Larian Banner: Baldur's Gate Patch 9
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 11 of 61 1 2 9 10 11 12 13 60 61
Joined: Jul 2019
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Jul 2019
Originally Posted by Archaven
hi i just want to chime in regarding my opinion. what i've seen this is basically just exactly DOS2 clone but with Baldur's Gate name. the UI, aesthetics, the graphics even 4 party character limit (not to mention turn-based) is exact DOS2 clone. i have DOS2 and i've played it. it's a great game. but Larian please don't be lazy by just copy paste and clone everything like DOS2. i'm looking forward to play baldur's gate 3 not DOS3.

one of the party character looks like Ifan from DOS2 and the vampire guy.. is he an iconic baldur's gate character? i don't particularly like his desgin. the hair, the face, the clothings doesn't seems to click well with high fantasy but looks modern. same with some demon where it's appearance doesn't seems to click at all.

what is that shove and jump? it looks really silly. why not just teleport or blink? it's really very silly and out of proportion in baldur's gate settings. i know this is just my opinion but the art design especially character design except the githyanki.. they all doesn't look right or suitable or reminds me about baldur's gate at all. i don't know? maybe the color pallette? the modern vampire look?

larian.. don't try to be naive and ignore negative feedback. right now i see the community has split like 50/50. you are going to be on a very bad reputation for ruining the franchise.

honestly if you call this DOS3 i will be more than happy.


I dont know what you mean by a DOS clone but BG3 is hardly a clone except maybe visually which is an improvement from BG1-2.
Also, BG3 is using the 5th edition DND rule with the collaboration from wizards of the coast dnd headquarters . DOS 2 has different combat rules and doesn't follow the DND LORE. So your way off base by calling it clone.

Joined: Feb 2011
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Feb 2011
I think my biggest hope is that the game plays more "open world" then the way the DOS games are separated into "Acts" where you can only traverse the lands for the specific act you are in. Anyone have any idea?

The lack of open world feel is my biggest problem with DOS 1 & 2. I hope when exploring the forgotten realms in BG3 you can freely explore all the lands from the beginning. I know it's easier to balance encounters with it separated into "Acts" but I hope they go a different route here.

I LOVE Divine Divinity (Even though I hate the real time clicky combat) and I didn't love DOS 1 or 2 (I thought they were ok).

Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Explosing barrels in every room, UI, graphics, gameplay, color, start on a beach, target line, fire trap, assets, game cover, grease everywhere, the way you move objects, ...... Do you need more exemple ?

Stop saying this is not a clone... 3/4 of what we see came from Dos (and have sometimes evolved I agree)
Your only argument are that it's not the same rules + not exactly the same using of their engine...


French Speaking Youtube Channel with a lot of BG3 videos : https://www.youtube.com/c/maximuuus
Joined: Jul 2019
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Jul 2019
It's not a clone cause it's a fact and facts dont change, it only looks like DOS visually. Your the one that keeps changing the goal post. It will always stay BG3 lore wise and 5th edition rules . Live with it. -)

Last edited by Braveheart; 03/03/20 09:45 PM.
Joined: Mar 2019
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Mar 2019
It isn't a clone. Is it going to be similar? Of course; it's Larian. Should it be similar? Of course. They produced the massively successful and highly lauded game. Turn based and the ability the interact with your environment are crucial elements that resonate with D&D. In that way DOS was more D&D than BG ever was.

Joined: Feb 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Feb 2020
Yea, visually and from the gameplay we've seen so far (movement, skill activation etc.) it's a total clone of DOS, a skin for different background mechanics. I think that is a problem, so much of gaming experience is interaction with the world visually and mechanically through 'jumping', exploring, pressing skills buttons, if that's exactly the same as DOS, it means BG3 loses it's identity behind something different.

Joined: Jul 2019
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Jul 2019
Originally Posted by Emrikol
It isn't a clone. Is it going to be similar? Of course; it's Larian. Should it be similar? Of course. They produced the massively successful and highly lauded game. Turn based and the ability the interact with your environment are crucial elements that resonate with D&D. In that way DOS was more D&D than BG ever was.


