Larian Studios
Hi, I am probably late to the party, but I wanted to forward/discuss some ideas that I had while playing Baldur's Gate over the years, and a few questions regarding the game play video.

1) One of my favorite things about BG2:ToB was the idea behind the Longer Road, Ascension and Redemption mods, that made it possible to convince Bodhi and/or Irenicus to join my party in the final battle. There is something intriguing about fighting side by side with an old enemy. (Savarok is a good proof of this).
I would love to experience something similar in BG3.
I would also love to be able to summon an old foe, (for instance using the Wish spell), that I could use in combat. It shouldn't always appear, but perhaps appear one in 20 times when you use the wish spell. In BG2 you could see what the most powerful monster/person was, that a character had defeated in combat. Let's say Korgan's most powerful defeated enemy was a Doom Knight. If I was lucky then using the wish spell, I would be able to summon the Doom Knight and use it myself for a short duration. I always wanted to see how a former summoned foe, would fare against kangaxx, demogorgon or the foes in the dreaded twisted rune building in the bridge district.

To add to the point. For me one of the elements that made the original Doom such a masterpiece, and still makes it awesome, was exactly to see monsters battle each other, and pit them against each other. Any game that makes it possible to pit monsters against each other makes for great entertainment. In Dungeon Keeper 2, I would make a huge combat pit, and make Monks fights against Bile Demons, Vampires against mistresses and so forth. I loved watching them unleash their spells and attacks against each other, and I missed this element of seeing who would win in a battle in BG2. Don't overdo it though. Perhaps once, a few times or if you are incredible fortunate it could occur. Personally I've used the wish spell once or twice in all of my games throughout the decades, so I don't intend for it to be like summoning a golem.


2) One of my favorite things about BG2 was the manual. I would carry it everywhere and re-read it again and again. I love the dialog between Elminster and Volo, the detailed descriptions about spells and the small hints about what dangers and mythical weapons and creatures can be found in the forgotten realm, so I really hope that it will be possible to get a PC version, with a physical manual.

3) Are we going to see micro-transactions, frustrating DLC and "season passes"?

I personally utterly despise this new trend (for me it's still new). I'd take an expensive expansion pack any day of the week instead of that nonsense. I really loved a lot about Dragon Age: Origins but DLC ruined the game. There were so many issues with getting it to load. Items wouldn't carry over in save-games or to larger DLCs (DA: Awakening) , and the DLC DRM system was a pain in the ass. And then there was this abomination: https://scottjen.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/dragonagedlcnpc.jpg Also, if you purchased DA:O without DLC, you only got 90% of the game. Many important and powerful items were only availabe in DLC, which is ridiculous.

4) In the game-play video we see Asterion say "water...better not push my luck" or something along those lines. Is it possible to venture into water with him and take damage/get crippled until a healer can be found, or is there an invisible border in the game that simply prevents him from taking damage from water?

I really hope the latter isn't the case. I like to learn from my own mistakes and if I walk into water and die, take damage or even lose a limb that has to be healed by a cleric at some point, then that just makes the game more immersive.

5) Is the atmosphere fixed and set in stone? The game looks beautiful but it doesn't seem that frightening, and have the serious tone of Baldur's Gate. It's a development that can quickly ruin a game. Take Diablo 1, that game was scary. Every time you decided to head back into that endless Cathedral, you were scared. Genuinely scared. The music was haunting, the game was dark, the atmosphere sinister and playing it in pitch black during the night gave me goosebumps.

Diablo 2 was still atmospheric but the darkness of the game was toned down a lot, and the frightening areas were few in between.

Finally Diablo 3 was a Disney adventure created by a company that basically had none of the original developers left. The game lacked soul and it is a travesty that it shares the Diablo name with two classics.

The same occurred with other games. Quake 1, Dungeon Keeper 1, Carmageddon 1, Blood 1 and many other games, were more dark, gritty and serious than the following games, and atmosphere was sucked out of the games. The reason that I'm writing this, is that the music in the Baldur's Gate 3 game play video, didn't really strike me as being Baldur's Gate music. The colors are vivid too and it seems like a great HDR experience, but at the expense of the overall atmosphere. Perhaps I am just anxious here and worried about the final result but I really hope that we will see more dark tones in the game.

I am writing all of this while being very tired and English isn't my mother language, so I hope it's not too unreadable. Thanks if you made it this far too 😊
1) The game will have a maximum character level of 10 - no spells above 5th level. No Wish spell, and even if there were one, it would be limited because every option has to be specifically programmed into the game.

