Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 5 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Joined: May 2019
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: May 2019
Originally Posted by Grug Greyskin
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Originally Posted by Omegaphallic
Originally Posted by _Vic_
Maybe the fans of the old games are not the game target audience anymore for reasons known by the Sales department. I mean, they are using D&D5e Assets, they are advertising modules of WOTC together (Descent into Avernus, etc), they are doing interviews together with WOTC CEOs, working with D&D5e creators, using the ruleset and the setting...

But I dont´remember them referencing the old BG games in any interview unless asked first (In one interview even Sven Vincke and Mike Merle didn´t remember the canon ending of the baalspawn crises), they didn´t make videos of "Sven Vinke playing the old bg games", didnt´hire any of the original game screenwriters, musicians,... didn´t use images of the old games and characters to advertise the game (Owlcat, for example, included two of the iconic characters of Pathfinder in the videogames, Amiri and Seelah),... didn´t take people from Black isle into the game-cons,... and they do none of the things that the PR department use to do to rally the old game fans.


Just food for thought.


Target Audience by priority IMHO.

D&D 5e fans
Forgotten Realms fans
Divinity fans
TBRPG fans
Traditional Baldur's Gate fans.

As both a 5e fan and even more so an FR fan and a TB fan its shocking to be in the target demographic for once because that nevet seems to jappen to me.


Sorry, I think @_Vic_ has the right of it. For me it is abundantly clear the target audience by priority are:

D:OS fans
Co-op fans
TB combat fans
Tabletop D&D 5e fans
<big gap>
FR fans
BG1/2 fans

with the last two groups not really important to the BG3 devs at all.


A Venn diagram of these groups would basically be one big circle. Yes, I'm exaggerating, but not that much, there is far more overlap than outliers.

The whole point of the lists was *priority*, so a Venn diagram wouldn't make any sense.

Joined: Apr 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Apr 2020
Originally Posted by ForlornHope
[There is an objective list of criteria (including things like RTwP as you say, UI, number of party members, resemblance across the board to DOS) mixed in with more subjective aspects like the atmosphere and lighting and how they affect the game. The difficulty being that people prioritise that list according to their own views, and also the fact that pretty much none of these boxes have been checked at all makes people far more critical across the board and with reference to aspects that are harder to quantify and define.

But however you look at it there's a certain degree of fidelity that people expect when you seek to continue a series and it just doesn't seem to be there in any aspect of it.


Again, for the umpteenth time, you literally haven't seen any of the game beyond an intro area that teaches you about the game and it's basic mechanics. You haven't seen the darker and grittier parts of the game. You haven't seen 99% of the world and the feel of it. You haven't seen the areas, like Baldur's Gate, that may actually align more to what you are expecting to see. You haven't seen the people and stories that actually connect this game and storyline to BG1 and 2. Swen said he literally played through both BG1 and 2 in preparation for making this game.

All you complainers literally haven't seen anything to complain about yet when it comes to the look and feel of the game, the story, etc. The only complaints you have a leg to stand on about are the reduced party size (which I agree, I'd like it to be at least 6) and that's about it. Everything has a 'realistic' look compared to the 2D, lower resolution of the first games.

Joined: Feb 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Feb 2020
Originally Posted by deathidge


Again, for the umpteenth time, you literally haven't seen any of the game beyond an intro area that teaches you about the game and it's basic mechanics. You haven't seen the darker and grittier parts of the game. You haven't seen 99% of the world and the feel of it. You haven't seen the areas, like Baldur's Gate, that may actually align more to what you are expecting to see. You haven't seen the people and stories that actually connect this game and storyline to BG1 and 2. Swen said he literally played through both BG1 and 2 in preparation for making this game.

All you complainers literally haven't seen anything to complain about yet when it comes to the look and feel of the game, the story, etc. The only complaints you have a leg to stand on about are the reduced party size (which I agree, I'd like it to be at least 6) and that's about it. Everything has a 'realistic' look compared to the 2D, lower resolution of the first games.


