sweeping alterations.
Unfortunately, current rpgs have the false goal of being foolproof. If you go to the Pillars of Eternity (first one) page there is, or at least was, a video there by the lead designer who described all the (horrible and misguided, IMO) things he and they did to remove from their game everything that makes Wizardry 8 great for example.
1) making character choices foolproof so even a new player blundering through the process will have a party capable of playing and finishing the game without extreme difficulty
2) removing all of the strategy by redefining attributes so every character needs all of them and so their effects are "linearized", i.e. so there is no major impact for raising attributes to a certain level. 2a) all characters needing all attributes is to destroy what he derogatorily calls, "min maxing", i.e. all of the strategic aspects of character creation and development which enable the characters and party to sink or swim depending upon the quality and wisdom of the choices. 2b) Strength for example is required by casters because for them it has been made to translate into the strength of their spells. 2c) The linearizing is to eliminate anything powerful from the character design process. A little bit more of an attribute means a little bit more only of whatever it does. Something like the Expert Skills in Wizardry 8 or the Novice-Expert-Master-Grandmaster exponential curve of abilities and spell effectiveness in the Might and Magic games is vigorously avoided. Overall these measures are directly intended to make the entire creation and development process for characters less meaningful and important, instead there is a focusing on just the tactics, exploration and story aspects and eliminating character creation and development as an important part of the game (in large degree).
Modern rpgs can be fun, but do not expect an in-depth and meaningful creation of the party that opens up the possibility of utter failure. The utter lack of this in current rpgs is directly, overtly and shamefully saying players cannot handle a meaningful creation and development of characters and parties that allows them to fail utterly.
I've never played Wizardry 8 so I can't speak to the comparison, but your perspective here is an interesting one that I don't entirely disagree with. I can't say I agree entirely either but asI said, I haven't played some of the games you've cited so I can't really givea fully informed opinion. But the stuff you say about character creation in particular catches my interest. It makes me thinkofadiscussion that I've seen brought up in regard to Pathfinder 2e and its comparison to D&D5e, which is that in Pathfinder you "can't win at character creation." Basically the idea that you can't just select the optimal feats and just walk through the game doing the same things, andthat the choices you make during each individual combat as a group will be what leads most to victory. It sounds like that's the direction crpgs as a whole have gone to some degree, though obviously they can have gone too far in some instances.
And other things you mention do feel to me like more a question of preference and design goals. Like,I can't see an inherent reason why exponential growth would be inherently better or more satisfying than more linear growth. However I can agree that all characters needing all attributes is more often than not a less than desireable approach. And also I'd be wary about assigning too much intention to the why of design changes like these. There are usually multiple reasons, sometimes technical as well as experience-based for such sweeping alterations.
Really? I'd say it's the exact opposite for pathfinder; you absolutely CAN "win at character creation", or much more so than DnD5e.
I also don't agree with builds being "meaningless" in PoE just because stats are linearized; builds are still important via skill selection when leveling up (well more so in Poe II than PoE I.) And all stats have been made potentially *useful* for every class, but not necessarily useful for every *role* you want to perform with that class (stat priority will change depending on if you want to have a single-target striker or a tank, for example.)
Linearized stats are also better than exponential growth when it comes to giving people wiggle room for difficulty on leveling up. (If there's exponential growth upon leveling up, if you become overleveled just a bit, suddenly a big chunk of the game becomes easy to the point of being boring because you make such huge jumps in powr.) This also definitely doesn't "eliminate anything powerful" from character design; you get humongously powerful abilities at later levels.
Wizardry 8 had linearized stats. Now I suspect that you are talking about the expert skills, that were awarded only if you maxed out a stat, but the power progression for increasing a specific stat was definitely linear outside of granting those skills at 100. Once you obtained the expert skills they also had a linear power progression. I've spent some time recently reading over the very lengthy thread here: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=899973393 because I am thinking of replaying Wizardry 8 when I am done with BG3.
