Larian Banner: Baldur's Gate Patch 9
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 51 of 95 1 2 49 50 51 52 53 94 95
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
I can't obviously say everything is perfect about companions in P:K or better, in BG1/2 for a 2020 Larian RPG game. It's part of the things that really needs improvement in BG3.

And of course, I don't need 462 possibilites... This also doesn't mean 462 totally differents play throughs (such as those 20 in DoS doesn't mean 20 completely differents play throughs).
I can also sacrifice quantity for quality, but not if there's no more quantity...
Don't forget that out of these 20 possibilities, you HAVE to take at least one of the same companions you already took if you play more than once (or twice).

In DoS, the low possibilities of companions choices have a few consequences on what you can do with them, in exemple :

- You have to be able to change their basics classes for players to have a little bit more classes combinations possibilities.
This mean you can't go too far in their backgrounds, you have to stay "on the top of it".
Nothing can justify they all can use every classes or skills if you think about a realistic and "coherent" world.

- You can't create bad affinities between companions and give them a true personnalities, a true will or true opinions about what the players choose to do with them.
They have to agree with everything, they're not real characters following you because they like your paty's decisions.They can't approve or disapprove with players decisions and/or with the personnalities of other companions.
Again, this is not correct if you think about coherence of the world.

It gives the feelings that companions are not "real", they're just tools for players to guides gameplay.

I think this was pretty well designed in BG1/2.
The teams you choose gave you totally differents moods while you were travelling or reacting to the world's events.
Even if their side quests wasn't all on the same quality level, the experience was pretty good in BG2.

That said, and keeping in mind than "possibilities" are a mix between number of companions and party size, I can give you exemples of totally differents play throughts with a little bit more possibilities...
- All sorts of alignements parties and interractions between companions.
- All sorts of parties classes combinations (no heal, 4 fighters, full wizards, cleric+druids+wizards+2 tanks and 1 support, 2 tanks+2 ranged DPS+2 spellcasters... you have the idea).
- Totally differents companions side quests

If I could ask something, I'll ask at least a party size up to 6 maximum and a minimum of 10 differents more deep companions.

This is another reason why I'm not a fan of their "origin characters" concepts... It costs many ressources to add one and it miss lots of elements I care about.
Maybe in BG3 origins characters shouldn't be the only one you can pick in your team ?
It could be cool to have characters between the random useless mercenaries (useless about any story) and the origin characters that all have the same story as yours.


NB
Of course, we heard that in BG3 companions should go away if they dissagree. I really fear it's gonna be about specific situations during the main story and not about the hole journey you're living and how you act.
(i.e : you have to choose to fight with or against mindflayers, the vampire wants to embrace their power but the player want to kill them => the vampire join the mindflayers during the fights BUT if you're saving poor villagers again and again against evil creatures during side quests, he'll stay).
That brings others questions such as : ok, you lost a companions... But if there's only 2 or 3 substitutes you're choices are even more limited.
We definitely need to see more about that and about the sort of alignement they'll implement.

Last edited by Maximuuus; 20/06/20 02:21 PM.

French Speaking Youtube Channel with a lot of BG3 videos : https://www.youtube.com/c/maximuuus
Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020
Thanks. I wondered if that was it. A bit weird not to allow quotes, if nothing else. I’ll leave formatting as is then. Maybe it will fix itself when I have full permissions.

And yes, I do agree about 5 companions being a bit too limited. I suspect there will be 7 or 8 on release. Of course not being able to have completely aligned parties (without mercs) might be deliberate.

Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020
Yeah, I agree with most of that Maximuus.

I think the origin character thing largely comes from how they handle multiplayer co op. So they have characters starting at the beginning in the same basic situation. Those characters are all able to take the lead in dialogue and other situations.

It would be nice if there are other companions you can meet later who are more like followers, but with actual personalities. That should allow for more proper party members without needing to allow them to do everything a main character can. Maybe.

Although I wonder if some origin characters really need to be rigidly tied to a class. Astarion’s main deal seems to be being a vampire spawn. How central to his story is being a rouge? Maybe a lot, maybe not much at all? It might be worth allowing players to respec orgin characters, with the warning that some dialogue will be a bit out of place. It could be a strongly not recommended option, but still an option if someone is set on particular party composition, but doesn’t want a bunch of nobodies.

Joined: Jul 2019
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Jul 2019
Originally Posted by Dagless
Thanks. I wondered if that was it. A bit weird not to allow quotes, if nothing else. I’ll leave formatting as is then. Maybe it will fix itself when I have full permissions.