2) The days of PC games coming in physical boxes have ended. No brick and mortar stores carry physical editions of PC games, and the publishing costs of PC games is no longer profitable enough to justify the expense.

3) No. Larian doesn't do microtransactions.

4) There's probably an invisible border because the game developers have to program everything into the game and thus can't plan for everything to allow full freedom of movement in every direction.

You do not want to lose a limb because your party can't reach level 13 and get access to Regenerate spells. Losing a limb probably isn't simulated at all.
Posted By: Xvim Re: Two wishes, and two questions regarding BG3 - 26/03/20 01:21 AM
Originally Posted by Kirsebaer

5) Is the atmosphere fixed and set in stone? The game looks beautiful but it doesn't seem that frightening, and have the serious tone of Baldur's Gate. It's a development that can quickly ruin a game. [...]

The reason that I'm writing this, is that the music in the Baldur's Gate 3 game play video, didn't really strike me as being Baldur's Gate music. The colors are vivid too and it seems like a great HDR experience, but at the expense of the overall atmosphere. Perhaps I am just anxious here and worried about the final result but I really hope that we will see more dark tones in the game.

I am writing all of this while being very tired and English isn't my mother language, so I hope it's not too unreadable. Thanks if you made it this far too 😊


I wouldn't say that the atmosphere of the previous games were frightening or all that serious in tone, particularly the first half of BG1. Later parts of BG1 and BG2 did become more serious and darker. For BG1, most of the landscape was quite vibrant to help contrast the darkness of the dungeons that came later. The 'serious tone' was heavily contrasted by characters like Noober or Minsc and Boo.

That aside, in the AMA, they stated that they are working on making things have more grit so it doesn't feel as 'clean', but that system wasn't ready in time.
larian never done microstransactions, infinity engines had "invisible borders" and the seirous tone stuff again.

Man.
Originally Posted by Xvim

....characters like Noober...


Heya!

Someone should petition Larian to create someone equally obnoxious for BG3! ...but JUST for the crowd who complain about BG3 not feeling like the original series. laugh
I vote for Billy!

Originally Posted by Nobody_Special
I vote for Billy!

That would trigger the sh!te out of the "too much like DOS"-crowd. Perfect!
Larians got some funny ass videos I swear.. wow
Originally Posted by Seraphael
That would trigger the sh!te out of the "too much like DOS"-crowd. Perfect!

keep belittling people's concerns and opinions. it makes you look strong and important.
Originally Posted by Xvim
Originally Posted by Kirsebaer

5) Is the atmosphere fixed and set in stone? The game looks beautiful but it doesn't seem that frightening, and have the serious tone of Baldur's Gate. It's a development that can quickly ruin a game. [...]

The reason that I'm writing this, is that the music in the Baldur's Gate 3 game play video, didn't really strike me as being Baldur's Gate music. The colors are vivid too and it seems like a great HDR experience, but at the expense of the overall atmosphere. Perhaps I am just anxious here and worried about the final result but I really hope that we will see more dark tones in the game.

I am writing all of this while being very tired and English isn't my mother language, so I hope it's not too unreadable. Thanks if you made it this far too 😊


I wouldn't say that the atmosphere of the previous games were frightening or all that serious in tone, particularly the first half of BG1. Later parts of BG1 and BG2 did become more serious and darker. For BG1, most of the landscape was quite vibrant to help contrast the darkness of the dungeons that came later. The 'serious tone' was heavily contrasted by characters like Noober or Minsc and Boo.
.


I concur, maybe it´s nostalgia talking, but I do not remember BG-BG2 (Tob definitely yes) as a particularly dark and gritty game. I mean, it has some drama and dungeons but in Diablo 2 you find corpses and gore everywhere you go, in BG you find a circus when you arrive at Athkathla (which would only be dark if you have a trauma with clowns), I also remember a fair, museums and parks, lots of taverns and lots of lush dreamy forest and lake environments to explore.
Just near when your foster father was killed there is a suicidal guy that is waiting for someone to convince him not to jump, and you also have Noober, Jan Hansen, Minsc and Boo, Imoen, the guy that hits every female in the tavern in Athkathla, kobolds with the name of the three stooges, guys named as porn actors, many hilarious encounters with weird characters, one of your companions turns into a woman, etc etc so, to be honest, I´ve never felt a dark atmosphere or any seriousness in the overall game that I remember of. It was a very cool adventure game, with drama and laughs 50-50%







Originally Posted by Nobody_Special
I vote for Billy!



