Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General BG Nostalgia? suggestions.

Hi.

When i first heard that Baldur's gate was going to be realised my first reaction was getting that awesome nostalgic feeling deep down in my stomach, the endorphins firing in my brain and true emotional high from the thought of getting back into this world once again.

finally the day came and we saw the first bit of gameplay and i am sorry to say, but my expectations was not met, i felt we were seeing DOS3 with a d&d skin on top.

I decided to make this thread in the hopes that we as a community can help pinpoint the things that would bring back the nostalgic feeling we like from the BG series in the hopes that larian studios will listen and be inspired by our ideas.

my thoughts:

1. a small but significant detail. bring back the good old BG movement circles, you know the one with 4 curved triangles pointing to a center point instead of the white movement circle shown in the game preview.

2. change the mouse cursor to look like the original baldur's gate cursor instead of being identical to the cursor used in DOS2, this is baldur's gate after all :)

3. make the color scheme darker, as it is right now i get the DOS feel, but i want the BG feel. don't get me wrong DOS is a great game, but right now if i looked at someone playing BG i could easily be mistaken thinking i was looking at DOS at first glance.

4. Keep spell animation in the same style as the old BG games, well of course make them look more awesome, but there is no need to change the animation in such a way that you cant see the red thread from the good old days. this is again to break away from the DOS feel and get back into the BG feel.

5. fog of war? in the gameplay we see swen vincke sneak up behind an archer because he knows what is coming, however the characters does not, because the area has not yet been explored, however you are able to see where the enemy npc are placed without your characters having had line of sight to the npcs. in my opinion you should not be able to get this kind of battlemap advantage before you have explored the area, being at risk of being discovered.
in the old BG game you did not know what was behind the door/wall/corner etc. before you had actually been there seeing it with your own/characters eyes.
the way i see it if you sneak around a corner knowing that someone is standing there, you should not have the advantage of the “eye in the sky” knowing when the npcs are turning in the right direction. maybe you need to make a distraction, increasing your odds that the npc is turning the right way, before you make your move.
in short, you can't see stuff your characters can't see without line of sight or some other magical means e.g scrying.

These are some of my thought, i hope you guys have more great ideas that might help bring back the true BG feeling :)

Okay I hate to break it to you and I don't want to seem that I'm overly attacking your feelings, but if you were really following what Larian studios was putting out there in interviews before the game play demo. You would of understood that BG3 was going to be felt like a next generation game provided that they had lots of success with DO2 series, The tell tell signs were all over the place.

Why didn't I feel surprised when Swen showed us the gameplay demo? because I knew this was the direction they were going to go with the game and I love it. For me, if your a true DnD fan, you won't pass on this opportunity to play this game. Since, nostalgia isn't my only parameter to either buy/ not to buy a DnD game.

Having said that, I do agree with you that there can be improvement since the game is still buggy and not ready yet obviously. And some of the stuff you pointed out can be a give and take. I particularly would love options, options to toggle things on/off is always great.

I can't wait to see the combat difficulty option they have in store.

Sorry OP, but I don't think what you're hoping for will happen. And I say this as someone who passionately loves the old IE games and also loves the Forgotten Realms setting. This game is, and has been from its beginning, a D:OS clone that has the BG title and has Forgotten Realms terminology and D&D rules pasted on to it. There is nothing about the game that in any way looks or feels like a D&D/FR game. You don't even need to get into the game. Right at the character creation screen itself the race models look totally like characters from D:OS and nothing like anything from D&D/FR. If you want IE games nostalgia satisfied, look to games like PoE1/2, P:Km, P:WotR, Black Geyser, The Dark Eye, and even TB games like Realms Beyond and Solasta. Every one of these is much more true to the D&D/FR look and feel than BG3.

I'm thinking of writing WotC to let them know just how much I love them for what they've done to this series.

I played BG and BG2 back in the day. More than any others, these are the game that defined my tastes in rpgs. I know that they had many flaws, but the ruleset, writing (characters, story, and dialogue), voice-acting, setting, gameplay/pace, and graphic charm added up to something I just haven't seen equaled.

What I felt during the gameplay stream was excitement that slowly subsided and, after 10-15 minutes, was replaced by a slight nausea. (Edit: I want to highlight that I did not feel an immediate dislike. I think this helps convey that I was not just looking for a clone, and was open to new things if I felt they were done right.) What about this makes me dislike it? Here are a few thoughts:

1. The 'origin stories' character creation style: this is not how any of the BG games worked - it's how DoS worked. The emphasis should be on custom creation of the PC, so that you feel you are beginning your very own story. To some extent that feeling is an illusion, but it's an important one.

2. The zoomed-in cut-scene dialogue style (and to a lesser extent, the 100% VO): in the end this combination is more often than not annoying and anti-immersive, and certainly not in the BG tradition. So it represents an enormous financial outlay that's basically wasted, and thus money not going to writing, characters, story, etc. During the rest sequence, spending a couple minutes zoomed in on your character's face was especially ridiculous.