Not only that but the combat mechanics is not the same as DOS, BG3 uses a completely different mechanic,it used 5th edition rules which DOS2 didn't use .
And story/lore wise it's different and the monsters too. So it's far from a clone.

Joined: Feb 2020
journeyman
OP Offline
journeyman
Joined: Feb 2020
Originally Posted by Firesong
My opinion:

I LOVE that this game is more like D:OS 2 than BG 2. Because I only had a short affair with BG 2 but I'm in love forever with D:OS 2.

(Actually I'd have preferred D:OS 3, because I'm way more into Rivellon than Baldurs Gate, but ok... as long as I get a similar humor, the canonical context of the story doesn't matter that much to me... I just think that "classless" is MUCH better than "classful", but ok, ok...)


Yeah, its great that you love DOS, totally fine, its a great game.

But this is BG in the making, and saying that you would like BG3 to be like DOS is like saying you would like Quake to be like Doom.

It does not make much sense to me.

Joined: Feb 2020
journeyman
OP Offline
journeyman
Joined: Feb 2020
Originally Posted by Gmazca
@ kyrthorsen: We will have to agree to disagree on what hue an Intellect Devourer should be. I can respect your position that they could have a more muted color pallet, however, I don't think that is the direction they should go personally.

It has been 20 years since BG2, and I think Larian has an opportunity to have a wide variety of color pallets across the entire game. I would really like to see how the Mind Flayers look in action. That might make or break my position. Everything else from Intellect Devourers to Goblins looked good to me.


Yeah well IMO that is exactly what is the problem with games today in general.

All games are trying hard to appeal to everybody.

Who do you like better, rock bands like the Doors, Beatles and Roling Stones, or you prefer Britnery Spears, Ariana Grande and Backstreet boys?

Today, all gaming studios are trying to be like Britney Spears, and its ruining so many games it unbelivable.

Devs should be looking to studios like From Software - they are not afraid to make a dark game, and they are a huge success, people love those games.


Joined: Feb 2020
journeyman
OP Offline
journeyman
Joined: Feb 2020
Originally Posted by Sordak
If they were to rename the game (which they wont, and cannot), would you shut up?
no.

You wouldnt. youd mvoe the goalpost yet again.

At firs tit was "it was gonna have the divinity ruleset" no it doesnt.
then it was "it will have too much humor and wont be grimdark" cue the trailer
now its "we dont like the name"

youll never be satisfied. so no cocnessions should be made to you.

And if you people KEEP bringing up this nonsense about "Muh dark atmosphere" ill make a collage of all those brightl ylit BG2 images from the other thread and i will post it EVERY.SINGLE.TIME you bring this up.


Hey sorry for bothering you with my thread.

As I said i really loved DOS1 and wish all the best for that game series.

However, I liked BG1 and BG2 better - better story, better setting, better combat, better spells. BG spell system was so advanced still to this day no game has came close to it.

So YEAH I would love if somebody made a GREAT BG3, but all I saw in the demo was a new DOS game called BG3.

Larian knows this is the truth.

Look what happened to Fallout 4 - the game looks like a circus for kids. Unfortunately it seems that Larian is making the same mistake as Bethesda with Fallout.

Since BG3 is still in development, I'm just making a suggestion - even though the probability that the devs will listen is close to zero.


Joined: Feb 2020
journeyman
OP Offline
journeyman
Joined: Feb 2020
Larian, if you are making BG3 then make BG3!

If you are making DOS3 then make DOS3.

You can't make BG3 as if you are making DOS3.

There are two entirely different games.

Remove the spider man jumping and remove all silly/cute things from the game, make it darker, brutal and horror-like.

You can easily replace jumping with a climbing animation.

Also, tone down the colors - no need to make the game look like a fun park.

Look at what was great about BG2 - DONT FIX WHAT ISNT BROKEN.

SOMETIMES LESS IS MORE.

Thank you.

Joined: Jul 2019
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Jul 2019
How about instead of judging the game by its cover or in this case by the demo. Try it and and then make a judgment.

Joined: Feb 2020
journeyman
OP Offline
journeyman
Joined: Feb 2020
Originally Posted by Braveheart
How about instead of judging the game by its cover or in this case by the demo. Try it and and then make a judgment.


Judging the game by its gameplay demo is not like judging a book by its cover.