And yes, I do agree about 5 companions being a bit too limited. I suspect there will be 7 or 8 on release. Of course not being able to have completely aligned parties (without mercs) might be deliberate.


I supect it will be 12 companions upon full release, one for each class.

Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Originally Posted by Omegaphallic
Originally Posted by Dagless
Thanks. I wondered if that was it. A bit weird not to allow quotes, if nothing else. I’ll leave formatting as is then. Maybe it will fix itself when I have full permissions.

And yes, I do agree about 5 companions being a bit too limited. I suspect there will be 7 or 8 on release. Of course not being able to have completely aligned parties (without mercs) might be deliberate.


I supect it will be 12 companions upon full release, one for each class.


Hope you're right, this would be very good.


French Speaking Youtube Channel with a lot of BG3 videos : https://www.youtube.com/c/maximuuus
Joined: Sep 2015
N
old hand
Offline
old hand
N
Joined: Sep 2015
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by Omegaphallic
Originally Posted by Dagless
Thanks. I wondered if that was it. A bit weird not to allow quotes, if nothing else. I’ll leave formatting as is then. Maybe it will fix itself when I have full permissions.

And yes, I do agree about 5 companions being a bit too limited. I suspect there will be 7 or 8 on release. Of course not being able to have completely aligned parties (without mercs) might be deliberate.


I supect it will be 12 companions upon full release, one for each class.


Hope you're right, this would be very good.


I think I have read somewhere it would be more like around 15 companions, one of them functioning as a pair of individuals.

Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020
My comments from topics that were respectively warned and locked for discussing this, in case anyone wanted to reply:

Topic: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'

Originally Posted by Dagless
Originally Posted by IrenicusBG3

I don't know how going from RtWP to turn-based, removing day/night cycle or limiting exploration, among other things is appealing to large markets. In fact the trend is the opposite where many franchises (JRPGs and cRPGs) went from turn-based to action. RtWP is the midpoint between them and it seems more logic to improve it or create a new system that would be more dynamic. A game with a technology from 20 years ago was able to represent a more believable world.

I agree that at this point they will not change the core mechanics, but it looks they decided to play safe instead of pushing the franchise and the RPG genre forward. It would made more sense to start from where BG2 left instead of starting from where DOS 2 left (which had much lower standards).


Eh? This makes no sense.

You’re saying Dragon Age and many JRPGs moved towards action RPG because that’s where the bigger market is, which is fair enough. So then how is it “playing safe” to go the other way and make BG3 even more tactical and even closer to the tabletop game?

Dragon Age games are one way of “moving the genre forward” from the old Baldurs Gate games. They are still real time with pause, but with 3D graphics, fully voiced dialogue, cinematics, and a more action feel. I like them, although IMO they made some mistakes in Inquisition.

What Larian have done with Baldurs Gate is also moving forward, just in a different direction. You wanted something else, which is fine, but just personal preference. There’s no need to keep dumping on the developers.

Honestly this is a great time for RPG fans in general. A few years ago people were predicting that mainstream single player RPS were a dying breed, and building games around things like micro transactions were the only way developers could justify the costs. BioWare certainly headed in that direction, but they may turn it around for DA4 after the reaction they’ve had recently. The Witcher 3 however had phenomenal success, and with Cyberpunk, CDRP seem to be going much more RPG. Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines 2 looks interesting too. Pillars of Eternity and Pathfinder revived the old Infinity Engine style, while Larian are completely revamping turn based RPGs. Then we have the likes of Disco Elysium snapping up awards for doing things differently again.

The genre is flourishing at the moment, with different developers taking different approaches, so there’s basically something for everyone.


Topic: RPS Baldur’s Gate3 interview

Originally Posted by Dagless
I think it’s more about having complete control over what everyone is doing, and not having to worry about characters charging forward and attacking the wrong enemy, wasting their best spell or whatever. Some of that can be managed with behaviors and scripts, but not all of it.

Real time is great for blasting through simple fights, but the more challenging the fight, the more you have to use the pause and micromanage your party anyway. Which is usually fine, but can feel like you are fighting the AI.

Larian are making a game with more complex environments, objects to interact with, and options for both the player and enemy to use that to their advantage. IMO the more of all that they have the more frustrating it would be trying to control it with real time with pause.

It doesn’t mean you always have to do something fancy or agonize over every more. In both DOS and XCom games, I’m usually thinking about options as the enemies move and take my turns pretty quickly unless I get into trouble and have to stop to think about it. It’s probably not optimal, but it’s faster than watching Sven play who explains everything he’s doing.

In the DOS games I spent waaayyy more time managing my bloody inventory than in combat anyway. I think there will be be a lot less of all that in BG3 though.

