Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Joined: Oct 2020
Zefhyr Offline OP
member
OP Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Hi,

I need to tell it. I read the forum for few days and I feel the need to post caus there is a big misunderstanding.

We have, here a game "BG3" which proclaimed himself as the successor of BG1 and 2.

So let's take a minute and let's see what defined BG1 and 2 and what BG3 does. Let's try at least

And just to be clear, it's not about "whine whine, I want a game like this" it's all about "you said you are the successor of BG, so let's see if it's the case".

What was BG1 and 2 about the Lore :
it's D&D, faerun, drizzt, baldur's gate, illithid, etc etc.
What is BG3 :
I'm not an expert ( I read some forgotten realms, playde some games though) but I think we can agree it's ok.

What was BG1 and 2 about the story telling :
beginning as an orphan, looking for help (jaheira and viconia), helping some people here and there. having bad dreams, following leads until we discovered our story was linked to the political trouble in place (the 1). Then kidnapped, tortured, soul-extracted, escaped then cahsing for our soul, etc etc (2), Then Tob a good end for the sons of Bhaal.
What is BG3 (for what we know) :
a bunch of guys infected by tadpole but not transforming, looking for a cure (but we feel like we have time). What is this tadpole ? Why ? Who ? ho and a talkative skeletton staying in our camp.
Won't judge so far. Can't say I'm surprised or really exciting by the story but maybe I'm just to old to be easily surprised. So, I won't judge, I'll wait to be surprised.
Personnaly (as a fictive dev) I would have respect more the "you're the one" but it's incompatible with the "origin character" so it's really about a dev choice. Even if I'm not strongly against the origin character, it's a fact it didn't respect the BG'story concept. But it's not dramatic. I just appreciate the sensation to feel truly unique (at first so)

What BG1 and 2 was about the companion :
People you met during your adventure, one by one, in a lot of different places, some of them really (too) late in the game.
They was cool, some was pretty casual, some was pretty insane or funny in their way.
There was a lot and there was 5 of them accompanying you.
What as BG3 :
for now a lot (5) of mates in the first minutes of the game. All with more or less crazy story.
I think I can understand people who asked for less "amazing background" people. It's not unacceptable but it's important to listen to the players and so, yeah I get it. Could appreciate to have just a guy/girl adventurous and lost in the story.
That said, I think we shouldn't met them so fast. It feels too much the "here is your mates for the beginning".
Taht said, I would criticise the interaction with the companion, even if it's pretty good in general there are really disturbing facts.
Like when I was talking with shadowheart about Shar. I choose to speak about the persecution they suffer, you know, in a compassionate way. Well no, she disapproved and end the discussion ! Can't get why. There was nothing negative in the sentence, it was mroe like a "let's talk about it" but no.
Or like she said we should hurry up instead of helping the tieffelins and I said "well we could help them", she disapproved... So I reload, I try the "yes you're so right, let's them all die" and she approves... I found it stupid cause I'm going to help them anyway and shadowheart will help me and wont say a word about it ! xD
It' s perfect exemple of a stupid "approves/disapproved" talk. There is too much disapproved/approves everywhere and sometimes for stupid things (just a sentence).
It would have been smarter to have a disapproved AFTER we actually helped the tieffelin. It woule make sens...
Finally, the worst is the "romance". I still don't understand why all the men propose me to have sex...
As I still don't understand why they are all bisexual and multiracially open. I doesn't make sens. It makes them shallow.

What was BG1 and 2 about NPCs :
There was a lot of interaction and dialogues. There was a lot of stories, etc etc. Wont talk ad vitam aeternam about it.

What is BG3 :
I wont judge the interactions here, even if sometimes, yeah it feels frustrating like this little tieffelin I saved from death and who didn't car at all, who's insolent and who's I can't punish properly. I just had to accept she bad-talked to me...