Apart from the obvious mechanical differences in gameplay the fact that it looks so undeniably similar to DOS in visual terms can be gleaned from what we've seen so far, and that alone is very annoying. I don't have any expectations that it would remain in a 20-year graphical stasis necessitated by foolhardy allegiance to a certain outdated aesthetic but it should definitely have its own visual identity rather than piggybacking on that of another.

The main thing I can tell from what I've seen so far, though, is that I don't like it.

Anyway I'm done with this debate as I've registered my discontent and I shall merely vote with my wallet when the time comes, as will we all. I hope it turns out to be great in the end and the concerns fall away in the face of RPG excellence, but I shall not be optimistic.

Joined: Mar 2013
S
veteran
Offline
veteran
S
Joined: Mar 2013
It looks simmilar to OS because its made by larian.
none of the things youve seen are typical for original sin, they are typical for Fantasy RPGs.
Does Dragon Age also look like Original sin? by your definition it probably does since the BG3 screenshots remind me of dragon age inquisition a lot.

>own visual identiy
such as?
Such as ye olde england?

And yes, by all means, vote with your wallet. All 3 of you.

Joined: Sep 2017
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2017
Hi, I´m the ghost of Posts past, just giving a friendly reminder that the gameplay trailers and design look exactly like the original source material of WotC`s Forgotten realms D&D5e, so the game trailer looks exactly like Baldur´s gate, It´s just (DND5e) Baldur´s gate.



Originally Posted by _Vic_
To be fair, the art of the D&D5e Forgotten Realms is what I assume you call "cartoonish" (Just make a search online) so I do not think Larian is to fully blame here. It would be different if the setting is Eberron or Ravenloft, I suppose.

If you are making a game based in a franchise, It´s usual to follow the design guidelines of the franchise, like in Mordheim and W40k. Mostly because WOTC will want his brand to be recognizable.



Originally Posted by IrenicusBG3
Originally Posted by _Vic_
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Everything continues to look exactly like a D:OS game and nothing like a Forgotten Realms game.


Taking a look at the WoTC official material from D&D beyond and the monsters manual anyone can see that they made a pretty good depiction of the creatures


[Linked Image] [Linked Image] [Linked Image] [Linked Image]


I sometimes wonder if people do know how D&D5E´s creatures, uniforms and the city of Baldur´s gate actually look like before making comparisons...


The problem is the color pallette that makes very unrealistic, unlike BG2. The demons are very cartoonish in BG3


I suppose It´s a matter of tastes. I kinda like it the comic vibe.
And as I said, the videogame versions of the creatures really look like the D&D5e counterparts.


[Linked Image]
[Linked Image]


[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]




Last edited by _Vic_; 03/06/20 09:54 PM.
Joined: Feb 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Feb 2020
Originally Posted by Sordak
>consistent objections
half of which are parroting somehting that so far has not proven to be an actual thing.
such as the much parroted Colour palette or artstyle thing, which i have disproven twice now and nobody actually bothers to back it up.

the other thing is RTWP combat, which lets be frank, isnt happening.

And on anything else you cannot actually agree on.
Some of you want it to be "dark and mature", but somehow you still want it to look like BG1 and 2, some want it to be a 2D game, some want it to be a 3D game, some dont want larian developing it at all.
some want to stick to 2E rules, some are fine with 5E but dont want rules alterations at all. Some of you explode at the thought of multiplayer while others want it cause BG1 and 2 had it.

You fundamentally cannot actually boil down your vision beyonda nything that is "RTWP and stroking my nostalgia boner"
But you forget that nostalgia is different for every person and things are interpreted differently.

For a personal example, im disatisifed with many reimaginings of morrowind because they keep making the landscape lush.
for many people the "imaginary" morrowind always had tons of foliage because there were tree modles in morrowind, only they looked very barren due to graphical limitations.
For me, morrowind always looked barren and almost desert like because i took said graphical limitations as an intention of design (which it might have been)
So whose right now? Whose vision is correct?
Nobodys is, because your brain interprets what you see differently.

