Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 13 of 15 1 2 11 12 13 14 15
Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid

Also, I’m not following you regarding head-count comparison between both companies. Address the major complaints of a community should be easier in a larger team compared to a smaller one.


Ill try to explain what i meant,
For small team like for Solasta there's is probably 1 or 2 combat/mechanics designers and they all probably work in the same office with the boss, so when they want to make a change they just go over to the office talk it over and that's it,

For a big company that has branches across multiple countries, my guess would be if a designer want to try something out he needs his boss to approve it who in turn needs another manager to approve, that manager will probably start looking at data form many different avenues and try to understand what would sell more in the end etc...
my point is even if they have seen the feedback and even if some combat designer feels that changes should be made its going to take some time until its approved by all the higher ups, and only after its approved would anyone talk about it in a community update. so lets just give them some time.

like i said many of the changes requested on the forum are really good and i am sure they will address it in time.

Last edited by jayn23; 10/11/20 09:00 PM.
Joined: Jul 2014
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jul 2014
Originally Posted by IrenicusBG3
Originally Posted by Gaidax
Solasta? You mean that Solasta with whole 4 linear maps ingame, NWN2 level graphics and linear story with forgettable cast and no companions at all?


Such a hate for Solasta. Mechanically, Solasta is far superior than current BG3.


That's not hate, that's simply the reality. I bought Solasta, I played Solasta and it is what it is - right now it is literally 4 areas - 1 "city" and 3 linear, tunnel quest areas with super linear quests and NWN2 level graphics - a game from 2006, just a bit shinier spells.

It is exactly that, so I am not even sure what exactly you want me to glorify there. Story? Nothing to write home about - absolutely linear one path tunnel campaign. Characters and companions? You literally don't have any of note and there are simply no companions by definition.

Its only value is for RAW purists where they try to jump out of their skin to make it as close as they can to 5e core rules and in my personal opinion - the combat suffers for it. IMO, Solasta shows very well exactly why Larian did the changes they did with all these shitty reaction popups, smite popups and what not with your lowbie characters stiff as fuck with single action per turn and little more than that, except for odd minor utility spell or power.


Despite all the above, I believe that Solasta will be ok, given its 35 bucks price and first shot for that tiny studio. It will be a fair time burner for people like me who like turn based tactical combat games, but it's obvious it won't be even 1/3 of what BG3 will be and I'm being generous there.

Last edited by Gaidax; 10/11/20 07:18 PM.
Joined: Mar 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by Gaidax
Originally Posted by IrenicusBG3
Originally Posted by Gaidax
Solasta? You mean that Solasta with whole 4 linear maps ingame, NWN2 level graphics and linear story with forgettable cast and no companions at all?


Such a hate for Solasta. Mechanically, Solasta is far superior than current BG3.


That's not hate, that's simply the reality. I bought Solasta, I played Solasta and it is what it is - right now it is literally 4 areas - 1 "city" and 3 linear, tunnel quest areas with super linear quests and NWN2 level graphics - a game from 2006, just a bit shinier spells.

It is exactly that, so I am not even sure what exactly you want me to glorify there. Story? Nothing to write home about - absolutely linear one path tunnel campaign. Characters and companions? You literally don't have any of note and there are simply no companions by definition.

Its only value is for RAW purists where they try to jump out of their skin to make it as close as they can to 5e core rules and in my personal opinion - the combat suffers for it. IMO, Solasta shows very well exactly why Larian did the changes they did with all these shitty reaction popups, smite popups and what not with your lowbie characters stiff as fuck with single action per turn and little more than that, except for odd minor utility spell or power.

Thais is my new favourite comment on the forum


Larian's Biggest Oversight, what to do about it, and My personal review of BG3 EA
"74.85% of you stood with the Tieflings, and 25.15% of you sided with Minthara. Good outweighs evil, it seems."
Joined: Nov 2020
E
member
Offline
member
E
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by Gaidax
Originally Posted by IrenicusBG3
Originally Posted by Gaidax
Solasta? You mean that Solasta with whole 4 linear maps ingame, NWN2 level graphics and linear story with forgettable cast and no companions at all?


Such a hate for Solasta. Mechanically, Solasta is far superior than current BG3.


That's not hate, that's simply the reality. I bought Solasta, I played Solasta and it is what it is - right now it is literally 4 areas - 1 "city" and 3 linear, tunnel quest areas with super linear quests and NWN2 level graphics - a game from 2006, just a bit shinier spells.

It is exactly that, so I am not even sure what exactly you want me to glorify there. Story? Nothing to write home about - absolutely linear one path tunnel campaign. Characters and companions? You literally don't have any of note and there are simply no companions by definition.