I’m actually fine with either combat system, but for what Larian are trying to do, turn based just makes more sense to me.


Vometia: Can we start a new topic for the interview? There was some quite interesting stuff in there. Although I didn’t help with the derailment, I admit.

Joined: May 2019
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: May 2019
Originally Posted by Dagless
Larian are making a game with more complex environments, objects to interact with, and options for both the player and enemy to use that to their advantage. IMO the more of all that they have the more frustrating it would be trying to control it with real time with pause.

It doesn’t mean you always have to do something fancy or agonize over every more. In both DOS and XCom games, I’m usually thinking about options as the enemies move and take my turns pretty quickly unless I get into trouble and have to stop to think about it. It’s probably not optimal, but it’s faster than watching Sven play who explains everything he’s doing.

Well first of all, interacting with the environment is happening quite a bit outside of combat as well and not all inside of combat. And outside of combat it is happening in RT. So it depends.

Within combat the issue for me, as I said on many occasions now even though a certain few people (not you) keep trying to misrepresent my views, is that combat is tediously slow and there is no flow to the combat. And even if TB fans here refuse to admit to it, at least Larian is obviously in agreement that this is a very real problem because their own lead developer spent a lot of time in that RPS interview talking about them trying to find ways to speed up the combat (including tweaking their combat animations) and maintain some semblance of flow. Nevertheless, I have to question whether any of these efforts make any meaningful difference. Combat remains start-stop-start-stop and there's no way around that.

So I have given up on the idea that combat can be made better (i.e. faster and less tedious) within a TB system. Instead, my focus now is looking at what options may exist for (a) getting through combat easily (ex. lowering the difficulty to story mode just for the combats), or (b) avoiding combat altogether (using stealth or dialog checks or whatever).

Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
Originally Posted by kanisatha

Within combat the issue for me, as I said on many occasions now even though a certain few people (not you) keep trying to misrepresent my views, is that combat is tediously slow and there is no flow to the combat. And even if TB fans here refuse to admit to it, at least Larian is obviously in agreement that this is a very real problem because their own lead developer spent a lot of time in that RPS interview talking about them trying to find ways to speed up the combat (including tweaking their combat animations) and maintain some semblance of flow.

No matter what you personal feelings toward TB system are, statement that turn-based games don't have a flow is a riddiculus one. You might not like how it plays, or how "gamey" it is for units to move one after another, but it has flow - decisions are made, player imputs appear on screen and enemies react - all those create "the flow", and it needs to be done right for the game to be enjoyable to interact with. It's a different flow then action game, real-time game, or RTwP game, but it has it's own flow. There very point the developer was making that flow of a PnP game doesn't always translate to cRPG and so they changed it. Changes aren't made to make up for making the game TB. Devs are critically looking at systems they import if the need be they tweak them so the game plays as good as it can in a computer setting.

Last edited by Wormerine; 09/07/20 11:18 PM.
Joined: Apr 2020
Location: Boston , MA
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Apr 2020
Location: Boston , MA
I think it is pretty obvious what he meant by lack of flow. And yes, it is "gamey" and unreal having no simultaneous actions or movements, regardless if it is based on D&D 5 edition or not. That is what Bioware figured out and Larian did not.

Joined: May 2019
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: May 2019
Originally Posted by Wormerine
Originally Posted by kanisatha

Within combat the issue for me, as I said on many occasions now even though a certain few people (not you) keep trying to misrepresent my views, is that combat is tediously slow and there is no flow to the combat. And even if TB fans here refuse to admit to it, at least Larian is obviously in agreement that this is a very real problem because their own lead developer spent a lot of time in that RPS interview talking about them trying to find ways to speed up the combat (including tweaking their combat animations) and maintain some semblance of flow.

No matter what you personal feelings toward TB system are, statement that turn-based games don't have a flow is a riddiculus one. You might not like how it plays, or how "gamey" it is for units to move one after another, but it has flow - decisions are made, player imputs appear on screen and enemies react - all those create "the flow", and it needs to be done right for the game to be enjoyable to interact with. It's a different flow then action game, real-time game, or RTwP game, but it has it's own flow. There very point the developer was making that flow of a PnP game doesn't always translate to cRPG and so they changed it. Changes aren't made to make up for making the game TB. Devs are critically looking at systems they import if the need be they tweak them so the game plays as good as it can in a computer setting.

Nah, this is what is ridiculous. You're just redefining the meaning of the word flow to satisfy your views.

