Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
#660970 03/03/20 08:57 PM
Joined: Feb 2011
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
Joined: Feb 2011
I am curious if there has been any mention if the BG3 game is going to be setup in "Acts" like the DOS games where you only get to explore the parts of the land for the act you are currently in? Honestly that is my biggest complaint about the DOS games. I would much prefer the entire world be open from the start to wander around in instead of the smaller broken up areas based on the Acts. If I want to explore the woods outside Baldur's Gate and then go back and forth to the city I hope I can.

My gut is it will be the same as the DOS games but hope not.

Joined: Mar 2019
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Mar 2019
I kind of agree, but I am okay if it is like DOS, wherein you can easily run into areas that are too challenging at your current level. It isn't necessary to be able to stumble into an area twenty levels over you; five is fine. But, if they can do it with no consequence to production, stability, balance, etc than sure go for it. At least they don't subscribe to the awful system of leveling everything to match your current level (e.g. Skyrim).

Joined: Sep 2015
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Sep 2015
Regarding open world, I liked BG1 more than BG2.
Right from the start you could go everywhere except the city of Baldurs Gate and some quest related areas . . . if you survive. It was very easy to run into encounters that are much too hard for you.

I liked the original Divine Divinity and Gothic 1+2 too. You can go everywhere from the start, if you survive.
The only condition: There should be several options about what to do next for characters of any level.
In D:OS2 I have the problem that the power difference from one level to the next is so huge that you sometimes feel forced to do encounters in a specific order and you run into problems if you do not know the game so well that you have problems to find an encounter that fits your level.
One more reason to avoid the exponential number groth of D:OS2


groovy Prof. Dr. Dr. Mad S. Tist groovy

World leading expert of artificial stupidity.
Because there are too many people who work on artificial intelligence already :hihi:
Joined: Mar 2019
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Mar 2019
Yeah, level to level difference was out of control in DOS2. Assuming they stick to D&D rules, shouldn't be such a problem, right?

Emrikol #661004 03/03/20 10:41 PM
Joined: Mar 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Yeah, level to level difference was out of control in DOS2. Assuming they stick to D&D rules, shouldn't be such a problem, right?

A well-optimized party can fight two or three levels (called Challenge Rating in the tabletop) above their weight class, but if you give away more than that you're in deep shit. Things get looser as you level up and can power game your way ahead of the challenge curve, but especially at low levels it's fairly easy to get wiped by encounters that aren't even supposed to be particularly deadly.

If they do something like front-load low level characters with extra hit points, which was something 4e did that I think they should have kept, it wouldn't be as bad.

Joined: Mar 2019
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Mar 2019
I agree. My friends and I are currently playing DOS2 and we usually take on stuff one or two levels over us (though they don't want to go to Tactician). Even so, that then becomes the norm instead of even leveled stuff. Deviate from the that 1/2 level difference and it becomes a joke or a nightmare again.

Joined: Feb 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Feb 2020
If they adapt the bounded accuracy elements of 5e well enough, then certain encounters should remain somewhat challenging (if not particularly rewarding) throughout. A few goblins against a 5th level party (of four) should be of little consequence, but a small band of goblins, say 10-15 against that same party of four...still not too dangerous, but definitely something to take seriously.

As for tackling higher level encounters...that same 5th level party can tackle something a bit above their weight class (by 2-3 levels), depending on certain conditions, like not a lair (assuming those rules are adapted), the party outnumbers the enemy...things like that.

That's table top 5e of course...can't say for certain with this game yet.

Last edited by ZeshinX; 03/03/20 11:11 PM.
Joined: Jul 2019
member
Offline
member
Joined: Jul 2019
I would also prefer the game being more of an open world. That being said, I'm not against acts per se, as they can be done in a meaningful and interesting way. If we're playing in the midst of an invasion, then it might be cool to revisit areas at a later point in the game to see some of the consequences of our actions play out (regions being taken over by Mind Flayers vs combatting against them).

Joined: Jul 2019
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Jul 2019
I agree, I love open world and we don't know if BG3 will have to a certain extent that exploration option since we haven't seen an in-game map yet either. But even an open world exploration should have some rules.