Kickstarter for Billy to make a comeback in the early access! weird
what swith all that "theres no wish spell"
Wish was confirmed.

Tho its probably a story only thing
Originally Posted by qhristoff
Originally Posted by Seraphael
That would trigger the sh!te out of the "too much like DOS"-crowd. Perfect!

keep belittling people's concerns and opinions. it makes you look strong and important.

Keep on hating when you're called out on your BS you miserable hypocrite.
Originally Posted by Sordak
what swith all that "theres no wish spell"
Wish was confirmed.

Tho its probably a story only thing

Wish spell confirmed? That would be a de facto confirmation of BG4. Not that I doubt for a second there will be a BG4, but I doubt Larian would announce it in such a roundabout way. I think Wish is more wishful thinking than confirmed at this point, but I'd love to be proven wrong about it.

Originally Posted by Seraphael
Originally Posted by Sordak
what swith all that "theres no wish spell"
Wish was confirmed.

Tho its probably a story only thing

Wish spell confirmed? That would be a de facto confirmation of BG4. Not that I doubt for a second there will be a BG4, but I doubt Larian would announce it in such a roundabout way. I think Wish is more wishful thinking than confirmed at this point, but I'd love to be proven wrong about it.


In this podcast for Kotaku, Sven Vincke and company confirmed the wish spell but also stated that some spells were banned. They use a three-color-coded list of spells. Green is good to go! like magic missile. Red is "never gonna happen". He didn´t enter into specifics but they said that is High-level stuff. . 38.15

Wish is accepted because it has a role in storytelling, so It seems wish would be in the game. Casters would not be able to cast it because of the level cap but maybe you can find scrolls, items like the djinni lamp or something like that

https://art19.com/shows/kotaku-splitscreen/episodes/1f188c51-4594-42d9-a255-7d2f528ad8bc
Originally Posted by _Vic_

In this podcast for Kotaku, Sven Vincke and company confirmed the wish spell but also stated that some spells were banned. They use a three-color-coded list of spells. Green is good to go! like magic missile. Red is "never gonna happen". He didn´t enter into specifics but they said that is High-level stuff. . 38.15

Wish is accepted because it has a role in storytelling, so It seems wish would be in the game. Casters would not be able to cast it because of the level cap but maybe you can find scrolls, items like the djinni lamp or something like that

https://art19.com/shows/kotaku-splitscreen/episodes/1f188c51-4594-42d9-a255-7d2f528ad8bc
Thanks for the input! Sounds even more interesting when implemented in a narrative context as Swen mentioned than the genie of BG2.
Yeah, The wish spell is a classic, and always fun to use, but it also has potentially one of the highest cheesy potential of the all-time spells of DND, even higher than Planeshift. Still good news that we will have "wish" in the game, even if it´s only for plot purposes in the end.
Originally Posted by Kirsebaer
5) Is the atmosphere fixed and set in stone? The game looks beautiful but it doesn't seem that frightening, and have the serious tone of Baldur's Gate. It's a development that can quickly ruin a game. Take Diablo 1, that game was scary. Every time you decided to head back into that endless Cathedral, you were scared. Genuinely scared. The music was haunting, the game was dark, the atmosphere sinister and playing it in pitch black during the night gave me goosebumps.

Diablo 2 was still atmospheric but the darkness of the game was toned down a lot, and the frightening areas were few in between.

Finally Diablo 3 was a Disney adventure created by a company that basically had none of the original developers left. The game lacked soul and it is a travesty that it shares the Diablo name with two classics.


Diablo was one of those formative games for me. I would say Diablo 2 is the gold standard for ARPGs and that Diablo 3 was, as you say, not Diablo anymore. Off-topic, the trailer of Diablo 4 is probably the best game trailer I have ever seen, it truly captures the horror of facing evil incarnate. But the gameplay? Maybe I'm blind but it looks like Diablo 3 with the color gradient turned down. Diablos atmosphere is more than the art just looking grey and brown.
Originally Posted by _Vic_

Originally Posted by Seraphael
Originally Posted by Sordak
what swith all that "theres no wish spell"
Wish was confirmed.