Joined: Jan 2018
W
veteran
Offline
veteran
W
Joined: Jan 2018
Originally Posted by kanisatha

Nah, this is what is ridiculous. You're just redefining the meaning of the word flow to satisfy your views.


You aren't very persuasive, so aside from my own understanding of English, I am going to take the word of the professional game designer who does this for a living over you, but if this is the hill you want to die on, it is all yours.

Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Originally Posted by Warlocke
Originally Posted by kanisatha

Nah, this is what is ridiculous. You're just redefining the meaning of the word flow to satisfy your views.


You aren't very persuasive, so aside from my own understanding of English, I am going to take the word of the professional game designer who does this for a living over you, but if this is the hill you want to die on, it is all yours.


I think he has a point.
TB is one of my favorite genre but I never played any where we can represent "flow" saying : "decisions are made, player imputs appear on screen and enemies react" (quote from Wormerine).

The only reaction are eventually opportunities attacks... but it only happen in specific situation.
As I said in the locked topic, I really hope the example you gave is something that's gonna be true and we'll be able to act during ennemies turn (considering what the rules allow) but that's not what TB is...

The only "flow" you can have in TB comes from illusions (i.e like cosmetic animations), lack of possibilities (so you don't need many times to choose what to do), and very limited ennemies (so their turn is short enough).
Larian tried the "team turn base" and now the "back-to-back allies on the initiative bar turn base"... But that still doesn't change that no one is reacting if it's not its turn.

A frozen screen in which no one is reacting is not what I call fluent... But maybe fluent and flow are different things.

I really think there's something between TB and RT that is different than RTWP... I think it's something Larian should have think about. The 6 seconds can give us clues.



Last edited by Maximuuus; 10/07/20 06:55 AM.

French Speaking Youtube Channel with a lot of BG3 videos : https://www.youtube.com/c/maximuuus
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
Originally Posted by kanisatha

Nah, this is what is ridiculous. You're just redefining the meaning of the word flow to satisfy your views.

hehe that’s funny, because I see you twisting interview to satisfy your views. No point discussing further then.

Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
Originally Posted by Maximuuus

I think he has a point.
TB is one of my favorite genre but I never played any where we can represent "flow" saying : "decisions are made, player imputs appear on screen and enemies react" (quote from Wormerine).

The only "flow" you can have in TB comes from illusions (i.e like cosmetic animations), lack of possibilities (so you don't need many times to choose what to do), and very limited ennemies (so their turn is short enough).

My bad. By enemies react I meant enemy turn. Turn based games have rhythm, and if it rhythm is disrupted the flow of the gameplay is disrupted (like player making decision about reaction on enemy turn).

Joined: May 2019
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: May 2019
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by Warlocke
Originally Posted by kanisatha

Nah, this is what is ridiculous. You're just redefining the meaning of the word flow to satisfy your views.


You aren't very persuasive, so aside from my own understanding of English, I am going to take the word of the professional game designer who does this for a living over you, but if this is the hill you want to die on, it is all yours.


I think he has a point.
TB is one of my favorite genre but I never played any where we can represent "flow" saying : "decisions are made, player imputs appear on screen and enemies react" (quote from Wormerine).

The only reaction are eventually opportunities attacks... but it only happen in specific situation.
As I said in the locked topic, I really hope the example you gave is something that's gonna be true and we'll be able to act during ennemies turn (considering what the rules allow) but that's not what TB is...

The only "flow" you can have in TB comes from illusions (i.e like cosmetic animations), lack of possibilities (so you don't need many times to choose what to do), and very limited ennemies (so their turn is short enough).
Larian tried the "team turn base" and now the "back-to-back allies on the initiative bar turn base"... But that still doesn't change that no one is reacting if it's not its turn.

A frozen screen in which no one is reacting is not what I call fluent...

Yes this is what I was getting at. I like your description of 'flow' in TB combat as an illusion. That's exactly what it is. That's also why I don't see the value or point of animations in TB combat. Comes across as artificial and fake to me. What's the point of showing me an animation of me hitting an enemy where that enemy is a frozen statue?

Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
Originally Posted by kanisatha

Yes this is what I was getting at. I like your description of 'flow' in TB combat as an illusion. That's exactly what it is. That's also why I don't see the value or point of animations in TB combat. Comes across as artificial and fake to me. What's the point of showing me an animation of me hitting an enemy where that enemy is a frozen statue?

Yghhh... I'll bite. Visual flurish in many games is just an "illusion". Graphics are nothing more then representation of mechanics. Devs generally don't prototype animations - they prototype mechanics - graphics are then added to either visually communicate what is happening mechanic-wise. That why games like rogue and likes worked just fine - games like that don't NEED graphics to work mechanically. But graphics make games more approachable and enjoyable to play. You don't need nice figurines and well produced pieces in a board game - but it helps in comfort of play, and understanding and remembering mechanics.