In any case, I am a big fan of both Wizardry 8 and Pillars of Eternity (1 & 2) and I really do not buy that they are all that different in terms of character creation. I submit that the only thing that prevents an "unbeatable game" in PoE 1 and 2 is the respec option. Without that you can definitely fail on the hardest difficulty levels if you make bad choices (especially in 1). Wizardry 8 does not have respec, but it is possible to grind levels indefinitely if you are struggling with an encounter.
Now, Josh Sawyer did go to great length to make all stats worth having in PoE. I don't think that he quite succeeded, but it is certainly true that there are no obvious dump stats. You **can** dump resolve and constitution (and I do dump them when my MC is primarily for dps), but you will suffer if that character is focus fired by enemy AI. This does stand in contrast to Wizardry 8 where Piety is pretty much useless for 3/4ths (or more) of the classes. The no dump stat philosophy forces hard choices, and that is a GOOD thing IMO.
I do think that Pillars of Eternity suffered from rather bad names for some of the stats. Might was a very poor choice for the stat that gives more damage, since everybody immediately thinks "Fighter" when they read the word might. A better choice would have been "Power" since that could easily refer to might or magic. Intelligence should have had a different name too (perhaps "aura" since that describes what it actually does).
Unfortunately, current rpgs have the false goal of being foolproof. If you go to the Pillars of Eternity (first one) page there is, or at least was, a video there by the lead designer who described all the (horrible and misguided, IMO) things he and they did to remove from their game everything that makes Wizardry 8 great for example.
1) making character choices foolproof so even a new player blundering through the process will have a party capable of playing and finishing the game without extreme difficulty
2) removing all of the strategy by redefining attributes so every character needs all of them and so their effects are "linearized", i.e. so there is no major impact for raising attributes to a certain level. 2a) all characters needing all attributes is to destroy what he derogatorily calls, "min maxing", i.e. all of the strategic aspects of character creation and development which enable the characters and party to sink or swim depending upon the quality and wisdom of the choices. 2b) Strength for example is required by casters because for them it has been made to translate into the strength of their spells. 2c) The linearizing is to eliminate anything powerful from the character design process. A little bit more of an attribute means a little bit more only of whatever it does. Something like the Expert Skills in Wizardry 8 or the Novice-Expert-Master-Grandmaster exponential curve of abilities and spell effectiveness in the Might and Magic games is vigorously avoided. Overall these measures are directly intended to make the entire creation and development process for characters less meaningful and important, instead there is a focusing on just the tactics, exploration and story aspects and eliminating character creation and development as an important part of the game (in large degree).
Modern rpgs can be fun, but do not expect an in-depth and meaningful creation of the party that opens up the possibility of utter failure. The utter lack of this in current rpgs is directly, overtly and shamefully saying players cannot handle a meaningful creation and development of characters and parties that allows them to fail utterly.
I think Josh were right on most of things except for being foolproof. There is no cure for it.
But the system he designed is indeed making role-playing potentially more fun.
Anybody here ever make a Spellcasting Paladin in BG3? Or A rogue that can sneak attack with spells? Or Melee Mage? --- and finish the game with "viable" build on the highest difficulty?
I bet most of you can't (hopefully this bit doesn't offend people as it wasn't my intention, so I typed this just in case).
In Pillars of Eternity 2 (and 1, too actually), you can, absolutely. So I am not sure which part of the system feels "linearized", because all stats has value for all class for whatever character you're trying to make.
The only thing that missing for both game is the lack of class/race reactivity, the thing we got for granted in Baldur's Gate 3. For me personally, Deadfire is better than DOS2, it is the best role-playing game of the last decade.
In BG3, the most "wacky" character I made is Dex-based Paladin, with High charisma, the idea is to spam compel to duel, using that Medium armor that allows no restriction to Dex bonus for AC, smite and eldritch blasting and of course opening that DC 30 locks with ease. It is viable, but not optimize, and in this game, unless I know exactly how to use the skillset, I'm going to have a hard time fighting bosses.