Tho its probably a story only thing

Wish spell confirmed? That would be a de facto confirmation of BG4. Not that I doubt for a second there will be a BG4, but I doubt Larian would announce it in such a roundabout way. I think Wish is more wishful thinking than confirmed at this point, but I'd love to be proven wrong about it.


In this podcast for Kotaku, Sven Vincke and company confirmed the wish spell but also stated that some spells were banned. They use a three-color-coded list of spells. Green is good to go! like magic missile. Red is "never gonna happen". He didn´t enter into specifics but they said that is High-level stuff. . 38.15

Wish is accepted because it has a role in storytelling, so It seems wish would be in the game. Casters would not be able to cast it because of the level cap but maybe you can find scrolls, items like the djinni lamp or something like that

https://art19.com/shows/kotaku-splitscreen/episodes/1f188c51-4594-42d9-a255-7d2f528ad8bc

I don't think this would be necessary. Magic in 5e is way toned down and less cheesy than in BG, even Wish kinda sucks.
Originally Posted by Torque
Originally Posted by Kirsebaer
5) Is the atmosphere fixed and set in stone? The game looks beautiful but it doesn't seem that frightening, and have the serious tone of Baldur's Gate. It's a development that can quickly ruin a game. Take Diablo 1, that game was scary. Every time you decided to head back into that endless Cathedral, you were scared. Genuinely scared. The music was haunting, the game was dark, the atmosphere sinister and playing it in pitch black during the night gave me goosebumps.

Diablo 2 was still atmospheric but the darkness of the game was toned down a lot, and the frightening areas were few in between.

Finally Diablo 3 was a Disney adventure created by a company that basically had none of the original developers left. The game lacked soul and it is a travesty that it shares the Diablo name with two classics.


Diablo was one of those formative games for me. I would say Diablo 2 is the gold standard for ARPGs and that Diablo 3 was, as you say, not Diablo anymore. Off-topic, the trailer of Diablo 4 is probably the best game trailer I have ever seen, it truly captures the horror of facing evil incarnate. But the gameplay? Maybe I'm blind but it looks like Diablo 3 with the color gradient turned down. Diablos atmosphere is more than the art just looking grey and brown.

Heck, I'd say never buy from Blizzard again, after the lies, deceit, censoring, and issue-dodging they've done.

The whole reason they announced Diablo 4 this far out was to distract people from the Blitzchung controversy.
Diablo 4 is my most anticipated game in the next while, but I won't be buying it. I will never spend money on a Blizzard product again, and I made them delete my 19 year old bnet account and all of my purchase and activity history, just like I am slowly re-purchasing my entire Steam library on GOG to get away from Steam communities (I am a day One steam user with a 5 digit steam ID).

Activision, Zenimax, Ubi, 2K, and Paradox are three publishers I have flat boycotts on now because of their practices.

The only reason EA gets a pass at present is because they still publish Mass Effect. The moment that franchise goes dark, EA gets added to the list.
Originally Posted by Torque
(...)
Diablo was one of those formative games for me. I would say Diablo 2 is the gold standard for ARPGs and that Diablo 3 was, as you say, not Diablo anymore. Off-topic, the trailer of Diablo 4 is probably the best game trailer I have ever seen, it truly captures the horror of facing evil incarnate. But the gameplay? Maybe I'm blind but it looks like Diablo 3 with the color gradient turned down. Diablos atmosphere is more than the art just looking grey and brown.



For me, the best diablo is diablo 1.

Well, how to become better or learning how to throw fire bolts?
Diablo 1 = Reading magical tomes and having enough magical capabilities to learn
Diablo 2 = Investing skill points
Diablo 3 = Finding a bigger and sharper axe

Raising difficulty
Diablo 1 - Enemies will have more immunities, new uniques will spawn, they will have a greater overall level, and had his stats adjusted to the new level that they represent
Diablo 2 - Same of D1 but you need to complete normal before nightmare
Diablo 3 - Zimbabwe level endless number inflation on just two variables(health/damage)

Graphics
Diablo 1 - Dark fantasy gothic style
Diablo 2 - Dark Fantasy gothic style
Diablo 3 - Wow style

Just look to armor. Armor on D1/D2 looks like proper armor that i see in some modern games like GreedFall. Armor in D3 looks more like something that i will see in a bizarre Brazilian “carnival” parade.

Armor
D1 - Armor deflect blows
D2 - Armor deflect blows
D3 - Armor absorb a damage in percentage

Restriction on skill usage
D1 - No cooldowns
D2 - Only small cooldowns in HW intensive skills
D3 - Cooldowns everywere to do everything. You casted bone spirit? Cooldown. You jumped? Cooldown. Gave a order to a minion? Cooldown.