But here, I would pay particular attention to one thing. The glorious "let's go close to the NPC to see their faces even if I don't care at all".
Before, it was text, some 3D-iso moving characters and our imagination.
With BG3, it's the "zoom on all the faces". And yeah, it's cool sometimes. many time even.
But I'll give two exemple who perfectly illustrate the "sometimes what is better is the ennemy of what is good"
First, the merchant. I don't really care about their faces...
Second, the party at the camp. There was this tieffelin who talk to you and say "come, let's dance" after what you see him wlak, do a discutable movement with his arms and say "ok it's good enough, the party was cool, let's talk about something else".
And I was like... Dude... Just let the camera in the sky and let me imagine the party instead of showing me this 3 seconds "dance", it's pityful.
So, this is exactly when "what is better is the ennemy of what is good" !

What was BG1 and 2 about fights :
the fights in BG1 and 2 was epic. It was RTwP. We could make it turn-based, but it was RTwP and so it was epic, nervous. You had to pause and pause and pause again. You listen to the warcry, the arrows and spells, you made your wizard run away, your warriors charged or retreat. It was intense.
Will ever remember lots of fights against sarevok, against, the five brothers, against the dragon, against the vampires, against so many people (against Drizzt hehe)
To win, you had to used the good spells. Mayb it was not THE strategic game of the centuries but damn, you had to make a good used of buff, debuff, control and defense-suppressor to win the big fights.
We feel strong, we feel challenged, we feel satisfied and sometimes epic.

What is BG3 :
It's turn-based and only turn-based and it's a mistake. No, more, it's a fault.
As good as turn-based game can be, there are not as epic as the RTwP are.
It's sometimes to long and unepic, absolutely unepic.
as much as the turn-based battles are appropriate for important fights, it's a true pain in the "back" when it's about trashy fights. I will never forget this 20-30 minutes fights against the goblins. It was as long as boring and the reason why the game would need of an RTwP option so we could "skip" this pointless fights and even feel pleasure in it, pleasure in mercilessly and fastly ravaging this camp.

Larian said turn-based was "more strategic". Well... I can understand why they said it even if it's, from my point of viem, a little pretentious.
More, here, it didn't feel correct.
More strategic then BG1 and 2 ? I don't have this feeling. I was closer to feel like a "try and die" game than a "more strategic RPG" and here is why.
When the "strategic elements" of Larian you have to used to win become the only elements to win, it's no more strategie, it's a pattern. Because once you get barrels and reliefs are "strategic", well... it's not really strategic, it become a rigid pattern. Every fights are "go as high as possible" and if it's too hard ? So "reunite barrels", etc etc. I don't think it's one big of a strategy when there is finally few strategies and some unavoidable tricks...

More, having to use the environment to win cause you're to weak otherwhise, it's not really epic. It may be fun, but not "dat" epic.
Make me feel more like a duplicitous than a hero.

Look at the minotaur. Where was the fun ? They cross half of the map in one turn, focus the wizard and killed them in one or two shot.
After a lot of try to "fair" fights and a lot of deaths, what did I do ? I put 3 barrels in order to make them explode and one shot the guys. What a strategy... What a fight... So epic... Wouhou... :-|

What was BG1 and 2 about loots :
There was some chess to open, some was empty, some was full, some was really good. The really good one appeared at the end of dungeon or in secret places.
What is BG3 :
Chess everywhere ! 95% of them are useless, if you're not carefull you will fill your inventory with spoons ! Some chess are called "marvellous", "golden", "put-random-cool-adjectives" but still give crap !
It just disgust you to open containers anymore (and yet I played DOS1 and 2. And in all the games I open all the containers, I'm kind of a squirrel, I take, I take, I take and I keep everything until the end. I even ended Red Dead Redemption nightmares without having used 80% of the stuff I had in my inventory not cause I am some kind of "hardcore gamer" just cause I'm like "keep it for later, who knows what could happen...").



After having played for more than 80 hours, after having read some threads here and after having think about it, I had this feeling and this need to share this one with you.
For now, PoE 2 and Pathfinder feels more like BG than BG3 himself.

So, here's my conclusion. Larian can keep doing as they want, people can keep saying everything is fine (especially the all turn-based mod), I don't really care.
But, in fact, as it is right now, BG3 won't feel as BG as PoE or Pathfinder feel.
And it's a bit sad.

Just to be clear, it's not about "whine whine, I want a game like this" it's all about "you said you are the successor of BG, here is why you don't feel like it".