I mean for crying out loud, so many of you somehow look at the ye olde england bright green garden landscapes of BG1 and somehow see "gritty dark" fantasy. Because thats how your brain imagined it.
You cannot win against imagination.

all those boxes you want checked dont exist.
Theres only one you can agree on, and that ones basically a sacred cow

"I mean for crying out loud, so many of you somehow look at the ye olde england bright green garden landscapes of BG1 and somehow see "gritty dark" fantasy. Because thats how your brain imagined it."
I guess BG2 is the one people remember and I think it is more appropriate to compare BG3 with BG2 not BG1.

"all those boxes you want checked dont exist."
For now it seems, that they are unchecked. Some of those boxes are the similarities to the original series.

I think what most of us would mean under dark, that it should present itself a bit more serious. No it does not have to be diablo 4...
Enjoy smile
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-155if8cDHU

Last edited by Minsc1122; 03/06/20 09:34 PM.
Joined: Feb 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Feb 2020
Originally Posted by _Vic_
Hi, I´m the ghost of Posts past, just coming to remember that the gameplay trailers and design look exactly like the original source material of WotC`s Forgotten realms D&D5e, so the game trailer looks exactly like Baldur´s gate, It´s just (DND5e) Baldur´s gate.


[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]



Tielfing looks good, if you switch the background with hell. smile
Githyanki is very well done, maybe one of the best of the origin characters.


Joined: Jun 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Jun 2020
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Originally Posted by Grug Greyskin
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Originally Posted by Omegaphallic


Target Audience by priority IMHO.

D&D 5e fans
Forgotten Realms fans
Divinity fans
TBRPG fans
Traditional Baldur's Gate fans.

As both a 5e fan and even more so an FR fan and a TB fan its shocking to be in the target demographic for once because that nevet seems to jappen to me.


Sorry, I think @_Vic_ has the right of it. For me it is abundantly clear the target audience by priority are:

D:OS fans
Co-op fans
TB combat fans
Tabletop D&D 5e fans
<big gap>
FR fans
BG1/2 fans

with the last two groups not really important to the BG3 devs at all.


A Venn diagram of these groups would basically be one big circle. Yes, I'm exaggerating, but not that much, there is far more overlap than outliers.

The whole point of the lists was *priority*, so a Venn diagram wouldn't make any sense.


My point is that these groups and what they want out of a game are overwhelmingly similar. There is no "priority," since all of these fan groups are basically the same people with the same expectations. I get that you are arguing that what appeals to D:OS fans is not the same as what appeals to you as a BG fan, but you are certainly in a small minority in liking one but not the other. I think the overwhelming majority of D:OS fans would, do, or did love BG, and vice versa.

Joined: Apr 2020
Location: Boston , MA
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Apr 2020
Location: Boston , MA
Originally Posted by Madscientist
Originally Posted by IrenicusBG3
BG1/2 and Planescape Torment even with limited technology were able to create a very detailed, believable and "mature" world. 3D games already existed at their time and they wisely chose what would fit best to portray their universe. In my view, they still (artistically) look good today.



BG1+2 are standart fantasy stories, but they are done very well. Calling them mature (whatever this means) is a bit of a stretch. The most famous companion is a guy who talks to his hamster. The game uses many known fantasy tropes. The main story of BG2 ( bad mage kidnaps my girlfriend) has been told countless times.
The games are done very well and I enjoy them a lot, but if you ask me for a very good mature RPG, I tell you to play the witcher series.

The graphics of BG1+2 are good and I still like to play them. 3D graphics existed at that time, but they were huge polygon blocks. Old 3D games look terrible today while old games in 2D or cartoon style still look relatively good today. I played NWN1 some time ago and in the beginning I had to force myself to play because the huge polygons are so ugly. On the other hand, I still like chrone trigger, for example.
Another example is Alundra for PS1. The first game looked like Zelda for SNES and it was great, I wish I could play it again. They used 3D for the second game and it looked terrible.
Regarding BG1+2 the devs did the right choice. The games are huge. Making a 3D game at this time was lots of efford and the result was still ugly. Having a good looking and easy to make 2D game (You just have to paint the background instead of building the world out of many polygons when number, size and color of them was limited) was better than doing an ugly 3D game.