Character building
D1 - Elixirs + gear + decision on char screen + etc
D2 - Some quests rewards + gear + attributes + skills + charms
D3 - Only gear and 60% of your gear customization is mandatory set

Diablo fights
Diablo 1 vs Diablo 2 vs Diablo 3 fight


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

I an very happy to see that Larian will not make a game with everything that i hate on modern games. After some comments like "missing not work" and "spell slots aren't intuitive", i was expecting a SCL/D3 like game.
I played through D1 and D2 once, actually I do not know why. I will definitely not buy another Diablo.
You run through random maps and click things to death in order to get random items that make you better in clicking things to death.

I liked the first Larian game Divine Divinity way more than any Diablo.
Combat was copied from Diablo, but you had a hand crafted map, a story, interesting quests and funny writing.

If anything I blame the success of Diablo for the random items of all former Larian games.
It was still OK in Divine Divinity and Divinity2 which are single character action RPGs.
But when they switched to turn based games with a full party, being flooded with random items is something I do not like.
I am happy that Larian finally abandoned Diablo and moved to another character and item system such as DnD 5E.
Originally Posted by _Vic_

I concur, maybe it´s nostalgia talking, but I do not remember BG-BG2 (Tob definitely yes) as a particularly dark and gritty game.

For most it's runtime BGs were not gritty. Thay had some dark content, but overall the feel was of an adventure, with some dark and really silly moments inbetween.

Playing through D:OS2. and what I miss are stakes. No one really cares, nor is concerned about anything. While BG2 was bright and fun, dark stuff happened and had consequences. Things happen to people outside your party, but all Origin characters seem like a bunch of sociopaths.

D:OS2 doesn't shy from gore and gross, but it doesn't have narrative impact. Your companions are constatly snarky and indifferent, and so are most other NPCs.
> I liked the first Larian game Divine Divinity way more than any Diablo.


Divine Divinity is the unique LArian game that i've liked at moment. I really don't like certain mechanics like cooldowns. But i've heard that LArian was planning to make DD a turn based game and only made RT due publisher pressures. Anyway, Diablo 1/2 has a lot of cool spells. iron golem for eg, creating a iron golem absorbing the magical propriety from a item is so cool.
Originally Posted by Wormerine
For most it's runtime BGs were not gritty. Thay had some dark content, but overall the feel was of an adventure, with some dark and really silly moments inbetween.

Playing through D:OS2. and what I miss are stakes. No one really cares, nor is concerned about anything. While BG2 was bright and fun, dark stuff happened and had consequences. Things happen to people outside your party, but all Origin characters seem like a bunch of sociopaths.

D:OS2 doesn't shy from gore and gross, but it doesn't have narrative impact. Your companions are constatly snarky and indifferent, and so are most other NPCs.


I guess that's somewhat fair. I think DOS 2 focuses so much on locale-building that the world-building suffers quite a bit.

Take Act 2 - About 10-20 minutes walk northeast of Driftwood, it appears that the landscape has collapsed into a hellish nightmare world where healing hurts and a settlement is collapsing into arcane screaming torment. Driftwood doesn't talk about that, it's too busy talking about Driftwood.

The lack of world-building also hurts the origin stories because too many pieces are missing. The Red Prince was caught consorting with a demon, then was exiled by his own people to Fort Joy. He says that once he returns to his people, he'll become emperor again. Except we're missing "Step 2", which is the explanation for why he won't be arrested and imprisoned, and how he'll suddenly be promoted to the throne without his political enemies being able to stop him.

Queen Justinia of the Dwarves plans to
genocide humans in Arx. Why? I'm not sure. As a queen, shouldn't she have some diplomatic options before "genocide"?

Can't she talk to the leader of the Humans in that area? Who is leading the humans? No one knows because Larian didn't think that was important... except that getting at least a vague idea of the power dynamics at play are important for understanding the decisions people are making.
Originally Posted by Stabbey
Originally Posted by Wormerine
For most it's runtime BGs were not gritty. Thay had some dark content, but overall the feel was of an adventure, with some dark and really silly moments inbetween.

Playing through D:OS2. and what I miss are stakes. No one really cares, nor is concerned about anything. While BG2 was bright and fun, dark stuff happened and had consequences. Things happen to people outside your party, but all Origin characters seem like a bunch of sociopaths.