Joined: Mar 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
For me (just for me. if you disagree more power to you)The short answer is "none of the above". Sure, kingmaker and Poe had the looks of BG and the gameplay mechanics are closer, but that doesn't mean they are any better than bg3. Both are solid games with okayish story and characters, but they have their own problems on that regard. As for Baldur's Gate 3, we'll just have to wait and see.

Last edited by Abits; 25/10/20 12:29 PM.

Larian's Biggest Oversight, what to do about it, and My personal review of BG3 EA
"74.85% of you stood with the Tieflings, and 25.15% of you sided with Minthara. Good outweighs evil, it seems."
Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
This is, in my opinion, a very important issue. But out of all the things that could be improved in BG3, this is what is going to be the hardest to do... if they acknowledge this problem and aim to rectify it.

The thing is - it's so incredibly difficult to capture a "feel" of a game. People often dismiss this as "you just want an Infinity Engine clone, get on with the times, it's 2020". But that's not what most BG fans want. IE games weren't all the same. Each series felt different. BG and P:T were on the same engine, yes, one could feel some familiarity between them, but they each had their own "feel". It wasn't one thing that made BG "BG". Replicating the game engine could give some nostalgia vibes, but would hardly solve the problem (not that the game engine is a point of discussion, obviously). I believe a game can be both modern and a proper sequel to entries from 20 years back.

So what were the elements?

The story: Larian said the BG3 is a "proper sequel" story-wise and I'm inclined to believe them. I like the whole illithid tadpole plot, and I'm eager to learn more about it and the forces behind it. The main plot both is linked to the original saga (per what we're told) and since the beginning brings familiarity. Illithids have been encountered multiple times in BG2 and there's the recurring theme of "something alien" being a part of the protagonists - it can be embraced or rejected. At the same time, there's a new spin to it. I think the core idea behind the main story is solid.

The companions: I'm a bit torn on this; I don't mind companions initially hostile to the PC (especially that we got the "more evil" ones for EA start), but I expect I'll only like one of them. I respect Larian's "quality over quantity" approach, but having only 8 companions to choose from (as it's been hinted) is a problem. That's about half of what BG2 had, and even there it wasn't a huge choice if you wanted to roleplay your PC and not just pick characters based on one criterion. I think BG2 struck a good balance between quality and quantity. Regarding the companions' "specialness" - I don't mind them being very special, I prefer this to Average Joes. One thing would be that it strains suspension of disbelief that those people with crazy backstories would just by coincidence all be taken by illithids, but it could be explained without much problem, I think. From what I understand, there's a lot to improve about the specifics of companion interaction, however. I've seen a lot of good ideas on this forum.

I agree on the combat system, though, and many "game-y" elements. But still, I don't think it's impossible to have both TB and proper BG "feel". It just becomes harder to achieve.

A very important part - and also hard to capture - would be the "atmosphere", but I won't try to comment on this, not having played the game. From what I gather, it's good, but not reminiscent of the original saga.

All in all, I don't think the problem lies with any particular part; the lack of BG "feel" many people report is probably the combination of many elements that differ from the originals (even if each one is fine on its own) and the execution of specific pieces.

I think we should continue discussing the issue in a constructive way in order to identify the source(s) of the problem and try to come up with good, viable solutions. There's already a couple of threads with good ideas for this.

Joined: Sep 2016
Location: Västervik
S
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
S
Joined: Sep 2016
Location: Västervik
The way I see it there are two general categories of "sequels", (meaning a game that shares a name with previous titles but with a +1 numerical in the title).

It can be a story sequel and in that case the story is what matters. This will not be possible to properly judge untill we know what the story is so not untill release.

The second way a game can be a sequel is to have similar but still further developed mechanics. This would be a kind of weird goal when following up on 20 year old games. I think BG3 visualized as a modern rpg is a better idea than BG3 visualized as a retro game.

Joined: Oct 2020
Zefhyr Offline OP
member
OP Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
I ever like to read your comment, they are ever poised and interesting.

I think one of the elements missing is this famous "epicness" I talk everytime.