Today, nobody make a huge 2D RPG unless they call it pixel art. A modern large scale RPG needs good full 3D graphics, so any new game will look different than BG1+2.

As for PST, regarding characters, story and setting it is one of the best games ever. Game mechanics wise it was terrible. They used a combat focussed system for a story focussed game.
From my current point of view, the gameplay system of Disco Elysium ( which I consider the best true successor of PST) is much better for such a game than DnD 2E.



Bioware chose wisely with the technology they had. "Mature" is mature for video game level, not beyond that. It is a game with attention to detail and reality.

BG2 was a masterpiece because of the attention to details and immersion. Larian conceptually says in the interviews that they will take to the next level, but so far I've only seen compromises. But I really hope they do. BG2 is a very challenging game to replicate (in quality) and Larian knew that. So far they are using DOS with different lore and it is not enough. I hope they prove me wrong this Saturday, otherwise I would not be losing time here . We complain because Larian is (partially) open to feedback and these things are easy to fix. This is the time to complain.



Originally Posted by _Vic_
Hi, I´m the ghost of Posts past, just giving a friendly reminder that the gameplay trailers and design look exactly like the original source material of WotC`s Forgotten realms D&D5e, so the game trailer looks exactly like Baldur´s gate, It´s just (DND5e) Baldur´s gate.

[Linked Image]
[Linked Image]


This is VERY fallacious. Just look at the mindflayer that you posted and the one in the BG3 cinematic. Same for the Dragon. And no. Has nothing to do with resolution. I am not expecting the same level of details as the cinematics, but the same approach. And they showed that they know how to portrait a realistic version of FR.

Complaining only for feedback purposes. Once the game is final I don't care anymore.

Last edited by IrenicusBG3; 04/06/20 03:37 AM.
Joined: Sep 2017
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2017
Originally Posted by IrenicusBG3


Originally Posted by _Vic_
Hi, I´m the ghost of Posts past, just giving a friendly reminder that the gameplay trailers and design look exactly like the original source material of WotC`s Forgotten realms D&D5e, so the game trailer looks exactly like Baldur´s gate, It´s just (DND5e) Baldur´s gate.

[Linked Image]
[Linked Image]


This is VERY fallacious. Just look at the mindflayer that you posted and the one in the BG3 cinematic. Same for the Dragon. And no. Has nothing to do with resolution. I am not expecting the same level of details as the cinematics, but the same approach. And they showed that they know how to portrait a realistic version of FR.

Complaining only for feedback purposes. Once the game is final I don't care anymore.



Uh, If we are talking about fallacious, maybe we could talk about the fact that I´ve never posted a picture of a dragon. That´s a made-up quote created by you XDD

This is what I posted. No dragons. And as you can see, the githyanki or the tiefling looks exactly the same. Those are images from the game, not the intro movie.
In the WOTC D&D5e module "Descent into Avernus" you start in Baldur´s gate and in that adventure you start in Baldur´s gate. I am not going to post images because I do not think that is SRD material but If anyone could take a look at the source material of the book it´s pretty clear that the architecture, the landscape and even the uniforms of the flaming fist are fairly bright and colourful.


Originally Posted by _Vic_
To be fair, the art of the D&D5e Forgotten Realms is what I assume you call "cartoonish" (Just make a search online) so I do not think Larian is to fully blame here. It would be different if the setting is Eberron or Ravenloft, I suppose.

If you are making a game based in a franchise, It´s usual to follow the design guidelines of the franchise, like in Mordheim and W40k. Mostly because WOTC will want his brand to be recognizable.


