Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
Joined: Aug 2019
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Aug 2019
It should look less like Divinity as placeholder assets are phased out, I don't think they're going to drop the ball on that front. Combat is still a major concern though. Are there going to be large-scale encounters at all? How many days would a fight involving, say, 30 units take? :P

Joined: Jul 2019
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Jul 2019
Like I always said the facts are it's 5th edition DND rules with a DOS skin, and sadly for the cons arguments are pretty weak since their only arguing essentially the visuals and nostalgia effects. That's fair maybe, but if you want BG3 to look like BG2 then play WOTR next year. Personally, nostalgia alone is not enough for me to dismiss this game, because I fell in love with the visuals of what Larian showed us so far. The character creation and the environment was breathtaking and it's only the beginning, there is a lot to be shown still.

If there is any ounce of open-mindedness in you, you will play this game because the visuals are superior to BG1-2. Maybe that's what is killing the cons in here, they know it looks amazing but just want to be stubborn about it. That's like saying my car looks great but the bumper needs adjustments. So what's next? do you find that the elves have ears that are too long? That the dwarves are too short? That the environment didn't look like Faerun? How do you know what it looks like anyways? You all play table top DnD with a map with no detailed insight of the wilderness. Even other games never have the same elements when it comes to the representation of Faerun.

If you want to change the UI and add some nostalgia effects with the spells or animations go right ahead, but the core game engine is not going to change and it will remain the way it is now. I for one love options, give us different UI selections or toggle HP (on/off) or chance of success (on/off). Give us different difficulty settings and visual settings etc...

But this type of wish lists usually already comes with a game and it's something that any developer can incorporate due to community feedback. Also, people talk about cash grabs and marketing, so what? That's the nature of the business. I suspect they went along this way because they want to maximize their success, sadly the cons are in the minority.






Last edited by Braveheart; 03/03/20 05:02 PM.
Joined: May 2010
Location: Oxford
Duchess of Gorgombert
Offline
Duchess of Gorgombert
Joined: May 2010
Location: Oxford
Originally Posted by Archaven
So much this. I think owlcat or obsidian has proven that they are more capable at least in terms of getting the the look and feel, the settings the experience and the atmosphere of a fantasy RPG right. while larian made very impressive games like DOS and DOS2 which are fun and light-hearted, they completely failed in the artistic department. they failed to capture the how the return of baldur's gate supposed to be like. the wait of 20 years of a new baldur's gate turned out to be a DOS2 clone. it's really such a shame. this probably just my opinion.. the whole reason how larian able to get to work on bg3 is quite obvious WoTC is looking for a developer that can do multiplayer co-op, turn-based engine and DOS2 just hit right at home.

I suppose I'm surprised people are still saying that. When New Vegas was a thing, it was claimed it would be even better if it was isometric turn-based like FO1 and 2, but that Obsidian were "forced" to use FO3's engine. Fast forward to last year and The Outer Worlds where they decided to use a first-person real-time game that played remarkably like TES and FO3/4/NV. I guess times move on.

From Larian's catalogue I still prefer Divinity II which was essentially the same engine that Oblivion used, and would prefer them to go back to it. But I figured I could live with the isometric turn-based approach to the Original Sins even though that style of gameplay isn't my cup of tea. Doing stuff that doesn't appeal to me sometimes turns out to be an acquired taste; and even if it's a taste I don't acquire there's often plenty of stuff I enjoyed that I could've missed out on.


J'aime le fromage.
Joined: Feb 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Feb 2020
I just hope, that they take criticism serious and don't just ignore with "that's just the old BG fans". Iam pretty sure that those fans have some good points that will improve the game for everyone, BG fan or not.