D:OS2 doesn't shy from gore and gross, but it doesn't have narrative impact. Your companions are constatly snarky and indifferent, and so are most other NPCs.


I guess that's somewhat fair. I think DOS 2 focuses so much on locale-building that the world-building suffers quite a bit.

Take Act 2 - About 10-20 minutes walk northeast of Driftwood, it appears that the landscape has collapsed into a hellish nightmare world where healing hurts and a settlement is collapsing into arcane screaming torment. Driftwood doesn't talk about that, it's too busy talking about Driftwood.

The lack of world-building also hurts the origin stories because too many pieces are missing. The Red Prince was caught consorting with a demon, then was exiled by his own people to Fort Joy. He says that once he returns to his people, he'll become emperor again. Except we're missing "Step 2", which is the explanation for why he won't be arrested and imprisoned, and how he'll suddenly be promoted to the throne without his political enemies being able to stop him.

Queen Justinia of the Dwarves plans to
genocide humans in Arx. Why? I'm not sure. As a queen, shouldn't she have some diplomatic options before "genocide"?

Can't she talk to the leader of the Humans in that area? Who is leading the humans? No one knows because Larian didn't think that was important... except that getting at least a vague idea of the power dynamics at play are important for understanding the decisions people are making.

The bit about ACT 2 i totally agree, there is some weird ass areas on that map that are never explained at all, massive monstrosities that are just sitting around waiting to kill you with slim to no plot points explaining why.
It's all about "Hunting the sorcerers" and little else in Driftwood, as in the entire game really..
As for Queen Justinia it does explain somewhat why shes going for Genocide, she is being manipulated by her Royal advisor that is *Suprise* a Demon or undead something in disguise. But once you kill her Aid everything just kinda
goes back to normal. It's rather underwhelming as far as the whole last act. I have faith BG3 will be better though. All in all D:OS was a great game besides my few weird grievances.
Originally Posted by Ser Varnell

The bit about ACT 2 i totally agree, there is some weird ass areas on that map that are never explained at all, massive monstrosities that are just sitting around waiting to kill you with slim to no plot points explaining why.
.


I think they are related to the "Three altars" quest that you receive from the undead scarecrow and the story of the sorcerer that made them, It´s the one that sends you mental messages when you are exploring. As every act is an "open world" of sorts there are high chances that you killed a few of them before even talking to the scarecrow, or you killed the scarecrow too, depending on what direction you explore after leaving Driftwood.
Originally Posted by Stabbey
Originally Posted by Wormerine
For most it's runtime BGs were not gritty. Thay had some dark content, but overall the feel was of an adventure, with some dark and really silly moments inbetween.

Playing through D:OS2. and what I miss are stakes. No one really cares, nor is concerned about anything. While BG2 was bright and fun, dark stuff happened and had consequences. Things happen to people outside your party, but all Origin characters seem like a bunch of sociopaths.

D:OS2 doesn't shy from gore and gross, but it doesn't have narrative impact. Your companions are constatly snarky and indifferent, and so are most other NPCs.


I guess that's somewhat fair. I think DOS 2 focuses so much on locale-building that the world-building suffers quite a bit.

Take Act 2 - About 10-20 minutes walk northeast of Driftwood, it appears that the landscape has collapsed into a hellish nightmare world where healing hurts and a settlement is collapsing into arcane screaming torment. Driftwood doesn't talk about that, it's too busy talking about Driftwood.

The lack of world-building also hurts the origin stories because too many pieces are missing. The Red Prince was caught consorting with a demon, then was exiled by his own people to Fort Joy. He says that once he returns to his people, he'll become emperor again. Except we're missing "Step 2", which is the explanation for why he won't be arrested and imprisoned, and how he'll suddenly be promoted to the throne without his political enemies being able to stop him.

Queen Justinia of the Dwarves plans to
genocide humans in Arx. Why? I'm not sure. As a queen, shouldn't she have some diplomatic options before "genocide"?

Can't she talk to the leader of the Humans in that area? Who is leading the humans? No one knows because Larian didn't think that was important... except that getting at least a vague idea of the power dynamics at play are important for understanding the decisions people are making.