If the game is designed from ground up to be a computer game, that's true that they can use visual flurishes (such as attack animations) as mechanics. But BG3 is based on a system that couldn't be designed with that in mind - animations would have little meaning in BG3 whenever it would be semi-RTwP (afterall, BG1&2 aren't real time - they are simultaneous turns, something which confused me a lot back in the day) or turn based. I expressed somewhere else on this forum controversial opinion that I would wecome top-down RPG that wouldn't be based on dice rolls and other PnP style mechanics. I think one of the reason I like PoE series so well, that at least in some ways they make the systems more native to computers (like using real time recovery, rather then attacks per turn).

And yes, Turn-Based system does bring the mechanics to the main focus, and tends to dispell the "illusion" or "immersion" other computer games might cultivate. But one might appreciate that it doesn't muddy the mechanics up - afterall, in the end in IE games or Pathfinder the combat happens in the small box in the corner, not on the "illusion" bit of the screen.

Last edited by Wormerine; 10/07/20 04:54 PM.
Joined: May 2019
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: May 2019
Originally Posted by Wormerine
Originally Posted by kanisatha

Yes this is what I was getting at. I like your description of 'flow' in TB combat as an illusion. That's exactly what it is. That's also why I don't see the value or point of animations in TB combat. Comes across as artificial and fake to me. What's the point of showing me an animation of me hitting an enemy where that enemy is a frozen statue?

Yghhh... I'll bite. Visual flurish in many games is just an "illusion". Graphics are nothing more then representation of mechanics. Devs generally don't prototype animations - they prototype mechanics - graphics are then added to either visually communicate what is happening mechanic-wise. That why games like rogue and likes worked just fine - games like that don't NEED graphics to work mechanically. But graphics make games more approachable and enjoyable to play. You don't need nice figurines and well produced pieces in a board game - but it helps in comfort of play, and understanding and remembering mechanics.

If the game is designed from ground up to be a computer game, that's true that they can use visual flurishes (such as attack animations) as mechanics. But BG3 is based on a system that couldn't be designed with that in mind - animations would have little meaning in BG3 whenever it would be semi-RTwP (afterall, BG1&2 aren't real time - they are simultaneous turns, something which confused me a lot back in the day) or turn based. I expressed somewhere else on this forum controversial opinion that I would wecome top-down RPG that wouldn't be based on dice rolls and other PnP style mechanics. I think one of the reason I like PoE series so well, that at least in some ways they make the systems more native to computers (like using real time recovery, rather then attacks per turn).

And yes, Turn-Based system does bring the mechanics to the main focus, and tends to dispell the "illusion" or "immersion" other computer games might cultivate. But one might appreciate that it doesn't muddy the mechanics up - afterall, in the end in IE games or Pathfinder the combat happens in the small box in the corner, not on the "illusion" bit of the screen.

Yes I am ok with everything you say here in general. All graphics in videogames are one form of illusion or another. But at least in a RT(wP) game, that illusion holds, and immersion is maintained, at least for me, whereas in TB combat, it automatically gets destroyed the moment the game automatically freezes everything on my screen.

As to your controversial opinion, I myself have said in several threads here how much I dislike dice/luck-centered RPG mechanics and as such that I have slowly over the years becomes disillusioned with D&D mechanics. I also much prefer a game where luck is not central and how the player chooses to build their character (and also companion characters) and the choices they make in-game should be the driver of mechanics.

In reality, we are often in agreement. So it puzzles me why you so often choose to post negatively towards me.

Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
Originally Posted by kanisatha

In reality, we are often in agreement. So it puzzles me why you so often choose to post negatively towards me.

Indeed. I suppose I perceived some of your recent comments as overly dismissive of mechanics or gamestyles you personally don't enjoy of. One can agree and disagree at the same time.

Joined: Jun 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jun 2020
D&D is a turn based table top game - that is what Larian are trying bring to the table in this game. Appears they are also trying to streamline the animations etc to speed things up a bit too. RTWP would ruin this game for me ( not others...)- D&D is not meant to be rushed, rather savored & with every updated video it just makes me more hungry to see how the game is developing & implementing new D&D systems etc

I think as a finished product this game will be a beauty to behold, personally I want to enjoy the ride rather than being the first to finish.







Last edited by Tarorn; 11/07/20 02:21 AM.
Page 51 of 95 1 2 49 50 51 52 53 94 95

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