Joined: Feb 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Feb 2020
Originally Posted by vometia
Originally Posted by Archaven
So much this. I think owlcat or obsidian has proven that they are more capable at least in terms of getting the the look and feel, the settings the experience and the atmosphere of a fantasy RPG right. while larian made very impressive games like DOS and DOS2 which are fun and light-hearted, they completely failed in the artistic department. they failed to capture the how the return of baldur's gate supposed to be like. the wait of 20 years of a new baldur's gate turned out to be a DOS2 clone. it's really such a shame. this probably just my opinion.. the whole reason how larian able to get to work on bg3 is quite obvious WoTC is looking for a developer that can do multiplayer co-op, turn-based engine and DOS2 just hit right at home.

I suppose I'm surprised people are still saying that. When New Vegas was a thing, it was claimed it would be even better if it was isometric turn-based like FO1 and 2, but that Obsidian were "forced" to use FO3's engine. Fast forward to last year and The Outer Worlds where they decided to use a first-person real-time game that played remarkably like TES and FO3/4/NV. I guess times move on.

From Larian's catalogue I still prefer Divinity II which was essentially the same engine that Oblivion used, and would prefer them to go back to it. But I figured I could live with the isometric turn-based approach to the Original Sins even though that style of gameplay isn't my cup of tea. Doing stuff that doesn't appeal to me sometimes turns out to be an acquired taste; and even if it's a taste I don't acquire there's often plenty of stuff I enjoyed that I could've missed out on.


It's not only about the fightsystem and the BG3 likes shouldnt focus on that point. There are much more relevant arguments for changes.
Besides that: there is a reason "evoland" starts with turn based gameplay and changes to Realtime. Fact: most people, besides that dos2 was incredibly good and popular, dont like turn based gameplay.

Joined: Mar 2019
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Mar 2019
Originally Posted by ThreeL
Fact: most people, besides that dos2 was incredibly good and popular, dont like turn based gameplay.


Are you claiming it is a fact that most people do not like turn based? If so, where is your evidence? PC Gamer did a poll last week on Twitter that showed that most people (albeit by a tight margin) prefer turn based.

TB vs RTwP Poll


Joined: Feb 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Feb 2020
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Originally Posted by ThreeL
Fact: most people, besides that dos2 was incredibly good and popular, dont like turn based gameplay.


Are you claiming it is a fact that most people do not like turn based? If so, where is your evidence? PC Gamer did a poll last week on Twitter that showed that most people (albeit by a tight margin) prefer turn based.

TB vs RTwP Poll



Iam not talking in a baldurs gate context. I can also show polls which state the opposite.
I mean in general Realtime or turnbased

Joined: Mar 2019
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Mar 2019
Generally speaking, yes, I would expect most people would prefer realtime these days (it being, and having been, the norm for so many years now). But the poll I linked to was specifically about BG3. Do you have any links to polls done on BG3 regarding the TB vs RTwP issue that show the opposite?

Joined: Aug 2014
T
member
Offline
member
T
Joined: Aug 2014
Originally Posted by ThreeL
Fact: most people, besides that dos2 was incredibly good and popular, dont like turn based gameplay.


I dont think thats true, I'm one of the "complainers" here on the forums and I prefer the turn-based system. Where do you get that fact from? Maybe I'm an outlier.

Joined: Jun 2019
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Jun 2019
I was really dissappointed to find out that the gameplay is going to be similiar to D:OS games. I understand that they are good games but just not my cup of tea and yes, TB does play a huge factor in that but its not only that its the whole presentation which reminds me a lot of NwN2 which is definetly a good game but mostly because 3rd edition and real time pause. I very much prefer the IE games in terms of presentation and overall gameplay.

Personally i would have given the licence to Obsidian 100%. Both PoE games were excellent and a BG3 like that just on a much bigger budget and in the actual forgotten realms would have definetly been my BG3. I will still try Larians BG3 and i am sure it is going to be a good game to people but i am sure its not going to be the BG3 i would have liked. But hey, maybe they'll prove me wrong who knows.


Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Originally Posted by ThreeL
Fact: most people, besides that dos2 was incredibly good and popular, dont like turn based gameplay.


Are you claiming it is a fact that most people do not like turn based? If so, where is your evidence? PC Gamer did a poll last week on Twitter that showed that most people (albeit by a tight margin) prefer turn based.