3. The claustrophobic level design: Larian's outdoor levels sometimes feel like brightly-lit dungeons, and the gameplay here was no different. They feel closed-in and heavily curated. What with the vertical dimension, the camera movement, and the general physics, you'd think it would be the opposite. Contrast this with BG's well-known sense of largeness, openness, and exploration. I'm thinking that verticality can actually contribute to this issue, since it creates a temptation to build walled-in vertical levels to enable vertical approaches to every challenge that show-off how vertical your game can be. My point is not that BG must be flat, but that the visceral sense of large open areas is a defining characteristic of the series.

4. The story-line and "millennial epic" tone: several of the issues I'm describing could be addressed and improved (though it's obviously unlikely), but this is one where it's a matter of culture and upbringing and you either understand or you don't. The story, from what we've seen, is definitely epic with a capital E, but it's epic after the style of Marvel movies, Guardians of the Galaxy, and Disney's Star Wars. It is drama as conceived by chronically overstimulated people.

5. Graphic charm: when Larian took on the BG [i]title and logo[/i] they took on more than the geographical setting of the adventure and perhaps some story tie-ins. They took on, and in fact cultivated, the explicit expectation of making something [i]reminiscent[/i] of those original genre-defining games, rather than something reminiscent of DoS. And yes, that includes 'look and feel.' That includes art style, colour palette, fonts, UI, and mouse and movement icons. It includes spell and action animations. And maybe the defining characteristic of BG's graphic charm is the hand-painted landscapes, which at their best created a memorable tableau rather than merely a map or a level. I don't really want to be the guy who just wants another IE-style, static camera isometric RPG, but the truth is I actually don't know if it's possible to capture the charm of those tableaux in a fully 3D engine with camera swiveling. I do know that if you're going to call your game BG3 then there needs to be commitment to capturing the look and feel of the original series.

From what I've seen, I won't be purchasing this game.

I kind off expected what I got at the gameplay reveal. I also think its a mistake not to play into the nostalgia atleast a bit. As far as I can tell this is Baldurs Gate in name only. Why acquire the license if you dont want to harness the essence of the classic games? From a marketing point of view it would actually be a disaster to completly ignore all the aging players who are (were?) hyped about this game because they played BG1/2 when they were young.

I was cautiously optimistic before the reveal and I remain optimistic because I think alot of it is just copy-paste placeholders from using the DOS engine. But I cant say I'm not worried this might not be the game for me.

honestly themeng the UI after the original would certainly be an obvious point.

but the UI appears to be highly unfinished so far, so probably not bad input

Fog of War sounds like a good idea, but I guess it depends on the types of camera maneuvering they will provide.

As far as capturing the BG magic, that's easy! Just reincarnate Narlen Darkwalk and his crazy Thieve's Cant, which provided some of the finest dialogs in the BG series. Renal Bloodscalp was also very well done, but in a different way.

Another BG thing that captured the sense of adventure was that most of the houses had somebody in or around them. That aspect got dropped when BioWare moved on to Neverwinter Nights. I like the feeling that there are other characters out there doing their own thing, regardless of what my player character is doing. "Rumar? RUMAR! You will come home with me this very instant!" ha ha!

Hey you and I have had our differences elsewhere, but this is perfectly worded and spot on.

I am certainly a D&D fan, but I am also a BG fan. And I'm a Bioware and Black Isles from-back-in-the-day fan. What they created with the entire IE line wasn't simply a D&D computer game but a translation of a table-top game into a completely different medium. And there was something fascinating, innovative, and just-right about the way they translated it. It really looks as though Larian doesn't quite understand or respect the translation they are piggy-backing on, and the end result will be a far more ephemeral title. So while as a D&D fan I was interested in a crpg implementation of 5e, as a BG, Bioware and BI fan my disappointment has overridden that initial interest.

Well in the interviews before the gameplay preview they talked alot about how much extra gamplay options you would be able to do in BG3.
i did not see "alot" of ekstra options compared to DOS2

Wizards of the coast also stressed that Baldurs gate was in their opinion "the crown jewel" of d&d and they waited this long to make the 3rd. of the series because they wanted it to be just right.
I struggle to see how BG3 in its current state is "just right". The story and the lore is right, but the game is far from it, i did not see anything at all in the preview that made me think ohh that is baldurs gate´ish and i dont understand how wizards of the coast can allow baldurs gate to be the next DOS3, as it honestly is at the moment.

the way i see it larian studios is currently making Divinity original sins 3 and using the baldurs gate brand to boost their own game. this will in my opinion properly be the end of the baldurs gate franchise.

Personally never used them in DOS2 and never will. But if there are people out there who prefer these premade characters I dont see the problem. Except maybe that the Origin characters *also* functions as NPCs for your party. Its a wierd concept.

I am a true D&D fan and will very strongly pass on this 'pretending to be a D&D game' game. And not only will I pass on it but I will also constantly keep criticizing it. Who is or isn't a true D&D fan is not up to you to decide.

