Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Joined: Mar 2021
Location: Austin, TX
old hand
OP Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2021
Location: Austin, TX
I am honestly curious about this - given the difficulty Larian has had in implementing core changes - would it have been easier if they had built a new Engine from scratch instead of modifying the existing Divinity Engine to handle 5E. Larian instituted a ton of changes in Patch 5* - which caused a cascade of new bugs to crop up that will need to be fixed over time.

They still need to implement the "Ready Action" and/or "Reaction" system (A little confused on whether Reaction system also encompasses "Ready actions").

When the Reaction system gets implemented - if it can be implemented - what will that break? Are we nearing the theoretical limits of how much the Divinity Engine can be modified?

Its a 9 year old engine at this point if I am not mistaken.






*Incredible, amazing, much-needed, happy changes.


Blackheifer
Joined: Jun 2021
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Jun 2021
Originally Posted by Blackheifer
When the Reaction system gets implemented - if it can be implemented - what will that break? Are we nearing the theoretical limits of how much the Divinity Engine can be modified?

The problem with implementation of reactions isn't with the engine. When people mention how Solsta implemented reactions they forget that Solasta has homebrew subclasses. Lore Bard and Wild Magic Sorceror means every time an enemy makes an attack roll the game pauses to ask you if you want to use your reactions for Cutting Words or Bend Luck. Fights with many opponents would become extremely sluggish when EVERY little goblin or spider making an attack will cause the game to ask you if you want to use your ability to tamper with the roll. Even if Larian adds the proper by the book reactions they would need to make it optional, because for people who are not DnD purists it could be very annoying.

Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
Things you mention (like reactions) don’t come from engine limitation - it comes from Larian believing that such system wouldn’t work well in computer game and is looking for other solutions. I wouldn’t expect reaction to be implemented as they are in PnP at this point, though it’s been mentioned that they are looking on some kind of change/improvement of the current system.

It’s been also confirmed that engine have been heavily overhauled for BG3 - they are not limited by what D:OS2 allowed, and that should be obvious just by comparing both titles.

Joined: Nov 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Nov 2020
Reactions would need to have a lot of customization to make it satisfying to most player's I think. So that those who like prompts like that get to react to everything, while those who prefer more automated can get that.

Joined: Apr 2013
R
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
R
Joined: Apr 2013
You leave Scratch alone. He's a good boy and doesn't deserve being made into an engine.

Joined: Jul 2021
L
stranger
Offline
stranger
L
Joined: Jul 2021
I think they’re doing alright engine wise. These guys know what they’re doing when it comes to big development choices like that. It comes down to design philosophy and what they’re thinking will be fun or realistic and how they can implement it in someway that also aligns with the 5E rules.

Joined: Mar 2021
Location: Austin, TX
old hand
OP Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2021
Location: Austin, TX
Originally Posted by Wormerine
Things you mention (like reactions) don’t come from engine limitation - it comes from Larian believing that such system wouldn’t work well in computer game and is looking for other solutions. I wouldn’t expect reaction to be implemented as they are in PnP at this point, though it’s been mentioned that they are looking on some kind of change/improvement of the current system.

It’s been also confirmed that engine have been heavily overhauled for BG3 - they are not limited by what D:OS2 allowed, and that should be obvious just by comparing both titles.

Well they said they were working on implementing it but I didn't get any details. I am super curious how they are going to make it work without creating a mess and issues with combat flow.

I don't think pausing the game while someone determines reaction is viable - but maybe setting reaction conditions? "If Crit - then Smite" or just "If Hit then Smite" would work I think.

Also do Reactions cover Ready Actions? Solasta lets you only Ready Cantrips but RAW can you Ready more powerful spells?


Blackheifer
Joined: Mar 2021
Location: Austin, TX
old hand
OP Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2021
Location: Austin, TX
Originally Posted by Rack
You leave Scratch alone. He's a good boy and doesn't deserve being made into an engine.

+1

Take my upvote and leave! :P


Blackheifer
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
Originally Posted by Blackheifer
Well they said they were working on implementing it but I didn't get any details.
Even from before Early Access they used reactions as an example of mechanics they need to change for 5e to work well on PC (the first mention of it, that I encountered can be found here or here.

They did mention recently they are working on improving the current system, but it’s anyone guess on how they will go about it.

Last edited by Wormerine; 18/07/21 02:41 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
It is probably much easier to modify an existing engine rather than starting from scratch. Bioware started from scratch for many things when they switched engines, and it was a lot of work for them and caused lots of problems.

Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
I doubt most of the contentious points with the current state of the game can be in any way blamed on "engine limitations" to begin with, frankly.


Party control in Baldur's Gate 3 is a complete mess that begs to be addressed. SAY NO TO THE TOILET CHAIN
Joined: Feb 2021
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
Oh dear God, no. Why would anyone want a rebuild from scratch at this point? Might as well never release the game. It wouldn't come out until 2030.

Joined: Jan 2021
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jan 2021
The answer is "it depends". Japanese game developers used to almost always build new engines for games, which became problematic during the PS3 generation of game development. Demands kept increasing for what an engine could do.

That's still true today, to the point game developers use Unreal or Unity. Or are part of a larger company that maintains their game engine.

So for a retro or smaller scope game it's usually a reasonable choice to make a unique engine for each game. But for large scope games like Baldur's Gate 3, it's been fruitful to stick with an engine that has a long life cycle.

Originally Posted by Tuco
I doubt most of the contentious points with the current state of the game can be in any way blamed on "engine limitations" to begin with, frankly.
This is very true, UI, party controls, and design choices have so little to do with game engines in 2020.

The reactions example, it's probably always been doable in the current engine. But Larian as a design choice did not want reactions to slow down combat. (There's an early interview on YouTube discussing it). Enough players have expressed their opinion on the other, and Larian wants to make the right choice with reactions to appease the player base.

Readied actions are rarely brought up, relative to all the other game critiques. So they're probably a low priority.

Joined: Dec 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Dec 2020
Originally Posted by Tuco
I doubt most of the contentious points with the current state of the game can be in any way blamed on "engine limitations" to begin with, frankly.

This. Let's not pretend that they're dealing with the diablo 2 engine *shudder*. They could do a LOT of what people are asking for, they simply don't want to.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Icelyn
It is probably much easier to modify an existing engine rather than starting from scratch. Bioware started from scratch for many things when they switched engines, and it was a lot of work for them and caused lots of problems.


Bethesda has been using and modifying the same engine since 1998, likely for the same reason.


Optimistically Apocalyptic
Joined: Jul 2009
I
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
I
Joined: Jul 2009
The engine also has other problems like flight being just a long jump in a game which made verticality a marketing point.

Joined: Jun 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
I feel like it would have been amuhc better plan for them to start over with a new engine, taking cues from their learned experience with past games, but building a fresh engine for a new type of game, and for them to have *Started* that way... but now, they're so far along it's a purely academic comment with no grounding in reality, since there's no practical way for them to chance engine wholesale now, and they'll have to deal with adapting the one they're using to try to make it do the things it currently can't.

A D&D game produced in this day and age that can't handle 3d flight properly is ridiculous, in my opinion... Especially one that likes to talk about verticality as an advertising point.

Joined: Jul 2021
Location: France
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Jul 2021
Location: France
What's the point to have better fly ? It's a top down RTS, it will be odd and pointless to have your ennemies above the camera no ?

And if you want to fly across the map in exploration mod, this can't be a possibility because it will be a game breaking experience

Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
Originally Posted by Dexai
Bethesda has been using and modifying the same engine since 1998, likely for the same reason.

Originally Posted by Ixal
The engine also has other problems like flight being just a long jump in a game which made verticality a marketing point.
If you make more or less the same game I understand that it makes sense to expand what you already have. XCOM2 build on XCOM1 engine, rather then upgrade to new unreal as devs deemed it would be u productive to mold new version of UE to their top down needs.

There is no indication that Larian would do anything different if they were building engine from the ground-up. Solasta cube based flight is cool, but is it something Larian is interested in in the first place? I haven’t seen a single reply from Larian along the lines: “that would be cool, but unfortunately our engine won’t support it”. They are throwing a lot of money into the game building new systems and rebuilding old ones - if they really wanted to do something, I am sure they would go for it.

Joined: Jun 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
Originally Posted by Kirlack
What's the point to have better fly ? It's a top down RTS, it will be odd and pointless to have your ennemies above the camera no ?

- Height and flying is a relevant and important part of combat in most D&D games.

- This game is not an RTS of any description.

- Proper flying mechanics also includes a functional camera control and automation system that can manage it effectively. The camera in game right now can't even handle the difference between climbable and pathable surfaces at distinct levels and our spell AoEs are 2d circles, not spheres. The failure of one system is not a valid excuse to deny the legitimacy of another.

Last edited by Niara; 19/07/21 08:31 AM.
Page 1 of 2 1 2

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