Larian Banner: Baldur's Gate Patch 9
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 4 of 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 25 26
Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by PrivateRaccoon
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
Originally Posted by PrivateRaccoon
If they're gonna give permission to a company to use Baldur's Gate, it better be somehow connected to the city or previous chapters in that story.

The game is called Baldur's Gate because it takes place 100 years after Baldur's Gate 2 and the characters in the game have all made it clear that they are going o the city of Baldur's Gate. Have you attention to the story? Where in the world are you getting that it doesn't involve the city of Baldur's Gate or related to the previous installments?

I didn't. Now who has a problem with the language? The discussion, between us two, was never whether or not the game should be called Baldur's Gate. It was why Larian wanted to use the title Baldur's gate 3 in the first place. But since you seem to have missed that point I made earlier it explains why we keep bickering about this like two senile old grandpa's.

Please. You don't strike me as a naïve or dull person. You must understand the concept of trademarks and why they are valuable. Right?

Is the idea that Larian strived to be able to gain advantage by using a well renowned trademark, a concept so foreign, that you disregard the subject every time?

Are you even reading what you are writing? You literally said "If they're gonna give permission to a company to use Baldur's Gate, it better be somehow connected to the city or previous chapters in that story." You're making it sound like it has nothing to do with Baldur's Gate. That's where I'm pointing to you that it does. I don't understand what you are trying to get at and you are making a lot of assumptions and false accusations.

Joined: Jun 2021
D
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
D
Joined: Jun 2021
The amount of bad-faith takes here is pretty astounding. There is no doubt that Larian advertised the game as a Baldur's Gate game, based on the 5e ruleset.

Asking that the game's mechanics be as close to 5e, in EA, is not unreasonable. Larian adding its homebrew to the game is also reasonable, to the extent that it does not break the core ruleset the game is based on.

Currently, Larian's homebrew is "breaking" the action economy, it is creating too much overlap between the classes and is removing a lot of the tactical choices (by providing significantly better (read OP) options).

In short, the game balance is all over the place. A somewhat straightforward approach would be to align the game with 5e, and then apply homebrew were necessary/fun. What's so hard to understand in that?

Last edited by dukeisaac; 09/11/21 11:22 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Sweden
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Sweden
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Originally Posted by PrivateRaccoon
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
Originally Posted by PrivateRaccoon
If they're gonna give permission to a company to use Baldur's Gate, it better be somehow connected to the city or previous chapters in that story.

The game is called Baldur's Gate because it takes place 100 years after Baldur's Gate 2 and the characters in the game have all made it clear that they are going o the city of Baldur's Gate. Have you attention to the story? Where in the world are you getting that it doesn't involve the city of Baldur's Gate or related to the previous installments?

I didn't. Now who has a problem with the language? The discussion, between us two, was never whether or not the game should be called Baldur's Gate. It was why Larian wanted to use the title Baldur's gate 3 in the first place. But since you seem to have missed that point I made earlier it explains why we keep bickering about this like two senile old grandpa's.

Please. You don't strike me as a naïve or dull person. You must understand the concept of trademarks and why they are valuable. Right?

Is the idea that Larian strived to be able to gain advantage by using a well renowned trademark, a concept so foreign, that you disregard the subject every time?

Baldur's Gate 2 was set in Athkatla. The only relation it had to BG 1 was tied to the characters from the first game, and that the main character was a Bhaalspawn. You could completely skip BG 1 to play BG 2, and I'd be willing to bet that more than a few people did just that. If WotC, or Hasbro thought Larian was walking all over their trademarks/IP, you can bet we'd know about it already. So what have you heard from either of them to indicate that they're abusing that trademark, or is this something that you're coming up with to justify your own perceptions of the game? Careful with this, because false copyright claims can land you in legal hot water just as fast as frivolous lawsuits about false advertising.

The discussion that started between me and Lady Avyna came with me claiming that larian wanted to use the BG trademark to attract potential players. Lady Avyna disregards that and claims the reason they chose to use Baldur's gate as the title for their game is because they wanted to make a game that somehow connects to previous games, even if it's only the city Baldur's Gate itself, henceforth the number 3 in the title. But those two reasons aren't mutually exclusive(sorry if that's the wrong phrasing). Ofc they need to have the game somehow connected to previous games, however frivolous, still the "3" in the title. I never claimed they wrongfully used the trademark, atleast that was not my intention. I claimed them using that trademark would attract fans of the series and set expectations, expectations they would be aware of, and according to my opinion purposefully didn't fulfill. I also admitted that they haven't broken any advertising law but that their marketing tactics still felt deceitful. There is nothing there that I have to be careful with.