When I think about BG, BG1 and the beginning. I have still memorable memory like this time I had my wizard running in circle chased by a kobold one of his mates try to stop by cutting his road. It was as stupid as funny as "epic".
Remembered tons of goblins rushing on me and me having warriors stopping them and suddenly one leave the pack to go on my backlane.
And it was just little silly fights.
Cause theyre was the great one.
I remembered the first "big" fight against the guy in the mines.
Having to cast skeletton to keep his own busy, leaving time for me to kill him, etc.
Or the fight against the drow girl's of bhaal, managing my spells, my movement was indeed a lot of strategy, of stress, of joy and rewards. It was, most of all, epic in many ways.

All this moment which I "feel" close to lose, close to fail, close to die, made my party epic, fun and memorable.

I miss this feel in BG3. Sometimes, yeah, I feel it a little.
But most of the time it's more a "damn I miss, let's see if the ennemy will miss too" and my memory will be like "remember this fight against the three goblin in the secret passage ? I killed them in two round, surprised them and hit hit hit hit. They don't move. Don't have a chance. Hmmm..."
I would have prefered to saw them run and shout at me and actually shoot at me.
I could have another memory "remember the gob etc ? Yeah. I rush on them. They faced 4 freaking heros but they prefered killed the unconscious druid they had captured cause... you know... it's logic and all fun." T.T

This is the feel I would like to find again and ths is why PoE and Pathfinder, in my point of view, feel much closer to the "BG spirit" than BG3 which feel much closer to the "Divinity spirit".

And Abits, it's not bout which one is the best game, it's about which one is the best successor of BG.

For now, for me, it's not BG3.

But as said, Uncle Lester, wait and see... (and maybe cross a couple of fingers)

Skalewag, what you described in your second option is exactly what games like PoE, Pathfinder or DAO did.
Look at DAO, it's far from "retro" however it tries to follow the path created by BG in this time.
Why respect the mechanics mean the game should be "retro" or bad ? I'm not sure I undertand you.
More, I would like you give me some "game +1" who didn't respect the mechanics from his origins ?
I thik it's hard to find.
HoMM, AoE, Battelfield, Witcher, Last of Us,... can't find one who deliberately and completely changed the mechanics.


Last edited by Zefhyr; 25/10/20 12:51 PM.
Joined: May 2019
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: May 2019
It's an easy call for me as someone who started playing BG1 from when it was first released and who loves the original BG games passionately. The PoE games and the Pathfinder games are now my go-to games to play again and again as successors to the original BG (and all IE) games. BG3 is on a path to, at best, being a so-so game for me.

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
None of them are half decent successors. The industry lacks half decent writers and doesn't care about story or lore. All of these games have made enormous concessions in the name of accessibility and mainstream appeal and are hollow shells of the games that preceded them.


I am here to discuss a video game. Please do not try to rope me into anything other than that. Thank you.
Joined: Mar 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
I think it's cool we have so many options now days. People don't appreciate it enough. On the other hand, I would take one bg2 over Poe, pathfinder and divinity.


Larian's Biggest Oversight, what to do about it, and My personal review of BG3 EA
"74.85% of you stood with the Tieflings, and 25.15% of you sided with Minthara. Good outweighs evil, it seems."
Joined: Oct 2020
vel Offline
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
I'm not sure which surprised me more: that I read OP's rambling, typo laden screed or that most of it is spot on.

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
They all tried and failed in different ways. Though if I had to choose I would say among recent titles PF:KM did it best.

It's a shame the story was overall lacking and the companions not as strong as they could have been (though some stand out positively).

Joined: Mar 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by Leuenherz
They all tried and failed in different ways. Though if I had to choose I would say among recent titles PF:KM did it best.

It's a shame the story was overall lacking and the companions not as strong as they could have been (though some stand out positively).

I really hope the next pathfinder game will be what bg2 was to bg1. You can practically smell the potential there

Last edited by Abits; 25/10/20 02:03 PM.