TB vs RTwP Poll



"MOST poeple ?"
47 to 53 is really really not a large majority, including that this poll appears after "Dos's fans" look at the game...

Same poll with only BG fans please, to see what their majority wants...

Joined: Mar 2019
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Mar 2019
You neglected to include where I wrote "albeit by tight margin."

Are you saying that DOS fans were unevenly represented in this poll? If so, what evidence? The poll stemmed from an article on PC Gamer titled "It sucks that Baldur's Gate 3 is turn based." Surely that drew a good number of BG1 & 2 fans who felt the same?

Joined: May 2010
Location: Oxford
Duchess of Gorgombert
Offline
Duchess of Gorgombert
Joined: May 2010
Location: Oxford
TB/RTwP discussion is here. Check it out, you'll love it. A bit.


J'aime le fromage.
Joined: Feb 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Feb 2020
I'm not chill yet, I'm still worried. I really hope I'm totally paranoid, but the more I read (like those interviews people have been linking) it sounds like a lot of their decision making is partly driven by creating a multiplayer environment (on top of all other issues I have which I've posted about already so won't repeat here..). And as far as I can tell there's not been any comms from Larian - not that they have to! - but there's a lot of un-chilled reaction, it would be nice to hear from them. I guess those interviews were done before PAX, but if after, then they're a bit annoying; unless of course they're totally happy about how it all went, which they can be I guess.

Anyway, others might be chill, I'm not yet.

Joined: Mar 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by Madscientist
I totally agree with the OP

Just one minor thing:I would not say that other companies are worse than Larian, just different.
I would be happy if Owlcat or Obsidian make a new DnD game.

- For those who love the original BG1+2, Pathfinder Kingmaker was the true successor. Huge game, relatively close to PnP rules ( I think flanking rule was the biggest difference), rtwp, party of 6 and interesting characters and places. There were only 3 problems: 1.) The game was unplayable buggy at release. But after some patches you could play it without mayor problems. BG1+2 are still full of bugs (regeneration of enemies stacks everytime you load the game, making higher werewolfs immortal when you cannot beat them first try or you have already saved a few times in the area). 2.) PK suffered from the lack of information and some quality of life features. BG1+2 came with a huge manual. For PK I had to do lots of reading in the internet to understand the rules and to create powerful chars. The game is great for PnP fans but new players will have a very hard time in the beginning. 3.) Some enemies had really inflated stats (hallo owlbears) or there were groups of enemies who could stunnlock your whole party if you do not know exactly what to do (wild hunt groups). I do understand that PnP rules are designed for a party of 4 non optimized chars, so the game would be easy for 6 chars made by one player. But I think it would have been better if they used the original PnP stats as normal difficulty and players could change the difficulty settings and make it as hard or easy as they like. The game had more difficulty options than any other game.
Its great that Owlcat works on a new pathfinder game.

- I loved NWN2 and PoE1+2 are also very good. I really hope that Obsidian will make PoE3 some day, even if PoE2 sold not so well.


For me the problem of Kingmaker is that I spend more time traveling than actually playing the game.

Joined: Jul 2014
D
member
Offline
member
D
Joined: Jul 2014
Originally Posted by theNight
Delicieuxz:

Dude, you are completely delusional. Haven't seen a post with so many half-truths and lies in a while.

I am sure that the only reason why Larian is doing this is to "use BG brand and do a quick cash-grab". Gtfo.

Read for example the interview with one of the main writers - you will understand that these people share a similar passion for the old games as we do.

Otherwise looks elsewhere for some computer games, spreading misleading information will only lead to more hate,...

You are outright lying when you claim that my post contained half-truths and lies. Obviously, some disposition of yours is preventing you from looking at situations objectively.

My first statement was: "But Larian aren't making anything that resembles the Baldur's Gate series in any way. So how can it be said that Larian are the most suitable developer to deliver precisely what they have no interest in delivering and are literally not even attempting to deliver?"

