Larian Banner: Baldur's Gate Patch 9
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Aug 2018
T
journeyman
OP Offline
journeyman
T
Joined: Aug 2018
Sorry guys i havent been paying much attention to this?

The game look incredible by the way wow is it going to be good

Joined: Feb 2021
member
Offline
member
Joined: Feb 2021
The information we had about a year ago said we'll get level 10 initially, but we got up to level 4 in EA.
If they stay true to 5th edition it should be level 20.

Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
Unknown. Initially it was to be up to level 10 due to work required to implement spells. In, I think, RPS interview some months ago it was said the level cap will be most likely slightly higher then that, but there is no word of how high it will be.

Originally Posted by S2PHANE
If they stay true to 5th edition it should be level 20.

Single campaign doesn't need to cover all possible levels. As a matter of fact, more focused progression of BG1&2 I think worked better then single games spanning from zero to hero (Icewind Dales, PoE1&2, Kingmaker)

Joined: Aug 2018
T
journeyman
OP Offline
journeyman
T
Joined: Aug 2018
[quote=S2PHANE]The information we had about a year ago said we'll get level 10 initially, but we got up to level 4 in EA.
If they stay true to 5th edition it should be level 20.[/quote]

Yeah you can go to level 20 in 5e but they may keep it around level 10 in anticipation of a sequel. Baldurs gate 4

Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
Originally Posted by teclis23
Yeah you can go to level 20 in 5e but they may keep it around level 10 in anticipation of a sequel. Baldurs gate 4
More like: implementing that high amount of skills and spells in such high fidelity is too much for one game. Setting up for sequel is very un-Larian like: one of their strong points is not even setting up for DLCs making their game whole from the very start.

Joined: Feb 2021
member
Offline
member
Joined: Feb 2021
Originally Posted by Wormerine
Single campaign doesn't need to cover all possible levels. As a matter of fact, more focused progression of BG1&2 I think worked better then single games spanning from zero to hero (Icewind Dales, PoE1&2, Kingmaker)

Completely agree.
Icewind dales were combat oriented games though so it made sense... kinda laugh

Originally Posted by teclis23
Yeah you can go to level 20 in 5e but they may keep it around level 10 in anticipation of a sequel. Baldurs gate 4
If we're already looking that far into the future, I'm thinking DLC's could do a better job.

Joined: Sep 2017
Location: Norway
S
addict
Offline
addict
S
Joined: Sep 2017
Location: Norway
Originally Posted by S2PHANE
Originally Posted by teclis23
Yeah you can go to level 20 in 5e but they may keep it around level 10 in anticipation of a sequel. Baldurs gate 4
If we're already looking that far into the future, I'm thinking DLC's could do a better job.

The issue is largely rhetorical; BG2 could perhaps more rightfully have been called a DLC (this was before the internet made DLCs prevalent) as opposed to a full game/sequel.

Larian typically makes smaller free DLCs. On top of that they released free downloadable content in the form of improved versions of both D:OS1 & 2 about a year after full release. This is a policy that makes Larian pro-consumer unlike much of an industry where cynical practices have become the standard.

I would almost be SHOCKED if we didn't see a sequel within a year or two of BG3 release, whatever term they use on it.

Joined: Jul 2019
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jul 2019
Originally Posted by Seraphael
Originally Posted by S2PHANE
Originally Posted by teclis23
Yeah you can go to level 20 in 5e but they may keep it around level 10 in anticipation of a sequel. Baldurs gate 4
If we're already looking that far into the future, I'm thinking DLC's could do a better job.

The issue is largely rhetorical; BG2 could perhaps more rightfully have been called a DLC (this was before the internet made DLCs prevalent) as opposed to a full game/sequel.

Larian typically makes smaller free DLCs. On top of that they released free downloadable content in the form of improved versions of both D:OS1 & 2 about a year after full release. This is a policy that makes Larian pro-consumer unlike much of an industry where cynical practices have become the standard.

I would almost be SHOCKED if we didn't see a sequel within a year or two of BG3 release, whatever term they use on it.
Well, I hope.
The idea of waiting 5+ years to reach level 20 seems kinda dreadful.