BG3 in the AAA space has been the biggest incline since like three to four generations of hardware. Not that that's saying much. Only Immersive Sims have been more harshly treated in the AAA space than RPGs -- and even they had Arkane still doing a couple decent games. The (very few) remaining RPG AAA studios meanwhile have been all about abandoning core (C)RPG values in favor of ever more action. Not talking quality, but in terms of mechanics and gameplay, a game like the Witcher is barely distinguishable anymore from pretty much any Ubisoft Open World action adventure game.
As a consequence, ever since the crowdfunding and indie revolution started in the early 2010s, there's been a massive rift. Here are the Fallout-, BG- and Wizardry-Likes -- and here are those new blockbusters meant and focus group tested to appeal to people who would have never touched an RPG before.
BG3 bridges that gap some. It's got the cinematic action modern day blockbusters are stuffed with (and yeah, the childish level-me-up-and-bang-me sex also, another decline started with Bioware). But it's also got a more cerebral approach instead of all-out action combat, it's not afraid of dialogue and choice -- and it's rooted in tabletop gaming as opposed to Hollywood blockbusting despite its tricks in cinematic presentation of everything.
Whether that will be a good or bad thing, who knows.
Wizardry 8 had linearized stats. Now I suspect that you are talking about the expert skills, that were awarded only if you maxed out a stat, but the power progression for increasing a specific stat was definitely linear outside of granting those skills at 100. Once you obtained the expert skills they also had a linear power progression. I've spent some time recently reading over the very lengthy thread here: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=899973393 because I am thinking of replaying Wizardry 8 when I am done with BG3.
In any case, I am a big fan of both Wizardry 8 and Pillars of Eternity (1 & 2) and I really do not buy that they are all that different in terms of character creation. I submit that the only thing that prevents an "unbeatable game" in PoE 1 and 2 is the respec option. Without that you can definitely fail on the hardest difficulty levels if you make bad choices (especially in 1). Wizardry 8 does not have respec, but it is possible to grind levels indefinitely if you are struggling with an encounter.
Now, Josh Sawyer did go to great length to make all stats worth having in PoE. I don't think that he quite succeeded, but it is certainly true that there are no obvious dump stats. You **can** dump resolve and constitution (and I do dump them when my MC is primarily for dps), but you will suffer if that character is focus fired by enemy AI. This does stand in contrast to Wizardry 8 where Piety is pretty much useless for 3/4ths (or more) of the classes. The no dump stat philosophy forces hard choices, and that is a GOOD thing IMO.
I do think that Pillars of Eternity suffered from rather bad names for some of the stats. Might was a very poor choice for the stat that gives more damage, since everybody immediately thinks "Fighter" when they read the word might. A better choice would have been "Power" since that could easily refer to might or magic. Intelligence should have had a different name too (perhaps "aura" since that describes what it actually does).
For sure, I recent play through of Wizardry 8 got me thinking on these issues. An amazing game with dated 3D visuals (incredible sound effects) but just incredible gameplay. Very smooth, brilliant UI, the gameplay system I believe is so well done in my opinion that even the incredibly slow and difficult enemy battles and grind still makes it fun...which is quite a feat. In my book the party creation system is one of the best ever created. That game SCREAMS for a remake/enhanced edition.
Last edited by Count Turnipsome; 27/09/2312:22 PM.
It just reminded me of the bowl of goat's milk that old Winthrop used to put outside his door every evening for the dust demons. He said the dust demons could never resist goat's milk, and that they would always drink themselves into a stupor and then be too tired to enter his room..
I think it’s trying too much to be BOTH DragonAge 1 AND Skyrim AND failing for the most part when it comes to socializing between the characters. In DragonAge the personal connections were more in depth. Sex was part of it but more. Skyrim has the full adventures and quests. This does not. Not what I’d expect from true DnD. I also have the 5.0 manual and a character can go up to level 20. Not capped at 12. I play a Paladin for example too. They aren’t supposed to be like kittens. This isn’t world of Warcraft. There’s no need to have them so soft. I have 35,000 gold and no real decent armor to spend it on. The paladin I have on icewindale has better gear than my BG3 paladin does. He’s also more powerful too. He can heal all day long and fight like no tomorrow.