Its only value is for RAW purists where they try to jump out of their skin to make it as close as they can to 5e core rules and in my personal opinion - the combat suffers for it. IMO, Solasta shows very well exactly why Larian did the changes they did with all these shitty reaction popups, smite popups and what not with your lowbie characters stiff as fuck with single action per turn and little more than that, except for odd minor utility spell or power.


Maybe look at this from a different angle: they made less content than Larian for now, and started updating their mechanics and giving their feedback for questions raised - earlier. We should look where both games would be 1 year from now.

Joined: Mar 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid


Well, that’s a matter of acknowledging the feedbacks from the community and not to actually change it. We’re not expecting them to implement the DnD5e rules by the book, yet there are pain points spread all over this forum with actual arguments regarding balance issues - mainly in the combat pillar.

Compared to redesign the other pillars (social interaction & exploration) - combat is the less tricky one.



This. Nailed it. Totally avoided the red herrings. (this forum needs a like button)

No one is asking no deviations from the book. No one is saying social and exploration sucks (in fact it's great). The criticism is about combat.

Joined: Oct 2020
T
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
T
Joined: Oct 2020
I don't think Larian's PR strategy here has been perfect (I think they can be more transparent), but to expect implementation or commitment to certain changes by this point is kind of nuts. We're only a month out of Early Access. For a project this huge, it makes sense that they'll need to take time to parse feedback, debate solutions, and test before committing to any changes.

You need at least a few weeks just to wait for a proper range of feedback to kick-in - you can't simply take week 1 reactions and start running with that as it will skew your response base.

Then you need time to parse through it all and figure out which feedback you actually agree with - as not all of it is universal. More so, a lot of "individual" feedback points affect a larger system as a whole and can't be implemented in isolation. This is on top of having a larger organizational structure that will require the proper time spent on getting internal buy-in to changes.

All of that needs to be done before they even do internal testing, nevermind put it in a public patch. The only thing that will piss people off who demand Change X and not getting it fast enough is if you give them X and then have to take it away later because it turns out it doesn't work with Y and Z.

Larian's biggest mistake IMO has been their PR communication during patch updates. Raving on and on about meaningless stats and puppy petting without even mentioning if they've been looking at mechanical feedback is a poor move as it gives off an impression of a distracted child. The "humorous", nonchalant tone used in those updates makes exacerbates this. They don't have to commit to any changes (since they probably don't know at this point), but just an acknowledgement will do wonders.

Joined: Jul 2014
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jul 2014
Originally Posted by Ellenhard

Maybe look at this from a different angle: they made less content than Larian for now, and started updating their mechanics and giving their feedback for questions raised - earlier. We should look where both games would be 1 year from now.


I look at it from a simple angle of expecting to see a good RPG game first and only then everything else second and quite frankly - that game barely qualifies as RPG, especially in 2020. Heck, it would barely qualify as RPG back in 2002 seeing NWN.

It is a faithful 5e combat simulator and simply nothing else. It's about as much RPG as Xcom is and heck at least in Xcom you sort of have illusion of different paths, here it's just one thing.

Joined: Sep 2020
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by Topgoon
I don't think Larian's PR strategy here has been perfect (I think they can be more transparent), but to expect implementation or commitment to certain changes by this point is kind of nuts. We're only a month out of Early Access. For a project this huge, it makes sense that they'll need to take time to parse feedback, debate solutions, and test before committing to any changes.

We (I) don't want implementation of or commitment to changes. We want confirmation that Larian realizes our feedbacks and problems exist, hopefully with a statement that they'll look into these and maybe change them.

Originally Posted by Topgoon
Larian's biggest mistake IMO has been their PR communication during patch updates. Raving on and on about meaningless stats and puppy petting without even mentioning if they've been looking at mechanical feedback is a poor move as it gives off an impression of a distracted child. The "humorous", nonchalant tone used in those updates makes exacerbates this. They don't have to commit to any changes (since they probably don't know at this point), but just an acknowledgement will do wonders.

100% agree.

Joined: Nov 2020
E
member
Offline
member
E
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by Gaidax
Originally Posted by Ellenhard

Maybe look at this from a different angle: they made less content than Larian for now, and started updating their mechanics and giving their feedback for questions raised - earlier. We should look where both games would be 1 year from now.


I look at it from a simple angle of expecting to see a good RPG game first and only then everything else second and quite frankly - that game barely qualifies as RPG, especially in 2020. Heck, it would barely qualify as RPG back in 2002 seeing NWN.

It is a faithful 5e combat simulator and simply nothing else. It's about as much RPG as Xcom is and heck at least in Xcom you sort of have illusion of different paths, here it's just one thing.


It's a bit too harsh, unnecessary: there is an interesting system which took place instead of character's alignment, and it is already better then what BG 3 shown us (for now) because it gives us a fixed outline of a role and background from the start in an RPG. Altruist/egoist/idealistic/practical.