Joined: Sep 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by dukeisaac
The amount of bad-faith takes here is pretty astounding. There is no doubt that Larian advertised the game as a Baldur's Gate game, based on the 5e ruleset.

Asking that the game's mechanics be as close to 5e, in EA, is not unreasonable. Larian adding its homebrew to the game is also reasonable, to the extent that it does not break the core ruleset the game is based on.

Currently, Larian's homebrew is "breaking" the action economy, it is creating too much overlap between the classes and is removing a lot of the tactical choices (by providing significantly better (read OP) options).

In short, the game balance is all over the place. A somewhat straightforward approach would be to align the game with 5e, and then apply homebrew were necessary/fun. What's so hard to understand in that?
Well said. As many others have expressed, I wish this forum had a "like/upvote" feature.

I'll add: obviously Larian chose to use the Baldur's Gate name and D&D 5e system at least partly for the name-recognition to boost sales. They are a company; they need to make money in order to exist and create new games. This is not a bad thing, but it is a thing and denying it does nobody any favors.

Joined: Feb 2021
GM4Him Offline OP
veteran
OP Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
I keep getting a lot of responses about how we're so far in development so basically just shut up. I thought the entire point of the suggestion forum is to offer our suggestions of what we think would make the game better. You can tell me that you don't like my suggestions oh, and you can tell me why, and that makes perfect sense to me. But what doesn't make sense to me is when people are out here telling me to stop complaining - which I think is a gross misunderstanding because I'm not complaining, I'm attempting to make suggestions that I think would make the game better - because we're so far into development.

This entire thread is about me suggesting that the game would be better and would feel more like DND 5e and Baldur's Gate if they were more true to the proper stats for monsters with their special abilities that are signature special abilities that make the race what they are, and stop home brewing everything so much that the game no longer feels like we're playing The dungeons & dragons game.

It is about the feel of the game. The Baldur's Gate feel is missing. Why? You may not agree, but I think that the reason is that they are disregarding very basic core elements.

Rogues don't seem like Rogues, mages don't seem like mages, and clerics don't seem like clerics.

Imps don't seem like imps, intellect devourers don't seem like intellect devourers, phase spiders don't seem like phase spiders.

There's no night travel and ambiance. I can't even tell you how much that effects the overall tone and mood of the game. From my earliest D & D memories, dark and spooky forests, graveyards, streets, and mountain pathways with scary ambience music, that was the stuff that sparked the imagination and sent chills down the spines of the players. That's what made things exciting fin fun.

I feel like what we have in this game, it is fun and nice, but we are missing so much more.

Reasonable limitations make a game challenging and rewarding. If a games rules are too loose, it removes the challenge and there is nothing fun to overcome. The more you deviate from the established rules the more you have to deviate from the established rules to fix the rules you deviated from. They have created so much more work for themselves by deviating so much from the established core rules.

Again, I'm not opposed to Homebrew. But Homebrew should be limited to minor rules, not completely overhauling the core rule system.

I also like things like exploding barrels, and special moves that make different weapons unique. To me, those are clever and they make sense. Otherwise, what's the difference between a mace and a hand axe? What's not good is it character picking up a hundred pound barrel and throwing it 50 feet, or a character jumping literally 30 feet and then still moving like another 15, while leaping up in the air like 15 ft. That's broken, and that is what makes the game not as good as it could be.

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by PrivateRaccoon
The discussion that started between me and Lady Avyna came with me claiming that larian wanted to use the BG trademark to attract potential players. Lady Avyna disregards that and claims the reason they chose to use Baldur's gate as the title for their game is because they wanted to make a game that somehow connects to previous games, even if it's only the city Baldur's Gate itself, henceforth the number 3 in the title. But those two reasons aren't mutually exclusive(sorry if that's the wrong phrasing). Ofc they need to have the game somehow connected to previous games, however frivolous, still the "3" in the title. I never claimed they wrongfully used the trademark, atleast that was not my intention. I claimed them using that trademark would attract fans of the series and set expectations, expectations they would be aware of, and according to my opinion purposefully didn't fulfill. I also admitted that they haven't broken any advertising law but that their marketing tactics still felt deceitful. There is nothing there that I have to be careful with.