Joined: Sep 2017
Location: Norway
S
addict
Offline
addict
S
Joined: Sep 2017
Location: Norway
Originally Posted by Danielbda
Originally Posted by Seraphael
I would almost be SHOCKED if we didn't see a sequel within a year or two of BG3 release, whatever term they use on it.
Well, I hope.
The idea of waiting 5+ years to reach level 20 seems kinda dreadful.

Haha. Agreed! But I have no fear of Larian becoming like some George "writer's block" Martin failing to follow-up on his book-series. Waiting for significantly more than a year to release a sequel would lend an unfortunate disjointed feel to the game - and I'm sure they are keen to avoid that. smile

Last edited by Seraphael; 26/02/21 02:41 PM.
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
Originally Posted by Seraphael
The issue is largely rhetorical; BG2 could perhaps more rightfully have been called a DLC (this was before the internet made DLCs prevalent) as opposed to a full game/sequel.
grin in what world? It doesn't require BG1 to be played, it improves the engine and systems, provides far more content then BG1, has it's own self contained story (even if it direct sequel it doesn't require BG1 to be played and be enjoyed. As a matter of fact I always recommed to start with BG2) - overall it's more of and better then BG1.

Last edited by Wormerine; 26/02/21 03:47 PM.
Joined: Jun 2014
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2014
I surely hope we end up at level 20, or that at least the mechanics get in even if the campaign doesn't go there, yet. Even more so since they will release the modding tools, hopefully they release the scenario editor as well and we'd be able to go all the way to 20, just like some NWN modules allowed to go to 40.

Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
Originally Posted by Dark_Ansem
I surely hope we end up at level 20, or that at least the mechanics get in even if the campaign doesn't go there, yet.
You mean they will spend time and resources implimenting spells and adding animations, mechanics and soundeffects for features they won't use, nor charge you for? Sure.....

Joined: Feb 2021
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Feb 2021
Originally Posted by Wormerine
Originally Posted by Seraphael
The issue is largely rhetorical; BG2 could perhaps more rightfully have been called a DLC (this was before the internet made DLCs prevalent) as opposed to a full game/sequel.
grin in what world? It doesn't require BG1 to be played, it improves the engine and systems, provides far more content then BG1, has it's own self contained story (even if it direct sequel it doesn't require BG1 to be played and be enjoyed. As a matter of fact I always recommed to start with BG2) - overall it's more of and better then BG1.
This. Like where did that comment even come from? BG1 had its own expansion that you could argue would now be called DLC; but the only reasonable case you could argue for saying BG2 is not its own title is that it added the amazing feature to port your BG1 characters into the sequel and continue roleplaying. It's like calling John Wick 2 an Extended Directors Cut Bonus Feature of John Wick.

It's not even like BG1 wasn't a massive game in terms of world and game length, they just paced it like a DnD game where in that time you could reasonably expect to get a third attack and level 3 spells. Of course that was 25 years ago when society wasn't so impatient to have everything RIGHT THIS SECOND BECAUSE I WANT IT.

To the OP, at least 10, probably 12. That gives them room to maneuver to decide if they want level cap from expansions or a sequel.

Last edited by Elessaria666; 27/02/21 10:52 AM.
Joined: Sep 2017
Location: Norway
S
addict
Offline
addict
S
Joined: Sep 2017
Location: Norway
Originally Posted by Wormerine
Originally Posted by Seraphael
The issue is largely rhetorical; BG2 could perhaps more rightfully have been called a DLC (this was before the internet made DLCs prevalent) as opposed to a full game/sequel.
grin in what world? It doesn't require BG1 to be played, it improves the engine and systems, provides far more content then BG1, has it's own self contained story (even if it direct sequel it doesn't require BG1 to be played and be enjoyed. As a matter of fact I always recommed to start with BG2) - overall it's more of and better then BG1.

More rhetoric. How quaint.

Albeit the games could be played independently, the "engine and systems" remained virtually unchanged (slightly refined) contrary to your pretence of significant change to lend credence to your sentiment. I'm not a native English-speaker, but my understanding of a self-contained story is something COMPLETE and SEPARATE with its own ENDING. BG1's story was clearly subordinated to the overriding story arc of the series albeit having different stories tied to different villains.