Thanks, I guess that is one of the things why I never finished DOS2.
So far I thought its just the random items and inflating numbers that made me quit, but this is importent too.
You just don´t care what happens in the world and the people in this world do not care too.
The origin characters do not care much for things that are not related to their personal quest.
You walk around and kill stuff that stands around and waits to be killed by you.
Sometimes somebody tells you which direction to go or what to kill, which feels strange because often you already been there or killed that.
Plus you have nice large maps, but the extreme level scaling makes things feel very linear.

Good news is that they seemed to have learned stuff. The video were you fight the goblins at the gate got me more interested than much of the stuff in DOS2.
You know why you are fighting, what your goal is and why they attack.

I really like the Trails series. I have played Trails in the Sky1+2+3 and Trails of cold Steel 1+2 so far.
They do a great job in world building. When you talk to NPC they say something new after every event, give their opinion on what happened lately or what will happen next and they give the impression that things are happening in the world that have nothing to do with you. OK, Its a linear JRPG so the things that happen are always the same, the devs don´t need to write text for the many different ways the story might go.

As for western open world games, Gothic1+2 are fantastic in creating a world that feels alive and believable.

The Witcher 3 is a fantastic game too. One of the best games ever in creating an immersive world.
Originally Posted by _Vic_
[quote=Xvim]

I concur, maybe it´s nostalgia talking, but I do not remember BG-BG2 (Tob definitely yes) as a particularly dark and gritty game. I mean, it has some drama and dungeons but in Diablo 2 you find corpses and gore everywhere you go, in BG you find a circus when you arrive at Athkathla (which would only be dark if you have a trauma with clowns),


My childhood birthday party. ohgod.
[Linked Image]



Anyway, the atmosphere in Baldur's Gate was definitely not just one thing. There were goofy things like the golden pantaloons, and dark things like vampires torturing your love interests, and a god of murder, and Edwina, and Khalid getting murdered in an experimental sex dungeon, and Boo, and Jan Jansen...

If true to form, BG3 will have its ridiculous moments and its dark as pitch moments as well. Which I think they're doing well at so far, what with the worms in the eyes and Gale's cheesy pick-up lines. Hell, even watching
Astarion gush about the sky and the daylight while narrowly not tripping over corpses was both dark and funny. He seemed like a Disney prince ready to burst into song on a devastated battleground.

Originally Posted by Stabbey
Originally Posted by Wormerine
For most it's runtime BGs were not gritty. Thay had some dark content, but overall the feel was of an adventure, with some dark and really silly moments inbetween.

Playing through D:OS2. and what I miss are stakes. No one really cares, nor is concerned about anything. While BG2 was bright and fun, dark stuff happened and had consequences. Things happen to people outside your party, but all Origin characters seem like a bunch of sociopaths.

D:OS2 doesn't shy from gore and gross, but it doesn't have narrative impact. Your companions are constatly snarky and indifferent, and so are most other NPCs.


I guess that's somewhat fair. I think DOS 2 focuses so much on locale-building that the world-building suffers quite a bit.

Take Act 2 - About 10-20 minutes walk northeast of Driftwood, it appears that the landscape has collapsed into a hellish nightmare world where healing hurts and a settlement is collapsing into arcane screaming torment. Driftwood doesn't talk about that, it's too busy talking about Driftwood.

The lack of world-building also hurts the origin stories because too many pieces are missing. The Red Prince was caught consorting with a demon, then was exiled by his own people to Fort Joy. He says that once he returns to his people, he'll become emperor again. Except we're missing "Step 2", which is the explanation for why he won't be arrested and imprisoned, and how he'll suddenly be promoted to the throne without his political enemies being able to stop him.

Queen Justinia of the Dwarves plans to
genocide humans in Arx. Why? I'm not sure. As a queen, shouldn't she have some diplomatic options before "genocide"?

Can't she talk to the leader of the Humans in that area? Who is leading the humans? No one knows because Larian didn't think that was important... except that getting at least a vague idea of the power dynamics at play are important for understanding the decisions people are making.


Well at least now that they are working in the Forgotten Realms lack of world building will not be an issue at all 😉
Originally Posted by Stabbey
1) The game will have a maximum character level of 10 - no spells above 5th level. No Wish spell, and even if there were one, it would be limited because every option has to be specifically programmed into the game.

2) The days of PC games coming in physical boxes have ended. No brick and mortar stores carry physical editions of PC games, and the publishing costs of PC games is no longer profitable enough to justify the expense.

3) No. Larian doesn't do microtransactions.

4) There's probably an invisible border because the game developers have to program everything into the game and thus can't plan for everything to allow full freedom of movement in every direction.