Larian's Biggest Oversight, what to do about it, and My personal review of BG3 EA
"74.85% of you stood with the Tieflings, and 25.15% of you sided with Minthara. Good outweighs evil, it seems."
Joined: Oct 2020
B
member
Offline
member
B
Joined: Oct 2020
I've played BG1 last month again for the first time since the 90s... I did play other games based on the system in the meantime, so the combat was fresh in mind - and it was awful. I hated D&D, the way spells were handled, the squishiness of the mages, the boring and utterly simplistic gameplay in combat for the non-spell-caster classes... so yeah, I didn't miss D&D's 'action' and not dynamic fights and the RTwP back there was probably one of the worst gameplay experiences in my 30+ years of playing video games. D&D for me definitely never meshed with realtime and the difference is hugely visible in DAO contrary to any infinitey engine game. The whole system there is designed to work in real time and it shows the way abilities work, characters are designed,... simply everything. It even showed more for me in PoE2 when they added turn-base-combat all of a sudden I enjoyed PoE-combat - not because of being turn-based vs real-time debate, but because the system in its roots was designed for turn-based-combat being a D&D copy.

The thing about BG1 that shocked me was actually how horrible the dialogs in BG1 were. Most were written tongue in cheek, with horrible amateurish comedy and over the top acting not fitting the story at all - things I didn't notice back then being younger and completely unexperienced with RPGs. These days I cringe at every response I get to select. The main protagonist sounds like a caricature of an absolutely bland hero.


I do remember BG 1&2 foundly, they were the groundwork that got me hooked to RPGs and now in my 30s I'm working in the video game industry because of the love for the games they made possible and influenced. This doesn't change how deeply flawed many things about BG1&2 are from a modern perspective. PoE1 is a perfect example of that - they did a game that felt closest to a BG to me to the point I was bored by it because it felt too similar/familiar with no understanding for what were design decisions back then and what were technological limitations. PoE2 was gameplaywise a much better game (storytelling in both I wouldn't call great).

So I don't care which one is the 'worthy successor'. Times have changed too much. I don't need a BG-clone, neither from a UI perspective nor its poor game mechanics. I also don't need to get the old companions back because that series got a fine ending. BG3 to me looks like a flawed game at this point that has the chance to really shine if they fix their balance and follow 5e a bit more at the expanse of DOS.

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Personally, I count Dragon Age: Origins as the succesor that came the closest in terms of feel, but that has cinematics and view-your-character-in-detail and all that. I personally enjoy this, but if it *must* be an isometric one, then yes, Pathfinder comes close. I do enjoy that, mind you, and am looking forward to Wrath of the Righteous. I played this Pen-and-Paper, but never finished it. Can't wait to get my hands on it.

But, you have to understand what they made in the 90's: The best possible computer D&D experience they could make at, and for the time. That is was Larian is attempting for the 2020's, and so far, I genuinely like what I see. From a system and storytelling perspective, I think it certainly gained a *lot*. It genuinely matters what race and class you play now, and I genuinely appreciate the game for that. And yet, yes, the feel is different from the originals. Those felt more... real, or something. Humble. But that was a different time; humble and quiet is regarded as 'boring' nowadays. So your level one tutorial mission involves escaping both an illithid starship *and* the Hells in one go... You go from mountains to swamp to underdark to druid grove to Githyanki all in the opening act...There is *lots* going on, and it feels like it's on steroids.. Whilst I appreciate all this content, it's not the same as wandering the Cloakwood picking off the spiders for an hour. But here's the fun thing: The old ones aren't gone. They are still there, ready to be played. I think I'll do just that, now, actually.

Originally Posted by Zefhyr

Remembered tons of goblins rushing on me and me having warriors stopping them and suddenly one leave the pack to go on my backlane.

Yes, Icewind Dale was fun too.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Italy
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Italy
Originally Posted by biomag
I've played BG1 last month again for the first time since the 90s... I did play other games based on the system in the meantime, so the combat was fresh in mind - and it was awful. I hated D&D, the way spells were handled, the squishiness of the mages, the boring and utterly simplistic gameplay in combat for the non-spell-caster classes... so yeah, I didn't miss D&D's 'action' and not dynamic fights and the RTwP back there was probably one of the worst gameplay experiences in my 30+ years of playing video games. D&D for me definitely never meshed with realtime and the difference is hugely visible in DAO contrary to any infinitey engine game. The whole system there is designed to work in real time and it shows the way abilities work, characters are designed,... simply everything. It even showed more for me in PoE2 when they added turn-base-combat all of a sudden I enjoyed PoE-combat - not because of being turn-based vs real-time debate, but because the system in its roots was designed for turn-based-combat being a D&D copy.