You seem to have forgotten BG2 was comprised of two games; Shadows of Amn, and Throne of Bhaal. Both titles could be played completely and enjoyed as standalone games. The infinity engine and the system changed rather more for the latter than it had between BG1 (Tales of the Sword Coast) and BG2: Shadows of Amn. The story of Throne of Bhaal was as much "self-contained" from Shadows of Amn as that title was from BG1. It is merely the conclusion to the saga, the ongoing story.

Using your selective logic, your criteria for what constitutes a full game/independent title as opposed to an expansion/DLC, then Bioware was wrong in not naming Throne of Bhaal BG3.


Originally Posted by Elessaria666
Originally Posted by Wormerine
Originally Posted by Seraphael
The issue is largely rhetorical; BG2 could perhaps more rightfully have been called a DLC (this was before the internet made DLCs prevalent) as opposed to a full game/sequel.
grin in what world? It doesn't require BG1 to be played, it improves the engine and systems, provides far more content then BG1, has it's own self contained story (even if it direct sequel it doesn't require BG1 to be played and be enjoyed. As a matter of fact I always recommed to start with BG2) - overall it's more of and better then BG1.
This. Like where did that comment even come from? BG1 had its own expansion that you could argue would now be called DLC; but the only reasonable case you could argue for saying BG2 is not its own title is that it added the amazing feature to port your BG1 characters into the sequel and continue roleplaying. It's like calling John Wick 2 an Extended Directors Cut Bonus Feature of John Wick.

Egg-celent! Moar better rhetoric! Let's pile on the digital static noise! It's not like this was some casual remark, but rather *must* be treated as an affront to the holy grail of RPGs! How very dare you!?

Oh, I didn't argue BG2 wasn't its own title, I casually mentioned that it could have been called an expansion rather than a standalone title. There isn't necessarily some gargantuan difference set in stone y'know?

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Rugby, UK
Cleric of Innuendo
Offline
Cleric of Innuendo
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Rugby, UK
Seraphael: please moderate your approach to discussion. No need to become snarky, sarcastic and abrasive.

Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
Originally Posted by Seraphael
Albeit the games could be played independently, the "engine and systems" remained virtually unchanged (slightly refined) contrary to your pretence of significant change to lend credence to your sentiment.
That is not correct. While both games run on infinity engine, BG2 one is significantly updated both in terms of visuals and gameplay. This is less pronanunced now, as EE editions use BG2 engine for everything and even before players used Tutu mod to play BG1 content in BG2 engine. Mechanics and classes were far more limited, no dualweilding was supported, no subclasses were present. I am sure there are more things I am missing, but it's been a long time since I played vanilla, unmodded BG1. But there is a reason why I never managed to get BG1 vanilla to run properly on modern systems, while having no issues with BG2. Oh, no highlight feature was available in BG1 (therefore the existance of hidden powerful items in small spaces aroud the maps) though if I remember well, that feature was added to BG2 with ToB expantion.


Originally Posted by Seraphael
I'm not a native English-speaker, but my understanding of a self-contained story is something COMPLETE and SEPARATE with its own ENDING. BG1's story was clearly subordinated to the overriding story arc of the series albeit having different stories tied to different villains.
We might argue here about deifinition, but I don't think self contained story means that no threads a left to be continued. BG1 is about conflict with Sarevok and your character's arc is complete after BG1, and BG2 introduces new conflict and villain. Same with Throne of Bhaal. All three are seperate and independent adventures. Throne of Bhaal less so, as it's main focus is tying up the overarching story rather telling a story of its own.

Originally Posted by Seraphael
You seem to have forgotten BG2 was comprised of two games; Shadows of Amn, and Throne of Bhaal. Both titles could be played completely and enjoyed as standalone games. The infinity engine and the system changed rather more for the latter than it had between BG1 (Tales of the Sword Coast) and BG2: Shadows of Amn. The story of Throne of Bhaal was as much "self-contained" from Shadows of Amn as that title was from BG1. It is merely the conclusion to the saga, the ongoing story.

Using your selective logic, your criteria for what constitutes a full game/independent title as opposed to an expansion/DLC, then Bioware was wrong in not naming Throne of Bhaal BG3.
Throne of Bhaal should have been BG3 - it was far too rushed to be succesful in properly wrapping up the story. But it was an expansion, it was far smaller in size, adding just a few new systems, and requred BG2 to be played, as it is just new content added to the same game. There was a pretty significant overhaul engine overhaul between BG1 & BG2, even if basics where the same. Same as Diablo1 vs Diablo2. ToB is just additional campaign running the the same engine, systems and tools. It expanded content of base game.