Taking a look at the WoTC official material from D&D beyond and the monsters manual anyone can see that they made a pretty good depiction of the creatures


[Linked Image] [Linked Image] [Linked Image] [Linked Image]



I suppose It´s a matter of tastes. I kinda like it the comic vibe.
And as I said, the videogame versions of the creatures really look like the D&D5e counterparts.


[Linked Image]
[Linked Image]


[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]






And no, no videogame looks like the cinematic intro movie, no matter how many times you claim the opposite.


ED:


This is an ilithid from the monster´s manual, I think the similarities with the one depicted in the game are fairly obvious.

[img]https://image.isu.pub/160316145445-bf60af89f73e787ee74dafa75918d411/jpg/page_223.jpg[/img]

The dragon in the intro movie have a similar design too

[img]https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Screenshot-3298-760x380.png[/img]

Honestly, I think you´re just entrenched in your position in the discussion and don´t see beyond that.



Last edited by _Vic_; 04/06/20 05:25 AM.
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Oakland, CA
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Oakland, CA
Wow that new sizzle really brought all the salt out of the cabinet 😕. Nah but fr I didn't like much about the new trailer myself but then I had to remind myself that the gameplay reveal was amazing, an Larians previous games were amazing. Will it feel exactly like BG 1 or 2? of course not but Larian is making their own version and WOTC gave them that right, as its theirs to give.

Last edited by Ser Varnell; 04/06/20 06:14 AM.
Joined: Mar 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Mar 2020
The problem with animation and spell effects is not the quality, it's the style. The animation has a cartoonish touch. Mostly not noticable but in some areas it really breaks immersion. The bow shooting animation for example, the arrow should not draw an arc at all at short distance. Right now it looks like there is no power behind it, as if the arrow is shot by a child and would bounce off on any surface.

The spell effects have the same problem. Extremely over the top blurry flashes, no variation, very uninspiring. They look like they belong to a cartoon action game. I was expecting something more sophisticated.

Joined: Sep 2015
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Sep 2015
IrenicusBg3 daid: "And they showed that they know how to portrait a realistic version of FR."

OK, so you know how a realistic dragon looks like?
We talk about a fantasy game based on DnD 5E, wotc have the rights for it and Larian makes creatures that look like the source material.
DnD is also turn based because you cannot have real time combat in PnP.
We could discuss about group initiative, some rule changes and how exactly this or that ability is animated ( please not here ), but the general art direction is very good.
Personally I think the intro movie is fantastic, very "dark and mature" and the style also fits the intro movie of BG2.

Please remember that all we have seen so far is a pre alpha demo.
They showed us some characters and some basics of gameplay.
Almost everything will change, for example the UI.
They took lots of stuff from D:OS to show us a (more or less) playable demo.

I will wait two more days to see what they show us next.


groovy Prof. Dr. Dr. Mad S. Tist groovy

World leading expert of artificial stupidity.
Because there are too many people who work on artificial intelligence already :hihi:
Joined: Mar 2013
S
veteran
Offline
veteran
S
Joined: Mar 2013
the intro movie is too cartoony now?
and the dragon you posted is mature and dark?

are we living in bizarro world?

Joined: May 2019
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: May 2019
Originally Posted by Grug Greyskin
My point is that these groups and what they want out of a game are overwhelmingly similar. There is no "priority," since all of these fan groups are basically the same people with the same expectations. I get that you are arguing that what appeals to D:OS fans is not the same as what appeals to you as a BG fan, but you are certainly in a small minority in liking one but not the other. I think the overwhelming majority of D:OS fans would, do, or did love BG, and vice versa.

No they are not the same people and so the idea of Larian choosing to prioritize some groups of fans over others completely makes sense. I don't see any evidence in support of your claim that there is significant overlap between D:OS fans and BG fans. It is merely your opinion that there is such overlap, and my opinion that there is very little overlap. But I get that you want to marginalize me by dismissing me as being "a small minority" to justify you getting what you want, namely D:OS3 pretending to be BG3.