You do not want to lose a limb because your party can't reach level 13 and get access to Regenerate spells. Losing a limb probably isn't simulated at all.


It occurs to me that just because the party is limited to 10th level and 5th level spells, doesn't mean all the NPCs and monsters are. It's natural to assume that we won't meet anything above our level in CR, but this is the Forgotten Realms so that assumption would be a mistake. It occurs to me that it's likely we will meet NPCs much more powerful then us, who have access to spells more powerful then us, but that this won't be default combat encounters unless we choose to attack them.
It´s also rare to find legendary creatures at lower levels, and the top would be 10, but I do not know if some bosses with legendary actions or resistances would be in the game because those are always fun to play ( Mostly as a DM evil )
Originally Posted by Omegaphallic
Well at least now that they are working in the Forgotten Realms lack of world building will not be an issue at all 😉

We shall see. Drawing from existing lore without properly introducing it ingame might be a problem in itself. Thats an issue even some original games suffer from (looking at you, but with an affection, Pillars of Eternity).

Bioware did an excellent job in using existing FR lore and characters without feeling off to a complete new comer (like myself). Everything had either a strong set up, was a flavour detail which gave an impression of wider world, and was a nice detail for folk familiar with the source material, or was driven by a strong, relatable central narrative, allowing to accept weirder stuff.

Outside Torment, I never felt it was achieved quite as elegantly in other games. I remember watching early Marvel movies, and coming out with "WTF was that thing or why did that happen" to be explained it comes from comics or is building toward something, but never quite fitting in the currect narrative. I never had this feeling with BG1&2. I might not know who Drizzit was, but his apperance worked.
Originally Posted by Wormerine
Originally Posted by Omegaphallic
Well at least now that they are working in the Forgotten Realms lack of world building will not be an issue at all 😉

We shall see. Drawing from existing lore without properly introducing it ingame might be a problem in itself. Thats an issue even some original games suffer from (looking at you, but with an affection, Pillars of Eternity).

Bioware did an excellent job in using existing FR lore and characters without feeling off to a complete new comer (like myself). Everything had either a strong set up, was a flavour detail which gave an impression of wider world, and was a nice detail for folk familiar with the source material, or was driven by a strong, relatable central narrative, allowing to accept weirder stuff.

Outside Torment, I never felt it was achieved quite as elegantly in other games. I remember watching early Marvel movies, and coming out with "WTF was that thing or why did that happen" to be explained it comes from comics or is building toward something, but never quite fitting in the currect narrative. I never had this feeling with BG1&2. I might not know who Drizzit was, but his apperance worked.


The important thing, in terms of involving a player with a game-world, is to be aware that a player may know nothing at all about the world, or may know everything about the world. That can be tricky to handle.

The best way to deal with these extremes is to only force the minimum information about the current situation into the story, but allow ample opportunity to gather lore concerning the wider world geography, history, religions, politics etc, through optional dialog, books, inscriptions, paintings, carvings and other in-world information sources.

From a personal perspective, I find access to maps to be invaluable to make sense of a game world, and time-lines can also be helpful. Clearly, making information you discover available for later cross-reference is also important.

Unfortunately, many developers do not pay enough attention to getting this right, and their games suffer for it.
Originally Posted by etonbears
Unfortunately, many developers do not pay enough attention to getting this right, and their games suffer for it.

Or perhaps, simply not enough crowd testing. Just recently Deadfire cut some crucial lore info from the final game when getting rid of unnecessary exposition. Devs, being intimately familiar with the details, missed that they cut some vital information players won't learn any other way.

Balancing between newcomer/fan of the IP is certainly a difficult feat to pull off. Keeping my fingers crossed for Larian.
the impact in OS2 obviously comes from the central conflict.
Nobody talks about the fifssures because they are supposed to just have happened when you get there.

meanwhile the magister crackdown on everything?
the plight of the dwarves? the voidwoken everywhere?

You have to be delusional to think that those arent referenced int he dialogue.

If you want all grimdark all the time go wank to the latest 40k space marine book that they spit out every month
being referenced doesn't make them impactful by default. no one is asking for grimdark, no need for assuming extremes.
>not a big impact
literaly the entire game world is about this conflict.

of course you wouldnt know, having never played it
yes but the game world being about that conflict doesn't make the writing impactful enough to make that conflict actually matter in ANY way outside of the plot rails it puts you on.
© Larian Studios forums