1. I wouldn't want to pick up a side quest (aside from the main quest) and end up wiping because there was no way to tell that the encounters were 3 to 5 levels higher than you.

2. Exploring the wilderness or areas of interest should be rewarding and not only for treasure hunting but for crafting by gathering materials.

3. Make use of heroes skills or a combination of (survival / perception / investigation / religion / nature) to find hidden areas or track down objects or bounties etc..

4. Camping mechanics to survive long journeys.

5. Don't make the main quest timed so we can have time to explore (after removing the tadpole from our brains) .

Last edited by Braveheart; 04/03/20 04:22 AM.
Joined: Sep 2015
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Sep 2015
Its OK if you can get side quests that are very difficult.
Even BG2 had lots of this.

When you get to the slum tavern you are flooded with quests such as DÁrnise keep and Firkraag. This can be hard if you go there right away without getting some easy items and exp in the city, such as the sewers under the tavern.
I think you can find Kangaxx quite early, not 100% sure if you have to beat a lich to get the quest from him.


groovy Prof. Dr. Dr. Mad S. Tist groovy

World leading expert of artificial stupidity.
Because there are too many people who work on artificial intelligence already :hihi:
Joined: Mar 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by Braveheart


5. Don't make the main quest timed so we can have time to explore (after removing the tadpole from our brains) .


Why remove it? It would be very cool if one of the main plot divergences happens early whereby I get to choose (or a choice happens) which leads to me being rid of it or not, choosing instead to embrace this new destiny.

The idea of having a section free from time pressure to roam freely is staple in any RPG these days. Picking up non story based side quests is key and I don't think that is something that will be left out. As fr how far one can travel and how far open world...?!

I don't need vast empty areas for the sake of travelling, I am happy with the BG concept of using a map but being interrupted with random encounters, encounters which they themselves might lead to other quests that could easily be missed by killing said encounter.

Last edited by Riandor; 04/03/20 03:05 PM.
Joined: May 2010
Location: Oxford
Duchess of Gorgombert
Offline
Duchess of Gorgombert
Joined: May 2010
Location: Oxford
ISTR that timed missions are second only to escort quests in terms of being one of the most universally disliked game features; that may be apocryphal but it's something that I certainly find myself agreeing with. Choices and consequences are one thing, but I put enough effort into not being late IRL, I don't want my escapism to make a point of it too!


J'aime le fromage.
Joined: Feb 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Feb 2020
Indeed, timed quests I loathe. I understand the need for a sense of urgency at certain points of a narrative, but I will gladly accept the disconnect to allow for a more overall enjoyable experience (i.e. the game not "rushing" me through certain events).

vometia #661235 04/03/20 03:11 PM
Joined: Mar 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by vometia
ISTR that timed missions are second only to escort quests in terms of being one of the most universally disliked game features; that may be apocryphal but it's something that I certainly find myself agreeing with. Choices and consequences are one thing, but I put enough effort into not being late IRL, I don't want my escapism to make a point of it too!

Agree, timed quests are not great and are especially tricky/annoying to do in games that have a world clock built into them. Plus all it really leads to is players reloading and trying the "race" again.

vometia #661237 04/03/20 03:17 PM
Joined: Sep 2015
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Sep 2015
Originally Posted by vometia
ISTR that timed missions are second only to escort quests in terms of being one of the most universally disliked game features; that may be apocryphal but it's something that I certainly find myself agreeing with. Choices and consequences are one thing, but I put enough effort into not being late IRL, I don't want my escapism to make a point of it too!


I can understand you, but sometimes a timer makes sense.
I really dislike the "false urgency" in most games: Somebody tells you to do something now and that terrible thing will happen if you are too late, but the game does not care if you do 20 side quests and rest 100 times in the meantime.