Um, but Larian's "Baldur's Gate 3" doesn't look like a next-gen game. It looks almost exactly like D:OS2, which is a last-gen game.

Regardless of which gen the game is meant to look like, it should still have RTwP because that's a key characteristic of the Baldur's Gate series and because Baldur's Gate is THE game that invented the genre. And Dragon Age: Origins' combat is already superior to D:OS2's combat. A Baldur's Gate 3 should be the game to take RTwP to the next level.

Plus, there is no evidence that TB makes a game more popular, so TB can't itself be called "modern" or "next-gen":



If Larian want to make Baldur's Gate more sophisticated, immersive, and rewarding, and less casual, then RTwP is the way to go. RTwP is a more advanced system than TB and affords a lot more possible enjoyment and rewards skill more than TB does. I prefer a good RTwP system over a TB system because, regarding RTwP:

- It's more actiony and intense without losing any strategy

- there's room for more tactics compared to TB because of the added variable of timing, while still being able to pause at any time

- setting up AI scripts and watching them play out can be a real pleasure, and AI scripts add another layer of tactics that aren't present in TB

- it allows for a broader range of encounter types than TB

- it affords more natural looking environments instead of environments that look artificially designed to be small confined boxes with artificially-placed obstacles

- it creates a more non-interrupted game experience that creates more immersion

- combat areas are not obvious zones with pre-planned starting positions for NPCs and scripted NPC moves and attack patterns


Overall, RTwP is more tactical, thrilling, immersive, and deep than TB, and RTwP offers a greater range of experiences than TB does.

The key here to me is that in-order for me to really enjoy a RTwP, you must have well written AI, both in quality and quantity. I would start by suggesting that they look at Icewind Dale II for examples of what I consider well written AI, and then expand it to include utilizing the environment (this is the hard part).

However, on the plus side, once you have written out all the various AI (not just for PC classes, but for summons (such as Mage Hand)), you could probably just assign NPCs and Enemies those AI instead of scripting individual AI tailored to each individual.

buzzwords.
Seriously what is it with RTWP fans and trying to make RTWP sound like some sophisticated worldly mechanic.
RTWP is not immersive, it is not sophisticated, it is certainly not less casual.
How is pausing every two seconds immersive?
Sophisitcated? you literaly cant make misplays. Less casual? You mean a system where you can micromanage every single action so you dont have to commit is less casual than one with hard descisions that you have to stick to?
im fairly sure the infinity engine games arent held up as standards of "hardcore" video games when compared to the old XCOM games or Tactics Ogre.

Realy theres arleady a topic for this discussion and weve had it multiple times.

But it realy makes me think, what causes this.
In no other game mechanic rivalries have seen such smug condescension as from RTWP proponents, as f there was any actual tangible, quantifiable upside to the system.
Well, youre not getting it.
its too late.
RTWP had its chance and of all the game sgoing with it, only Pathfinder was good, and that game got a TB mod.

tho, i just gotta reply to that one "AI scripts ad a layer of tactics"
literaly watching the game play itself and having to fill in variables before hand is the opposit of fun, and of tactics for that matter.

The same goes for "you need realy good AI", yeah and you dont need good AI for turnbased.

The rampant Elitism of RTWP fans gives the absolute failure of RTWP to capture the actual market a particulary humorous quality

RTwP is certainly more immersive and sophisticated than TB. That's not even something that can be argued against. RTwP contains tall he mechanics of TB, with added layers on top - and that makes it literally more sophisticated. Some RTwP games can even be played in TB mode. Since RTwP is TB + more, it's definitively more sophisticated, complex, and offers more possibilities.

And what is more immersive: real-time flow, or a frozen image? Obviously things moving as they do in reality is more immersive. So, RTwP is literally more immersive than TB.

>> "Sophisitcated? you literaly cant make misplays."

What does that mean? All the same chances can occur in RTwP and fights can certainly be won or lost, while tactics can prove successful or unsuccessful. So, claiming it's not possible to make a bad play is just nonsense.

>> "Less casual? You mean a system where you can micromanage every single action so you dont have to commit is less casual than one with hard descisions that you have to stick to?"

Another nonsense claim. In RTwP, once an action is committed to, it can't be cancelled. In TB, once an action is committed to, it can't be cancelled. What's the difference?

And yes, having more to micromanage in RTwP literally makes it less casual than TB. Having more to possibly micromanage in RTwP also rewards when people play with advanced skills. With TB, each turn is focused on a single character's options, dumbing-down everything and making things easier for the player. That's possible in RTwP too, when there's an option to pause after every round (like there is in BG 1 and 2) - which again shows that RTwP is more sophisticated because it contains TB, but has added layers on top.


Saying you like a combat system more is fine, but denying the facts to defend your preferred system doesn't work. Doing that is just being a fanboy.

Saying you like a combat system more is fine, but making up "facts" to defend your preferred system doesn't work.

I agree. I wish Sordak wouldn't have done it.

I wish you wouldn't do that either.