And that is true. We can go through the elements of what was shown in the "BG3" gameplay footage categorically to substantiate what I said. But we can't do the same to substantiate your claim that what I said was either a lie or a half-truth.

The next point that I made is: "If people don't speak out now, there will be no point in speaking out later. The earlier people speak out, the most chance there is that something will improve."

That is a truth, logically self-evident and also proven time after time in a game's development cycle. For you to claim it is a lie or a half-truth is obviously nothing more than you fanboying and getting upset that somebody is putting things into perspective in a way that is not simply fawning over the developer.

The last point I made is: "Larian are clearly not trying to deliver the best-possible experience for everyone, but are trying to exploit the goodwill that the Baldur's Gate series name conjured up to promote their DOS gameplay and get more people buying both "BG3" and their DOS games. Swen stated so in an interview:

...

Calling their game "Baldur's Gate 3" when it has absolutely nothing in common with the original Baldur's Gate series is only being done as a cash-grab."

And that point was supported by a quote from Swen where he literally states that they're using the Baldur's Gate name to promote their DOS formula. The act of exploiting a brand-name for the purpose of serving something other than what that brand-name stands for is a cash-grab. It is unfaithful to the series name and it is disrespectful to the fans of that series' name which is being exploited.

And another quote by Baldur's Gate's executive producer corroborates this position in saying that Larian chose to copy DOS' gameplay formula because they didn't want to take any risks:

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2020-02-27-baldurs-gate-3-interview
Quote
The choices that we made are ours. Why did we go for turn-based instead of real-time with pause? Because D&D to us is a turn-based game and we're really good - or we have become really good - with turn-based combat. So that, I think, is one of our strengths, and trying out real-time with pause for now, just because the originals were that? It's a big risk. Because the team would have to think completely differently, our combat would be completely different. And we didn't really feel good about that. Normally we do try out a lot. Normally we try out a lot before we make a decision, but with real-time with pause and turn-based we didn't, we just said "Okay it's just gonna be turn-based."


If Larian just wanted to make another DOS game to not take any risks and to promote their Divinity brand, then they should have just made another DOS game using their brand and not co-opting another one to do it. And if they were afraid of taking the risk of delivering on what a series name stands for, then they shouldn't have asked to make a game in that series which they are not brave enough or with enough integrity to actually make a game for. And to just make a modified DOS game using that other series' name, being unfaithful to that series, is a sell-out move, and using that series name to promote their own DOS formula is a cash-grab.

So, you are simply reacting in fanboy fashion to having valid points raised by me. Therefore, your response to me is entirely unwarranted and delusional, and is flame-baiting.

What I wrote in my previous post stands, especially since you were utterly incapable of challenging a single point of what I said and merely threw out ad hominem.

Joined: Mar 2019
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Mar 2019
Originally Posted by Delicieuxz
[
My first statement was: "But Larian aren't making anything that resembles the Baldur's Gate series in any way. So how can it be said that Larian are the most suitable developer to deliver precisely what they have no interest in delivering and are literally not even attempting to deliver?"


What should they have done to make it "resemble" BG aside from RTwP? And how can you state that so definitively when the game is in pre-alpha?


And doesn't it stand to reason that WotC knows Larian does turn based games, and that they (WotC) wanted it that way? That they chose Larian for the excellent job they did with a turn based game like DOS2 and expected something similar to be done with BG3?

Calling it a cashgrab is unfounded. If you think no good effort is being made to make a great game, then I can see why you might think so. But nothing Larian has done, especially with DOS2, shows they don't care about the product they put out. Quite the opposite.

Joined: Jul 2014
D
member
Offline
member
D
Joined: Jul 2014
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Originally Posted by Delicieuxz
[
My first statement was: "But Larian aren't making anything that resembles the Baldur's Gate series in any way. So how can it be said that Larian are the most suitable developer to deliver precisely what they have no interest in delivering and are literally not even attempting to deliver?"


What should they have done to make it "resemble" BG aside from RTwP? And how can you state that so definitively when the game is in pre-alpha?