There are hints of party banter, too, not fleshed out yet. And all party members make their rolls in any events, based on the best character.

Moreover, - while graphics of Solasta are understandably much weaker than BG 3, the clothes/armor in Solasta actually better styled, they fit better with an overall style than in BG 3, but that is of course just an opinion.

Joined: Sep 2020
Banned
Offline
Banned
Joined: Sep 2020
The thing about Larian is that they will make the game they want to make. Our feedback is the smallest part of their process. It was the same in DOS2. Yes, they made changes of one or two of the glaring issues people ranted about, but for the most part nothing changed except bugs and refinements based on heat maps.

Swen is stubborn, and he won't change his mind.

He created this project to show a wider audience "Larian's formula" of CRPG. They openly co-opted the BG name to do this.

That means DOS. That means puppy petting and cringe worthy companions and binary dialogue options and tons of barrels everywhere.

BG3 will never become the game D&D or BG fans expected.

Last edited by tsundokugames; 10/11/20 08:03 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Topgoon
I don't think Larian's PR strategy here has been perfect (I think they can be more transparent), but to expect implementation or commitment to certain changes by this point is kind of nuts. We're only a month out of Early Access. For a project this huge, it makes sense that they'll need to take time to parse feedback, debate solutions, and test before committing to any changes.

You need at least a few weeks just to wait for a proper range of feedback to kick-in - you can't simply take week 1 reactions and start running with that as it will skew your response base.

Then you need time to parse through it all and figure out which feedback you actually agree with - as not all of it is universal. More so, a lot of "individual" feedback points affect a larger system as a whole and can't be implemented in isolation. This is on top of having a larger organizational structure that will require the proper time spent on getting internal buy-in to changes.

All of that needs to be done before they even do internal testing, nevermind put it in a public patch. The only thing that will piss people off who demand Change X and not getting it fast enough is if you give them X and then have to take it away later because it turns out it doesn't work with Y and Z.

Larian's biggest mistake IMO has been their PR communication during patch updates. Raving on and on about meaningless stats and puppy petting without even mentioning if they've been looking at mechanical feedback is a poor move as it gives off an impression of a distracted child. The "humorous", nonchalant tone used in those updates makes exacerbates this. They don't have to commit to any changes (since they probably don't know at this point), but just an acknowledgement will do wonders.




You said everything i was thinking but articulated so much better than me. So yes what he said

Joined: Aug 2014
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Aug 2014
Originally Posted by tsundokugames
The thing about Larian is that they will make the game they want to make. Our feedback is the smallest part of their process. It was the same in DOS2. Yes, they made changes of one or two of the glaring issues people ranted about, but for the most part nothing changed except bugs and refinements based on heat maps.

Swen is stubborn, and he won't change his mind.

He created this project to show a wider audience "Larian's formula" of CRPG. They openly co-opted the BG name to do this.

That means DOS. That means puppy petting and cringe worthy companions and binary dialogue options and tons of barrels everywhere.

BG3 will never become the game D&D or BG fans expected.


There's a massive difference between building your own IP and making a game with a D&D licence that has a 3 in the title.

I would expect WotC to supervise their IP closely, but then again Sword Coast Legends got made.

Joined: Apr 2020
Location: Boston , MA
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Apr 2020
Location: Boston , MA
Originally Posted by Gaidax
That's not hate, that's simply the reality. I bought Solasta, I played Solasta and it is what it is - right now it is literally 4 areas - 1 "city" and 3 linear, tunnel quest areas with super linear quests and NWN2 level graphics - a game from 2006, just a bit shinier spells.

It is exactly that, so I am not even sure what exactly you want me to glorify there. Story? Nothing to write home about - absolutely linear one path tunnel campaign. Characters and companions? You literally don't have any of note and there are simply no companions by definition.

Its only value is for RAW purists where they try to jump out of their skin to make it as close as they can to 5e core rules and in my personal opinion - the combat suffers for it. IMO, Solasta shows very well exactly why Larian did the changes they did with all these shitty reaction popups, smite popups and what not with your lowbie characters stiff as fuck with single action per turn and little more than that, except for odd minor utility spell or power.

Despite all the above, I believe that Solasta will be ok, given its 35 bucks price and first shot for that tiny studio. It will be a fair time burner for people like me who like turn based tactical combat games, but it's obvious it won't be even 1/3 of what BG3 will be and I'm being generous there.


It is obvious what Larian did better. BG3 is a far better game. But this is not the point. Tactical Adventures made a lot of good choices in their game design.

Mechanically: they were able to implement many things that Larian with 10x larger team, a AAA budget and record could not (so far).

Party management, auto-jump, day-night cycle, combat that flows better with more optimized AI, less over-the-top animations, better camera. And should not be the case.