Originally Posted by Seraphael
Using your selective logic, your criteria for what constitutes a full game/independent title as opposed to an expansion/DLC, then Bioware was wrong in not naming Throne of Bhaal BG3.
No... Full games are full games, expansions are expansion and DLCs are DLCs. They produced and released Throne of Bhaal as an expantion to BG2, so that's what I call it. They designed BG2 as a full sequel, with introduction to newcomers, and it's own plot, villain and character arc. I am not sure, if narrative continuation has any weight. By your logic, Pillars of Eternity2 is an expansion to Pillars of Eternity2, while White March is a sequel?

Last edited by Wormerine; 27/02/21 01:48 PM.
Joined: Nov 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Nov 2020
Uh to the main topic, even though they didn't envision BG3 as this, I would like to see it be a 1-20 Adventure, or ending somewhere around 1-14 or 1-17. This would allow full character progressions and allow for over the top or big combats near the end. It would also enable a large variety of magic items that can be powerful, and multiclassing would feel somewhat rewarding if you choose to do it as you have levels to work with your concept.

Joined: Feb 2021
JoB Offline
Banned
Offline
Banned
Joined: Feb 2021
Originally Posted by CJMPinger
Uh to the main topic, even though they didn't envision BG3 as this, I would like to see it be a 1-20 Adventure, or ending somewhere around 1-14 or 1-17. This would allow full character progressions and allow for over the top or big combats near the end. It would also enable a large variety of magic items that can be powerful, and multiclassing would feel somewhat rewarding if you choose to do it as you have levels to work with your concept.
I agree. The more levels the better.

A level ten cap would be disappointing.

Joined: Dec 2020
Location: Finland
T
Banned
Offline
Banned
T
Joined: Dec 2020
Location: Finland
There seems to be lot of confusion. What chance do I believe it will be level 20 at full release date? Less then 1% for sure!

Originally they said level 10 as maximum level and I would be fine with that do not like high level characters. This is only reason I liked BG1 more then BG2.

Max level at original BG1 (before expansion) was level 7.
Baldur's Gate: Tales of the Sword Coast (BG 1 expansion) and the more modern version Baldur's Gate: Enhanced Edition
Had a bit higher max level depends on what class, but roughly max level 10 which is fine in my book.

Now they have hinted max level could be slightly higher MAYBE so I would not be surprised if max level is between 10-14 at release.

Well have Larian studios failed us if max level is 10 at full release as consumers? No the only minimum max level I see as promised is like level 10 and if they go slightly above it example to max level 12 or 14 that is fine for me.

Last edited by Terminator2020; 27/02/21 03:59 PM.
Joined: Feb 2021
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Feb 2021
Originally Posted by CJMPinger
Uh to the main topic, even though they didn't envision BG3 as this, I would like to see it be a 1-20 Adventure, or ending somewhere around 1-14 or 1-17. This would allow full character progressions and allow for over the top or big combats near the end. It would also enable a large variety of magic items that can be powerful, and multiclassing would feel somewhat rewarding if you choose to do it as you have levels to work with your concept.
That's fine to want; who doesn't want to take an RPG to its highest levels? The question is would you rather have a game in 18 months and an expansion a year or 2 later, or just wait another 3-4 years whilst they develop tools for and balance dozens of new feats, new spells, weapons, armour, and then iron out the hundreds of bugs and unintended interactions that all brings?

Not to mention the fact that higher level spells are generally several orders of magnitude more intricate in how they affect the game environment than, say, Firebolt. And we will want new snd intetesting maps and locations to gain those levels in. And an expanded story arc. We need to have realistic expectations of what is possible.

Failure to do so tends to go one of two ways; either a game is rushed to launch and experiences the kind of car crash garbage fire launch Cyberpunk did; or it spends forever in development, gets labelled as vapourware and anyone who preordered or bought early access starts thinking about refunds, like Star Citizen.

Last edited by Elessaria666; 27/02/21 04:04 PM.
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3

Moderated by  Dom_Larian, Freddo, vometia 

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