The thing about BG1 that shocked me was actually how horrible the dialogs in BG1 were. Most were written tongue in cheek, with horrible amateurish comedy and over the top acting not fitting the story at all - things I didn't notice back then being younger and completely unexperienced with RPGs. These days I cringe at every response I get to select. The main protagonist sounds like a caricature of an absolutely bland hero.


I do remember BG 1&2 foundly, they were the groundwork that got me hooked to RPGs and now in my 30s I'm working in the video game industry because of the love for the games they made possible and influenced. This doesn't change how deeply flawed many things about BG1&2 are from a modern perspective. PoE1 is a perfect example of that - they did a game that felt closest to a BG to me to the point I was bored by it because it felt too similar/familiar with no understanding for what were design decisions back then and what were technological limitations. PoE2 was gameplaywise a much better game (storytelling in both I wouldn't call great).

So I don't care which one is the 'worthy successor'. Times have changed too much. I don't need a BG-clone, neither from a UI perspective nor its poor game mechanics. I also don't need to get the old companions back because that series got a fine ending. BG3 to me looks like a flawed game at this point that has the chance to really shine if they fix their balance and follow 5e a bit more at the expanse of DOS.


+10000000

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
A better question is who took the most advantage of the path that BG and other 90s games (and this is true for a lot of genres, the 90s were a heydey) paved for other games of its kind. Spiritual successors are hard - theyre emotional and pedantic by nature. Was Torchlight 2 more Diablo 3 than Diablo 3 was?

From what I can get a read on for your initial post you are looking for something evocative of a bygone era that also combines the fit and finish of a published game made by: You guessed it; Pillars of Eternity was done by Black Isle successor, Obsidian. Obsidian has a good number of the same people who:

Developed
Fallout (1997)
Fallout 2 (1998)
Planescape: Torment (1999)
Icewind Dale (2000)
Icewind Dale: Heart of Winter (2001)
Icewind Dale: Heart of Winter - Trials of the Luremaster (2001)
Icewind Dale II (2002)
Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance II (2004)

Published
Baldur's Gate (1998)
Baldur's Gate: Tales of the Sword Coast (1999)
Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn (2000)
Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance (2001)
Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance II (2004)
Baldur's Gate II: Throne of Bhaal (2001)
Lionheart: Legacy of the Crusader (2003)

Not a bad resume for the competition to D&D EA newcomer Larian of BG3 when it comes to D&D chops.

Not a pissing contest, this anecdotal and not a representation of what people's preferences should be etc etc. Trying to avoid the inevitable "You forgot game x, invalidated, bad list!" and "HA ONLY 100 hours I have 123,123123123123 eons!1!!"

140 Hours-Torment: Tides of Numenera
150 Hours- PoE 1
180 Hours- PoE 2
200 Hours- Planescape: Torment (thats in the last year, not the 1998 hours)
200 Hours- Each Dragon Age
230 Hours- Baldur's Gate 3
400 hours - Pathfinder: Kingmaker
800 Hours- Divinity Original Sin 2

If we look at that list, we see something. Some of my favorite titles in my many moons of gaming...I didn't play the games I remember so fondly and have memories of playing for SO LONG....nearly as long as I thought I had.

Torment & PoE were, to use the successor thing, good successors of the genre. It had been pretty quiet before them. Numenera was a Kickstarter by InXile Entertainment - Bards Tale and Wasteland makers. The thing is though, for how RICH and GOOD PoE and Numenera were, for how many times i've replayed them, done all the things, just squeezed everything out of them I possibly could because I was having so much fun and played until I had taken everything I could from them....least played games. Once you beat them a few times, its done, its over. There is no mystery, there arent other paths, there arent secrets to find. You beat the game - Fin.