Joined: Oct 2020
S
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
S
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by tsundokugames
The thing about Larian is that they will make the game they want to make. Our feedback is the smallest part of their process. It was the same in DOS2. Yes, they made changes of one or two of the glaring issues people ranted about, but for the most part nothing changed except bugs and refinements based on heat maps.

Swen is stubborn, and he won't change his mind.

He created this project to show a wider audience "Larian's formula" of CRPG. They openly co-opted the BG name to do this.

That means DOS. That means puppy petting and cringe worthy companions and binary dialogue options and tons of barrels everywhere.

BG3 will never become the game D&D or BG fans expected.


That’s what I feel regarding this whole thing related to feedback.

The pledge for the early access was all about “hop on dude! Let’s build this game together”. So far, seems that the most representative feedback gathered and mentioned by Swen in the latest interview was about a guy who missed 8 times in a row. For those skilled with statistics are you aware of the odds of missing 8 times in a row (50% hit rate)?

Transparency is the thing that a customer (and I’m speaking strictly about my impression) values the most.

If the pledge was “invest in our early access yet be aware that our ambition is to develop OUR game. So please give us a leap of faith” I’d still have bought the game nevertheless. The main difference is that currently I feel scammed.

Also, for those saying that Solasta feels a much worse game compared to BG3 as an argument to justify the lack of return of Larian regarding the early access clearly shows that did not understood the purpose of this post. TA shows more customer experience orientation in 1 month of early access than Larian since DOS1 till nowadays.

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Maybe instead of leaving feedback to Larian we should direct it to WotC? Basically saying Larian is using the BG name and promise of D&D 5e to false advertise DOS3 to a wider audience. If Larian with their near 400 man team can't be arsed with a forum post once a week with an update then we should go to the licence holders.

Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
I don't think WOTC has ANY say in how this game will be made.


Party control in Baldur's Gate 3 is a complete mess that begs to be addressed. SAY NO TO THE TOILET CHAIN
Joined: Oct 2020
G
stranger
Offline
stranger
G
Joined: Oct 2020
From IGN article:

One of the more difficult elements of developing Baldur’s Gate 3 with player involvement is that there are numerous different ‘camps’ of people interested in the game. There’s Larian’s long-term fans, who are crying out for there to be more ‘surfaces’ in the game (a mechanic used in the Original Sin games to create dynamic fire, poison clouds, oil slicks, and more). Then there’s players of the D&D tabletop game, who’d rather have surfaces removed all together. And then there’s old-school Baldur’s Gate fans, who want the real-time combat of the BioWare original games back. There’s a lot of people pulling in a lot of directions.

“I can imagine that we will never manage to find the balance that will please everyone,” says Vincke. But, there is a (sort of) solution: “The game will be moddable eventually, so people will be able to make their mods. I expect multiple flavors of Baldur’s Gate 3 to come out of that. Over time there will be probably a flavor that will appeal hopefully to everybody.”

But as for the flavour that the Larian team will create themselves? It’s actually closer to the general consensus of what players apparently want than you may imagine. “All of the things that people are suggesting were already on the list of things that we had to do,” says Vincke. “So they fit our roadmap. We are, to a large extent, in sync with our audience, I think. But there are things that we hadn't thought of. So it'll be interesting to see what they are going to add to the game.”

Lol, I was an idiot to sepnd 90 bucks on this game. Oh well.

Last edited by Grimo; 10/11/20 09:12 PM.
Joined: Sep 2020
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by Grimo
From IGN article:

One of the more difficult elements of developing Baldur’s Gate 3 with player involvement is that there are numerous different ‘camps’ of people interested in the game. There’s Larian’s long-term fans, who are crying out for there to be more ‘surfaces’ in the game (a mechanic used in the Original Sin games to create dynamic fire, poison clouds, oil slicks, and more). Then there’s players of the D&D tabletop game, who’d rather have surfaces removed all together. And then there’s old-school Baldur’s Gate fans, who want the real-time combat of the BioWare original games back. There’s a lot of people pulling in a lot of directions.

Does....does anyone actually want more surfaces? Weren't the biggest criticisms of DOSI&II about the surfaces??!!?

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Grimo


Lol, I was an idiot to sepnd 90 bucks on this game. Oh well.


So it is exactly what I suspected from day 1, DOS3 and leave details to the modders.

Joined: Oct 2020
B
member
Offline
member
B
Joined: Oct 2020
I must admit at this point I do see BG3 - without at least significant changes to the combat - to be just a 7.5/10 game for me. Overall its a disappointment (mainly because of the unbalanced combat, but also the questionable appeal of the NPCs and the DOS2 world structure - going through hubs on a very linar path). I don't think its a DOS3, but all the things I dislike about it are artefacts from DOS2, a game that for me was a (surprisingly) unmemorable and mediocre experience.

Page 13 of 15 1 2 11 12 13 14 15

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