I absolute respect the devs of Pathfinder Kingmaker for implementing hard timers. It makes no sense to walk around on the world map for month in search of treasures when your kingdom is invaded by monsters.
I mean you have several month to solve a problem that can be fixed in two weeks and if you fix it fast you have lots of time for exploration and kingdom building until the next crisis comes.
In the first chapter, I solved the main quest and explored every area I can visit at this point in less than half the time I had. At the end I have maxed out all kingdom stats and explored the entire world and still I had to skip month until I could visit the final dungeon. I think the timer in the quest menu made the game more engaging.

Even BG1+2 had some timed quests. You can get poisoned in BG1 and in BG2 you have to save Jan Jansens Family member (sister?), plus Jaheiras curse. In all those cases the time limit was so large that it was almost impossible to fail unless you forget about it or you start traveling around the world once you get them.


groovy Prof. Dr. Dr. Mad S. Tist groovy

World leading expert of artificial stupidity.
Because there are too many people who work on artificial intelligence already :hihi:
Joined: Feb 2011
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
Joined: Feb 2011
Originally Posted by Madscientist
Regarding open world, I liked BG1 more than BG2.
Right from the start you could go everywhere except the city of Baldurs Gate and some quest related areas . . . if you survive. It was very easy to run into encounters that are much too hard for you.

I liked the original Divine Divinity and Gothic 1+2 too. You can go everywhere from the start, if you survive.
The only condition: There should be several options about what to do next for characters of any level.
In D:OS2 I have the problem that the power difference from one level to the next is so huge that you sometimes feel forced to do encounters in a specific order and you run into problems if you do not know the game so well that you have problems to find an encounter that fits your level.
One more reason to avoid the exponential number groth of D:OS2


I also liked BG1 more for the same reason. I think it's a difficult task to balance encounters with everything open from the start so I think some developers avoid it or break things into "Acts" to make it easier. I think it should be done where in the starting areas encounters are easier then as you get further from roads, cities, patrol areas encounters get harder. Maybe deeper in dungeons they get harder. I am really not a fan of having encounters always be survivable for the players. I am more old school where there may be some warnings that an area is particularly dangerous or have some NPC's talk about how bad or dangerous some areas are but let the players go where they want. It's what I do with a tabletop session; if my players ignore subtle hints about a dangerous area well some of them are going to be rolling up new characters.

When you gain a few levels and can go back to an area you felt was too dangerous you get a feeling of accomplishment and the "Acts" system kind of ruins that for me a bit where everything in Act I is level 1-10 (Or whatever it is). The world should be dangerous and not always be balanced (like 4E D&D kind of was)

Last edited by Saxon1974; 04/03/20 04:22 PM.
Joined: Feb 2011
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
Joined: Feb 2011
Dang just as I feared the game will be just like the DOS games with areas locked into separate ACTS. Disappointed.

https://wccftech.com/baldurs-date-3-multiple-huge-regions-custom-characters/

Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
Yeah. No surprise there. That much was confirmed in the gameplay reveal. This system works well with Coop, as players can split if they want to, without "Gather your party before venturing forth".

ZeshinX #664465 19/03/20 12:25 AM
Joined: Sep 2015
N
old hand
Offline
old hand
N
Joined: Sep 2015
Originally Posted by ZeshinX
Indeed, timed quests I loathe. I understand the need for a sense of urgency at certain points of a narrative, but I will gladly accept the disconnect to allow for a more overall enjoyable experience (i.e. the game not "rushing" me through certain events).


I don't think there will be timed quests in BG3. It would kill the purpose of exploration, on which Sven insisted when he presented the game.

Joined: Mar 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Mar 2020
Not every game has to be open world. I don't mind acts; they break up a story into manageable chunks and, usually, give you an act boss as the clear goal to an area.
This allows players to know if they're over- or under-leveled for an Act, and can also be used in the narrative. Like in Diablo 2; beating Act 1 and going to Act 2 not only revealed more of the story (and thus WHY we went to Lhut Golen), but was also a time skip; it took our heroes in-world, probably weeks or months to make that trip.

In an open world, either everything has to be close together, thus making a smaller, cluttered world, or what content there is is so spread out that the world feels more empty.

So I don't have a problem with an Act-based story.

Page 1 of 2 1 2

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