Pathfinder:Kingmaker interesting how many hours I have in it. Its with Divinity Original Sin 2 and Baldurs Gate 3 for a reason - Lots of things to do, different choices, metric S-ton of waiting for things to load, reload, and starting the game over. I did not like these games as much as the ones I loved but I played them a lot more. Even scraping out load times and the Pathfinder "Crap, well...guess I have to start over" factors, they are more interesting for you to root around in like a truffle pig. They target the part of your brain that makes you remove every speck of black in a Diablo 2 map so you know you got all the treasure and XP. What was Diablo 2's story? I dunno a fat butcher and then you fight satan or something. Played it a lot though.

Larian makes replayable games, they make a game that you can beat 4, 5, 6 ways and still say "Oh wow, never knew you could do that...kind of want to restart and make that my main fighting style now...". Larian hits some weird rat-at-the-feeder-bar combined with an almost Bethesda-esque delight in "breaking" their games; though they probably put that in there because if you want to do that, why stop you. You'll dump time into their games, a LOT of time.

You'll also be having fun, enjoying yourself. PoE and Torment and Numenera were all SHORT games. Try stretching them out and think of how HUGE you are expecting the BG3 world to be compared so those. PoE was a little blurb of land, PoE 2 was a smattering of islands that you could go top to bottom in about 1.5 minutes.

This is trading off that intense, suck you into the world, man I wish more games were like! feeling for something that rates lower in all of the areas except complexity, replayability, graphics, multiplayer, and ability to keep producing content.

The real question is: How do you take what BG3 is already and what we are told it will be and lift the areas it struggles in relative to the Bruce Lee 2" punch emotional jolts the other games gave us as a flash in the pan.

The answer: The only thing we can do is make suggestions and feedback regarding specific elements of things that were enjoyable in the other games and how one might incorporate them into this. That with a HEALTHY dose of optimism they read, care, or have the capability of making the changes suggested.

The challenging thing about reading your post is you could have never mentioned ANY of the other games and just written the BG3 comments and about as much content could be taken out of it, suggestion-wise.

For instance

Quote
What was BG1 and 2 about NPCs :
There was a lot of interaction and dialogues. There was a lot of stories, etc etc. Wont talk ad vitam aeternam about it.


Whilst appreciating the protection from latin, you need to talk Ad Somethingnum about it before worrying about crossing the bridge to eternity and beyond. Right now my counter to that example is: BG3 has a lot of interaction and dialogue. There is something about it that is different though, no? They don't feel natural. Older games you felt like a troop of idiots BSing with each other and now its some trigger you are in charge of managing and should take care of before moving on. What do you remember from the old games that made it a more seamless portion of the game instead of a person waiting at the camp with an "!" over their head that you go "ugh, I dont want to talk to them... fine".


What is the problem you are solving? Does your proposed change solve the problem? Is your change feasible? What else will be affected by your change? Will your change impact revenue? Does your change align with the goals and strategies of the organizations (Larian, WotC)?
Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Abits
Originally Posted by Leuenherz
They all tried and failed in different ways. Though if I had to choose I would say among recent titles PF:KM did it best.

It's a shame the story was overall lacking and the companions not as strong as they could have been (though some stand out positively).

I really hope the next pathfinder game will be what bg2 was to bg1. You can practically smell the potential there


Yes, I have high hopes for WotR. Owlcat seems like they took the lessons of their original release to heart. Most of what I've seen on their Kickstarter so far seems very promising.

In any case, Owlcat sticking so much closer to the original formula has a lot more chance of replicating the feel of the older games. If they can improve their writing, they can realistically reach for that potential.

Joined: Oct 2020
V
member
Offline
member
V
Joined: Oct 2020
PoE. Absolutely and without a doubt. I didn't understand the mechanics, but I was drawn to the people and the story, just like with BG2.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by biomag
I've played BG1 last month again for the first time since the 90s... I did play other games based on the system in the meantime, so the combat was fresh in mind - and it was awful. I hated D&D, the way spells were handled, the squishiness of the mages, the boring and utterly simplistic gameplay in combat for the non-spell-caster classes... so yeah, I didn't miss D&D's 'action' and not dynamic fights and the RTwP back there was probably one of the worst gameplay experiences in my 30+ years of playing video games. D&D for me definitely never meshed with realtime and the difference is hugely visible in DAO contrary to any infinitey engine game. The whole system there is designed to work in real time and it shows the way abilities work, characters are designed,... simply everything. It even showed more for me in PoE2 when they added turn-base-combat all of a sudden I enjoyed PoE-combat - not because of being turn-based vs real-time debate, but because the system in its roots was designed for turn-based-combat being a D&D copy.