I've been playing RPGs all the way back to mid 90's, and been a gamer for more than 30 years.

I know what I'm talking about so just looking at this demo tells me even more than I needed to know. Sad.

Joined: Jul 2019
member
Offline
member
Joined: Jul 2019
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen

However, I liked BG1 and BG2 better - better story, better setting, better combat, better spells. BG spell system was so advanced still to this day no game has came close to it.

Look what happened to Fallout 4 - the game looks like a circus for kids. Unfortunately it seems that Larian is making the same mistake as Bethesda with Fallout.

Since BG3 is still in development, I'm just making a suggestion - even though the probability that the devs will listen is close to zero.


These are all your opinion. Not to mention, it's an opinion on which you're judging this game with little to no evidence beyond it being turn-based combat to support your opinion. The game will be using the Baldur Gate setting and story to continue with series. It's just placed far enough ahead in the timeline to make it capable of being standalone, however, they've stated there will be bits for those who know the other games.

For all you know the spell and system in this game will be more robust than anything in BG 1 or 2, but no one (including you) has seen enough to know that. All we know is that there will be more environmental interaction (which is a positive). As to it being some advanced system that no game has come close to? It was great, but it's also unbalanced and overpowered.

Comparing a game's combat type changing from RTwP to TB (which is arguably more accessible and better illustrates the D&D formula) to Bethesda reducing a beloved RPG franchise to a mindless shooter without any passible writing is absolutely ridiculous and completely disingenuous. Fallout 2 to Fallout Tactics or Fallout 2 to Fallout New Vegas would have been a better comparison.

Until more information or the early access is readily available, such claims are completely unfounded.

Joined: Feb 2020
journeyman
OP Offline
journeyman
Joined: Feb 2020
Originally Posted by Blade238
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen

However, I liked BG1 and BG2 better - better story, better setting, better combat, better spells. BG spell system was so advanced still to this day no game has came close to it.

Look what happened to Fallout 4 - the game looks like a circus for kids. Unfortunately it seems that Larian is making the same mistake as Bethesda with Fallout.

Since BG3 is still in development, I'm just making a suggestion - even though the probability that the devs will listen is close to zero.


These are all your opinion. Not to mention, it's an opinion on which you're judging this game with little to no evidence beyond it being turn-based combat to support your opinion. The game will be using the Baldur Gate setting and story to continue with series. It's just placed far enough ahead in the timeline to make it capable of being standalone, however, they've stated there will be bits for those who know the other games.

For all you know the spell and system in this game will be more robust than anything in BG 1 or 2, but no one (including you) has seen enough to know that. All we know is that there will be more environmental interaction (which is a positive). As to it being some advanced system that no game has come close to? It was great, but it's also unbalanced and overpowered.

Comparing a game's combat type changing from RTwP to TB (which is arguably more accessible and better illustrates the D&D formula) to Bethesda reducing a beloved RPG franchise to a mindless shooter without any passible writing is absolutely ridiculous and completely disingenuous. Fallout 2 to Fallout Tactics or Fallout 2 to Fallout New Vegas would have been a better comparison.

Until more information or the early access is readily available, such claims are completely unfounded.


I actually don't have a big problem with the combat being TB.

I actually do have a big problem with the game looking and playing - in every possible way - like DOS3.

This "BG3" has nothing in common with BG1 and BG2.

This is the SAME THING Bethesda did with Fallout - they just copy/pasted Elder Scrolls - Oblivion engine and game mechanics and called it Fallout.

Open your eyes.

Joined: Mar 2019
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Mar 2019
I have asked this question so many times and have not gotten an answer. What would make this game more "BG" aside from RTwP? Darker colors? Really?

Joined: Jul 2019
member
Offline
member
Joined: Jul 2019
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen


I actually don't have a big problem with the combat being TB.

I actually do have a big problem with the game looking and playing - in every possible way - like DOS3.

This "BG3" has nothing in common with BG1 and BG2.

This is the SAME THING Bethesda did with Fallout - they just copy/pasted Elder Scrolls - Oblivion engine and game mechanics and called it Fallout.

Open your eyes.