Joined: Mar 2013
S
veteran
Offline
veteran
S
Joined: Mar 2013
they are not the same people according to... you.

you realy think theres tons of zoomies out there lining up to play CRPGs? get real man

Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
Originally Posted by Grug Greyskin
Originally Posted by kanisatha

D:OS fans
Co-op fans
TB combat fans
Tabletop D&D 5e fans
<big gap>
FR fans
BG1/2 fans

with the last two groups not really important to the BG3 devs at all.


A Venn diagram of these groups would basically be one big circle. Yes, I'm exaggerating, but not that much, there is far more overlap than outliers.

Discussing this is kinda pointess, as neigher of us has a data to support our claim and any evidence provided would be an anecdotal evidence.

I don't think it is an outlandish statement, that people who enjoyed singleplayer focused, story and character driven game wouldn't want the sequel to be coop focused, gameplaydriven turn-based game. Anecdotal evidence - I have met quite a few people who loved BG2. None of them were table-top players. I have met couple people who played table-top - they didn't play cRPGs. I am a big RPG fan - played pretty much every major release, and I am always on a lookout for something new. Neverplayed table-top in my life, and have little interest in coop feature. What RPG is to me, as defined by Baldur's Gate2 and Fallout. What Larian is doing is really cool. It is something different. It's not something I found much enjoyement when played by myself. It is cool. It's not a cRPG as I know it, it's a coop RPG, with different goals, priorities and appeals.

I am sure there is an overlap. A vocal portion of the fan will be the ones who are unsatisfied/worried. However, I believe Swen himself said to Obsidian that according to his data there was little overlap between D:OS players and Pillars of Eternity players. I personally always thought that D:OS vs. Pillars of Eternity was a silly idea as those were two very different games... just as BG1&2 and it seems BG3 are two different genres of RPGs. Which is not necessarly bad in itself - Baldur's Gate saga is complete. But it is disappointing for those who were hoping for more Baldur's Gate.

Even if XCOM: Bureau ended up being good, there is no denying that it is not XCOM. It might be a more extreme example, but I just don't believe that Larian RPG design has much to do with what Infinity games were. It might change for BG3, it might not. So far it seems it is a Larian RPG in DnD setting and fans of BG might not automatically be inclined towards liking it.

Bioware might have wanted to create a rich multiplayer sandbox, with adventure editing, coop focus, turn-based combat when they set out to adapt DnD into a cRPG. But that's not what they did, nor what fans of BG fell in love with.

Joined: May 2010
Location: Oxford
Duchess of Gorgombert
Offline
Duchess of Gorgombert
Joined: May 2010
Location: Oxford
Originally Posted by Wormerine
... None of them were table-top players. I have met couple people who played table-top - they didn't play cRPGs.

That's pretty much the case with us and the couple we're friendly with over the road. I play lots of video game RPGs, they love tabletop, but neither of us has shown any interest in the other's preferred gaming medium. Then there's the gf who doesn't play either but is showing more inclination to join them!


J'aime le fromage.
Joined: Apr 2020
Location: Boston , MA
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Apr 2020
Location: Boston , MA
Originally Posted by _Vic_

Uh, If we are talking about fallacious, maybe we could talk about the fact that I´ve never posted a picture of a dragon. That´s a made-up quote created by you XDD

This is what I posted. No dragons. And as you can see, the githyanki or the tiefling looks exactly the same. Those are images from the game, not the intro movie.
In the WOTC D&D5e module "Descent into Avernus" you start in Baldur´s gate and in that adventure you start in Baldur´s gate. I am not going to post images because I do not think that is SRD material but If anyone could take a look at the source material of the book it´s pretty clear that the architecture, the landscape and even the uniforms of the flaming fist are fairly bright and colourful.


And no, no videogame looks like the cinematic intro movie, no matter how many times you claim the opposite.


ED:


This is an ilithid from the monster´s manual, I think the similarities with the one depicted in the game are fairly obvious.


[Linked Image]

The dragon in the intro movie have a similar design too

[Linked Image]


Honestly, I think you´re just entrenched in your position in the discussion and don´t see beyond that.