First, RTwP vs TB shapes a huge amount of the game design, including environmental design and a large amount of the game's experience.

But other than RTwP, Larian could have done at least something to make it resemble BG, but they did nothing - they just did a D&D DOS and called it a sequel because 'it's a party-based RPG, it has combat in it, it uses a D&D ruleset'. Larian have confirmed there isn't anything they can put their finger on that makes it a Baldur's Gate series game.

Larian's D&D game's executive producer, David Walgrave:

"So, I think that in spirit it's still the successor of Baldur's Gate 1 and 2. Because there are so many things that people who did play and like Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 will still recognise in the new one. It's still about your party. It's still about big personalities clashing with each other and relationships. It's still a party-based game, you still need to do combat, you will recognise a lot of D&D rules - even if you haven't played D&D in 20 years. You will still recognise all the spells, et cetera. So, to me it's a true sequel, but we are bringing it into the 21st century by saying, "Look, it's glorious 3D." "


Simply being a party-based game with colourful characters and having combat in it that is based on D&D rules... that doesn't make for a Baldur's Gate series game any more than being a first-person game where you play as a single character and use a variety of weapons to shoot at lots of things makes a game a DOOM series or a Half-Life series game. There are thousands of games that match Walgrave's description that don't use D&D rulesets, and there are loads of games that match that description using D&D rulesets that aren't titled as a part of the original PC Baldur's Gate series.

All Walgrave did is describe the most generic elements of a party-based RPG and say that's the extent of what makes him "think" their D&D DOS formula game counts as a sequel for the Baldur's Gate series. He literally couldn't come up with a single aspect of the game that would actually explain why it is being called "BG3".

But Swen explained why it is being called "BG3" elsewhere, when he said it was to promote their DOS formula and brand.

Quote

And doesn't it stand to reason that WotC knows Larian does turn based games, and that they (WotC) wanted it that way? That they chose Larian for the excellent job they did with a turn based game like DOS2 and expected something similar to be done with BG3?

Walgrave state that the choice to do TB was theirs alone.

Quote

Calling it a cashgrab is unfounded. If you think no good effort is being made to make a great game, then I can see why you might think so. But nothing Larian has done, especially with DOS2, shows they don't care about the product they put out. Quite the opposite.

It isn't unfounded, though. There is no similarity between Larian's D&D game and the Baldur's Gate series, and Larian have stated they aren't taking any risks or conforming to Baldur's Gate gameplay, but are using the Baldur's Gate name to promote Larian's DOS style of game and hopefully get more people playing their DOS games. The choice to name their D&D game "Baldur's Gate 3" instead of something else is a cash-grab.

Joined: Mar 2019
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Mar 2019
Originally Posted by Delicieuxz
He literally couldn't come up with a single aspect of the game that would actually explain why it is being called "BG3".


And you haven't come up with one why it shouldn't be called BG3.

Originally Posted by Delicieuxz
But other than RTwP, Larian could have done at least something to make it resemble BG


Like what? Once again, please explain what they should have done to make it "resemble" BG aside from RTwP?

Joined: Jul 2014
D
member
Offline
member
D
Joined: Jul 2014
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Originally Posted by Delicieuxz
He literally couldn't come up with a single aspect of the game that would actually explain why it is being called "BG3".


And you haven't come up with one why it shouldn't be called BG3.

Huh? I've extensively explained that there is no semblance between Larian's game and the Baldur's Gate series. So, your claim is false. That there isn't a single aspect about Larian's D&D game that explains why it is being called "BG3" IS the reason why it shouldn't be called "BG3".

Quote

Originally Posted by Delicieuxz
But other than RTwP, Larian could have done at least something to make it resemble BG


Like what? Once again, please explain what they should have done to make it "resemble" BG aside from RTwP?

Literally anything across all categories of gameplay, environment, tone, visuals.

And I already explained that the RTwP gameplay influences a ton of the rest of the game's design.

Page 2 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

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