I think it’s trying too much to be BOTH DragonAge 1 AND Skyrim AND failing for the most part when it comes to socializing between the characters. In DragonAge the personal connections were more in depth. Sex was part of it but more. Skyrim has the full adventures and quests. This does not. Not what I’d expect from true DnD. I also have the 5.0 manual and a character can go up to level 20. Not capped at 12. I play a Paladin for example too. They aren’t supposed to be like kittens. This isn’t world of Warcraft. There’s no need to have them so soft. I have 35,000 gold and no real decent armor to spend it on. The paladin I have on icewindale has better gear than my BG3 paladin does. He’s also more powerful too. He can heal all day long and fight like no tomorrow.
I think it’s trying too much to be BOTH DragonAge 1 AND Skyrim AND failing for the most part when it comes to socializing between the characters. In DragonAge the personal connections were more in depth. Sex was part of it but more. Skyrim has the full adventures and quests. This does not. Not what I’d expect from true DnD. I also have the 5.0 manual and a character can go up to level 20. Not capped at 12. I play a Paladin for example too. They aren’t supposed to be like kittens. This isn’t world of Warcraft. There’s no need to have them so soft. I have 35,000 gold and no real decent armor to spend it on. The paladin I have on icewindale has better gear than my BG3 paladin does. He’s also more powerful too. He can heal all day long and fight like no tomorrow.
Just one of the many observations I’ve noticed.
Paladin smite is one of the most powerful abilities in the game. There is definitely nothing weak about paladins in 5e.
For sure, I recent play through of Wizardry 8 got me thinking on these issues. An amazing game with dated 3D visuals (incredible sound effects) but just incredible gameplay. Very smooth, brilliant UI, the gameplay system I believe is so well done in my opinion that even the incredibly slow and difficult enemy battles and grind still makes it fun...which is quite a feat. In my book the party creation system is one of the best ever created. That game SCREAMS for a remake/enhanced edition.
I'd be afraid of letting some dev "upgrade" wizardry 8. Its good enough as is to run on modern computers without help.
Mass Effect (its sequels even morseo) is the epitome of what Bioware have been doing: Not merely moving away from any table-top origins, but actively hiding anything which still could make for a connection. This is all being done in favor of an interactive-movie type of experience with you as the hero of it. I'm not going into genre definitions now. But: 20-25 years ago games like these would have been considered as sitting on the fringe of the genre, somewhere in between adventure, action, interactive movie and some RPG features added on top of it (which every major studio has nowadays anyways, as any form of looting and leveling has been proven to be quite addictive a loop, ask the Diablo guys).
Bioware too, have been marketing themselves as the character- and story-driven video gaming company for like the past two decades. It's still ingrained in their "About us" on their very webiste. Which is also their only constant in between releases -- anything else is up for grabs, often following what's currently popular in the wider blockbuster game space, from combat systems to character systems to dialogue systems to world design. And such even between releases of a series (see Dragon Age, which looks to target the God Of War crowd next). Is it really any wonder that the general audience consideres completely non-RPGs such as Assassin's Creed, both Horizon games and Red Dead Redemption to be RPG-like in an era where the former fringe such as Mass Effect has become the mainstay -- at least as far as the general public is concerned? If that "evolution" continues, in twenty years from now, Doom 2043 is also going to be considered as part of the family.
Heck, Arkane's Prey recent was more (table-top) RPG than pretty much anything Bioware has put out since. Superficially, it looks like an FPS and plays like one. But underneath are completely robust and quite complex RPG systems, which also allow you to interact with the game's environments and NPCs in multiple ways. And without spoiling, the game even remembers what you have done to get there throughout without blatant telegraphing aka obvious (dialogue) choices. Given Prey's forebears, this of course is no coincidence. Both CRPGs as well as Immersive Sims originate from the same CORE IDEA: Translating the table top experience to a computer screen -- just via different means. The tabletop experience of improvising, deep character costumization and collaborative storytelling -- not a semi-interactive Hollywood movie experience with you as the star of the show. http://web.archive.org/web/19980224020118/www.lglass.com/p_info/dark/manifesto.html
Companies will continue to do what companies want to do, which is often sell husks of a game with plethora of MTX to maximize profits. Which is something that BG3 doesn't do.