Ok let me say that for the last time.

No, I never accused you of posting the dragon (which is from the monster manual), I just edited for ease of quoting. You and others have been ceaselessly posting pictures of source material (maybe I am not the one to be entrenched in a point of view) to "prove" that Larian is doing a faithful representation of FR.

The point is how you adapt an artwork for a certain media. You can use the same source with a more realistic approach (fantastic BG3 cinematic) or you can use in a literal adaptation (actual gameplay). Both forms are close to the source but they differ significantly (mostly notable on the unquestionable color palette difference, environment/characters matching, lightening among other things) on the final impression. The vast majority of these things you don't need a cinematic resolution to achieve it. It is actually fairly easy to implement. You need to keep the overall cohesion. Doesn't matter if individual pieces are faithful (The githyanki indeed look good and I give you that. The others need a lot of work) if your overall artwork is lacking. For some people are ok, for others it breaks the immersion. And again is an easy fix. That's why Larian releases Early Access to get feedback and this forum is the best channel to convey that. And many people have complained about this. This is just an opinion for Larian, I don't have hope to convince you that there is "a more realistic" way to portray BG3. BG2 did this 20 years ago, many games since then accomplished that and even Larian did in the cinematics. So, I am not asking for much.

"WoTC is supervising the game"
Well, there were many other games under the WoTC that did not achieve the same overall success including NWN. So this is not a stamp for quality.

Originally Posted by Madscientist
IrenicusBg3 daid: "And they showed that they know how to portrait a realistic version of FR."

OK, so you know how a realistic dragon looks like?
We talk about a fantasy game based on DnD 5E, wotc have the rights for it and Larian makes creatures that look like the source material.
DnD is also turn based because you cannot have real time combat in PnP.
We could discuss about group initiative, some rule changes and how exactly this or that ability is animated ( please not here ), but the general art direction is very good.
Personally I think the intro movie is fantastic, very "dark and mature" and the style also fits the intro movie of BG2.

Please remember that all we have seen so far is a pre alpha demo.
They showed us some characters and some basics of gameplay.
Almost everything will change, for example the UI.
They took lots of stuff from D:OS to show us a (more or less) playable demo.

I will wait two more days to see what they show us next.


You can infer how they could be realistic very, very easily. And just to clarify: I am not saying that the dragon in the cinematic looks different than the books. I am saying they took the template and made it believable (for instance they are not super red as in the book, etc...) something you don't see in general gameplay for many other things beyond. And I agree with you that the intro movie is fantastic and captures the essence the BG2 as I said earlier.

And yes, I am looking forward to Guerrilla collective. But this recent gametrailer "sizzle" was even worse than original gameplay they had.

Last edited by IrenicusBG3; 05/06/20 01:50 AM.
Joined: Jan 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jan 2020
@IrenicusBG3

I agree with you that the Intro trailer is very high quality, and visually more pleasing than the gameplay. Unfortunately, there is no easy way to replicate this in their gameplay engine.

The intro movie was outsourced to Unit Image to make a movie-quality sequence. They would probably have used a completely different set of tools to Larian, and would have pre-rendered and stored the image sequence. Larian might have provided the high-poly geometry for the models, but the materials and lighting technology are clearly different, and likely the whole sequence was hand-animated and illuminated to display everything to best effect.

The gamplay engine must perform the rendering in real-time on moderate hardware with whatever data is thrown at it. Lower-poly models must be used, with the detail simulated through techniques such as displacement/parallax/normal mapping, lighting and shadow models must be simplified, and material interactions with light reduced in complexity. To mitigate the reduction in visual quality, and simulate volumetric behaviour of fluids a selection of post-processing is applied to each frame. The result will never be as good.

Larian clearly had engine tech and some generic assets from D:OS2 that form the basis of BG3, so the colours reflect that to some extent, as well as using published images for 5e. I would definitely prefer the intro look and feel, of course, but at this point I'll just be happy for it not to white-out as much as this teaser trailer.

Page 5 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

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