The thing about BG1 that shocked me was actually how horrible the dialogs in BG1 were. Most were written tongue in cheek, with horrible amateurish comedy and over the top acting not fitting the story at all - things I didn't notice back then being younger and completely unexperienced with RPGs. These days I cringe at every response I get to select. The main protagonist sounds like a caricature of an absolutely bland hero.


I do remember BG 1&2 foundly, they were the groundwork that got me hooked to RPGs and now in my 30s I'm working in the video game industry because of the love for the games they made possible and influenced. This doesn't change how deeply flawed many things about BG1&2 are from a modern perspective. PoE1 is a perfect example of that - they did a game that felt closest to a BG to me to the point I was bored by it because it felt too similar/familiar with no understanding for what were design decisions back then and what were technological limitations. PoE2 was gameplaywise a much better game (storytelling in both I wouldn't call great).

So I don't care which one is the 'worthy successor'. Times have changed too much. I don't need a BG-clone, neither from a UI perspective nor its poor game mechanics. I also don't need to get the old companions back because that series got a fine ending. BG3 to me looks like a flawed game at this point that has the chance to really shine if they fix their balance and follow 5e a bit more at the expanse of DOS.


This, 100%. I tried to play BG2 again a few months ago and was like...yeah this is dated as hell and tedious. Younger, I spent I dont know, 6 hours straight fighting an ankheg at like level 2 until I figured out if I ran around a certain tree enough it would get stuck in it - a bug bug. Then I just turned on autoattack and walked away because I had to roll basically a natural 20 to hit it. got ankheg armor when I got to BG though with the carapace and was godmode for SO long. The exact same stuff you do in this game. Gamers in the 90s had no expectations and were blown away. The developers were a bunch of nerds with nerd humor and it was a cult community that we all grew up with and slowly ventured onto the internet with. It was a life journey coupled with a game journey and we were all babes. Now its an isolated "install. Play. Blow my mind. I hope you hired the best writers EVER!" *table flip* mentality where people wonder why they don't have the imagination and zeal of a 10 year old anymore.


What is the problem you are solving? Does your proposed change solve the problem? Is your change feasible? What else will be affected by your change? Will your change impact revenue? Does your change align with the goals and strategies of the organizations (Larian, WotC)?
Joined: Jan 2011
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Jan 2011
Originally Posted by Zefhyr
After having played for more than 80 hours, after having read some threads here and after having think about it, I had this feeling and this need to share this one with you.
For now, PoE 2 and Pathfinder feels more like BG than BG3 himself.


They do as those others are older in feel which is more like the source games.

It's like choosing conservatism or being progressive, one has charm, the other is fresh. So I dunno 20+ years later fresh isn't a bad choice. To me it seems BG3 is taking the genre into Dragon Age'ness.

How I feel is DnD and games like this are under-represented. We've seen this genre have a rebirth but it hasn't all been hits. To me that is telling me the formula still needs worked vs resting on laurels, taking more steps to modernize seems to be needed and a smart move. Not saying traditional iso crpgs shouldn't be made, but I'd really like a couple dev-houses to take on the challenge of modernism.

I still would like a first person realtime dungeon crawler sp/coop (not mmo) that attempts a sim-like experience of really walking through dungeons and doing battle. If you go back 30 years you would think that would have been a huge genre in our future cards, it never happened. So as we sit here with isometric, it isn't my choice of pov for venturing, but it is what we keep getting delivered. Since their engine is true 3d, they have the artists and they are making the camera more cinematic, let your hair down and let us run a more immersive pov venturing, keep modernizing areas as you go along.

Joined: May 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: May 2020
Without judging the games on there own merits, I can only say that P:K is the game that gave me the most BG feels.

Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

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