Meaning, BG3 won't have any more effect on the genre than Elden Ring which is also a popular RPG with no MTX.
The bigger impact on the genre would be things like the success of Diablo: Immoral, the CoD franchise, Fifa etc. Games from other genres but earn tons of money through MTX ridden shovelware.
As far as RPG design goes, BG3 doesn't do anything particularly revolutionary.
Even as far as "Sex" goes, Witcher had nudity ages ago. That hasn't made everyone start putting nudity and sex scenes into their RPG's.
BG3 has the added part of being based on DnD, which unless other RPG's are also being made based on DnD, won't translate into other games. Since DnD has its unique rulesets (Things like Standard Actions/Bonus Actions/Reactions, Extra Attacks, dice lots of dice with its Critical Miss and Critical Success rolls, how stats work, how skills work etc)
Honestly, I hope that RPG designers continue to improve on things rather than copy BG3. For example;
- If they want to add in romance. Make romance better. So that relationships are deeper and less "Do nice thing. Get sex" (I like how BG3 has voice line changes for companions with positive relationship statuses for example)
- If they want to add party limits but have more companions than the limit, make it better than "I want you to stay in camp." "Are you sure?" "Yes, I'll find you later" "Okay I guess I'll eat dirt then". Make it so inactive companions are doing something, not just standing around waiting for their turn to join you. So that it feels like your entire crew is on the same world saving adventure, even if your active party doesn't include them (Heck, they could be out doing their own stuff and you could meet them in the world as they're doing things. Imagine progressing character stories by finding them at their story locations and helping them out even without them being an active party member. Oh, now you also have reason to equip your ENTIRE crew? Neat)
- Continue to flesh out choices and consequences. One of BG3's strengths is the lasting effects of choices. This needs to continue to be a more relevant part of RPG's and we need to be rid of the plague of faux choices that dominates the genre.
Originally Posted by Count Turnipsome
2) removing all of the strategy by redefining attributes so every character needs all of them and so their effects are "linearized", i.e. so there is no major impact for raising attributes to a certain level.
Honestly, I think it's great design to make all stats useful on all characters.
It puts more emphasis on choosing how to build your character. So it's less "Wizard = Dump everything but Int" and "Barb = Dump everything but Str/Con" and more about prioritizing stats, dumping stats leading to a tradeoff where you become weaker in one aspect of your character for the gain of pumping up another aspect (And a WAAAY better method of preventing stat dumping than by hard limiting stat choices, like how here in BG3 you can't have less than 8 in an ability score and can't put more than 15 pre-racial bonus)
That's not removing strategy, it's adding it.
It also effectively deals with the other silly aspect of common RPG design, which is separating power stats for no reason. Like there's no point to having 3 items, one with +8 Strength, one with +8 Agility and one with +8 Intellect if they all just do the same thing of add +8 damage to the character when you could have them all just share one item with +8 Power. (DnD based systems at least provide purpose for different stats with additional effects, like trickle down into skills and secondary benefits such as Dex providing AC)
The only qualm with PoE's stats is they continue to use the traditional names so it's kind of odd how a Wizards Fireball gets more powerful because... He's hench? Or a Barbarian cleaves in a bigger area because... He's smart? With this also translating awkwardly into various ability checks (Like, when my Wizard had to punch down a wall because my Barbarian wasn't strong enough...)
I don’t think BG3 is going to inspire many other studios to make many similar games. The really exceptional aspects of BG3: Visuals, Cinematics, and Voice Acting are not unique to CRPGs.
I assume that BG3 ended up being a commercial “success”, in terms of earning more money than they spent in development. However, I have no idea of what the return on investment is likely to be relative to other games. Based on the fact that Larian pushed the game out in an unfinished state indicates that they were either struggling financially and/or worried that they were not going to be able to recoup their development costs. I wouldn’t be surprised if their game development expenses went way beyond what they planned for.