I'm sorry, but I just can't take you serious with all these doomsday posts based on the next to zero information you have. You're literally saying you don't have a problem with it being turn-based in one sentence, while saying that's part of your problem in the next.

Then you're saying this game has nothing in common with BG1 and BG2, when it's literally the same universe and lore. Neither of us have seen enough to know, but this game could have multiple ties to the previous two games while still being a hundred years later.

As mentioned in my previous post: It would be asinine for them to not use their engine and assets when it saves a ton of time and resources.

Guess who also used Oblivions and Fallout 3's assets? Obsidian with the developers of the original Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 to create a world that many original fans accepted to be a true sequel to the series.

There are some similarities that I'm not too fond of myself, but to say the game is a clone and is not worthy of being a Baldur's Gate game is ridiculous. The easily abusable and quite irritating jumping/teleporting gimmick shouldn't have been carried over, though I can live with it. I'm also not a fan of the Origin characters, though I'll concede it's interesting to be able to play through the companions' perspectives.

Ultimately, until we've seen the early access it's simply absurd to jump to such conclusions.

Joined: Feb 2020
journeyman
OP Offline
journeyman
Joined: Feb 2020
Originally Posted by Emrikol
I have asked this question so many times and have not gotten an answer. What would make this game more "BG" aside from RTwP? Darker colors? Really?


Yeah definitely a tweak in the art style towards a more menacing dark look would be a step in the right direction.

Im not sure what else the devs could change at this point since the game is copy/paste DOS2.

You can find other suggesions here:

http://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=660349&nt=4&page=1

Joined: Mar 2020
Banned
Offline
Banned
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
Originally Posted by Emrikol
I have asked this question so many times and have not gotten an answer. What would make this game more "BG" aside from RTwP? Darker colors? Really?


Yeah definitely a tweak in the art style towards a more menacing dark look would be a step in the right direction.

Im not sure what else the devs could change at this point since the game is copy/paste DOS2.

You can find other suggesions here:

http://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=660349&nt=4&page=1

I actually try to answer this in my opinion thread. I realise i should probably merge it maybe, but i thought it was different enough to stand alone

Joined: Feb 2020
journeyman
OP Offline
journeyman
Joined: Feb 2020
Originally Posted by Blade238
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen


I actually don't have a big problem with the combat being TB.

I actually do have a big problem with the game looking and playing - in every possible way - like DOS3.

This "BG3" has nothing in common with BG1 and BG2.

This is the SAME THING Bethesda did with Fallout - they just copy/pasted Elder Scrolls - Oblivion engine and game mechanics and called it Fallout.

Open your eyes.

I'm sorry, but I just can't take you serious with all these doomsday posts based on the next to zero information you have. You're literally saying you don't have a problem with it being turn-based in one sentence, while saying that's part of your problem in the next.

Then you're saying this game has nothing in common with BG1 and BG2, when it's literally the same universe and lore. Neither of us have seen enough to know, but this game could have multiple ties to the previous two games while still being a hundred years later.

As mentioned in my previous post: It would be asinine for them to not use their engine and assets when it saves a ton of time and resources.

Guess who also used Oblivions and Fallout 3's assets? Obsidian with the developers of the original Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 to create a world that many original fans accepted to be a true sequel to the series.

There are some similarities that I'm not too fond of myself, but to say the game is a clone and is not worthy of being a Baldur's Gate game is ridiculous. The easily abusable and quite irritating jumping/teleporting gimmick shouldn't have been carried over, though I can live with it. I'm also not a fan of the Origin characters, though I'll concede it's interesting to be able to play through the companions' perspectives.

Ultimately, until we've seen the early access it's simply absurd to jump to such conclusions.


Look the problem is that they marketed a new BG game and they come up with an upgraded DOS game.

Thats the crux of the problem here - its false advertising imo.

If they were serious about making a new BG game, they could have at least try to change the visuals so that it does not look exactly the same as DOS.

All im saying is that its a cheap move, and it just not right to use the BG franchise as a cash cow like that, and get the old fans hyped.

I can live with TB - but copy pasting the entire game is just a bit too much.

For the lore - we will see about that - but im not very optimistic at this point.

Page 11 of 61 1 2 9 10 11 12 13 60 61

Moderated by  Dom_Larian, Freddo, vometia 

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