Feeling they were deceitful is one thing, claiming that they are is another. Which is why some of us have told you otherwise, because you seem to be claiming that they are and even mentioned the whole legal system against them.

Joined: Jun 2021
D
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
D
Joined: Jun 2021
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Well said. As many others have expressed, I wish this forum had a "like/upvote" feature.

I'll add: obviously Larian chose to use the Baldur's Gate name and D&D 5e system at least partly for the name-recognition to boost sales. They are a company; they need to make money in order to exist and create new games. This is not a bad thing, but it is a thing and denying it does nobody any favors.

Fully agree about the like/upvote feature... It would filter a lot of the BS in these threads and focus the feedback on actionable stuff Larian can use in development.

To the second point, there's no doubt about it, it's just savvy business acumen. But they need to manage those expectations accordingly.

Or maybe I'm just naive and Larian is more than happy that it took my money after "unconsciously" deceiving me about the product they were selling. If so, shame on me I guess

Joined: Feb 2021
GM4Him Offline OP
veteran
OP Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
Nope. Same here. I'm not about the legal nonsense. I don't care about that. Bottom line is, they made people think this was going to be THE D&D 5e ultimate adaptation. That is totally the expectation that they set. There are too many of us for it to be just me and you.

Especially in the beginning, there were so many more people upset that this game was more like DOS than D&D. SO many more people.

You can't disappoint your fan base like that without consequences.

There likely won't be a BG4 from Larian. I'm still afraid BG3 will never fully happen because of things like that. Hopefully, we'll still get this full game.

Last edited by GM4Him; 10/11/21 12:27 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Nope. Same here. I'm not about the legal nonsense. I don't care about that. Bottom line is, they made people think this was going to be THE D&D 5e ultimate adaptation. That is totally the expectation that they set. There are too many of us for it to be just me and you.

Especially in the beginning, there were so many more people upset that this game was more like DOS than D&D. SO many more people.

I think the issue some of us are having is where did Larian specifically say that they are making a true DnD 5e game and not a game based on DnD 5e? I believe that is where the confusing lies because I don't remember Larian saying anything that states they are making a 100% copy of DnD 5e. Larian keep emphasing that the game is "based on" even before the release of EA.

Joined: Jun 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
They said, in their initial interviews, before EA even came out, that they were excited to be making Baldur's Gate 3, that they would be making it using the fifth edition of the dungeons and dragons ruleset, which they were going to be implementing as faithfully as possible. Those were the original advertising comments made. Those comments were weakened and backtracked very hard after EA launched. This is not a shared hallucination - this happened. No, I can't provide quoted interviews - they've disappeared.

It may well be that those initial comments were made indelicately, and were not, exactly, intended to deceive... but they were nevertheless not indicative of their actual intention and so people who came to the game excited and invested in it, based on those comments, got very upset when it became clear that those initial comments were not actually reflective of what they were doing at all.

Joined: Jun 2021
D
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
D
Joined: Jun 2021
In any case, there's a strong argument to say that the game is less and less based on 5e anyway... With each additional homebrew, their chipping away at the core ruleset.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Sweden
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Sweden
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
Originally Posted by PrivateRaccoon
The discussion that started between me and Lady Avyna came with me claiming that larian wanted to use the BG trademark to attract potential players. Lady Avyna disregards that and claims the reason they chose to use Baldur's gate as the title for their game is because they wanted to make a game that somehow connects to previous games, even if it's only the city Baldur's Gate itself, henceforth the number 3 in the title. But those two reasons aren't mutually exclusive(sorry if that's the wrong phrasing). Ofc they need to have the game somehow connected to previous games, however frivolous, still the "3" in the title. I never claimed they wrongfully used the trademark, atleast that was not my intention. I claimed them using that trademark would attract fans of the series and set expectations, expectations they would be aware of, and according to my opinion purposefully didn't fulfill. I also admitted that they haven't broken any advertising law but that their marketing tactics still felt deceitful. There is nothing there that I have to be careful with.

Feeling they were deceitful is one thing, claiming that they are is another. Which is why some of us have told you otherwise, because you seem to be claiming that they are and even mentioned the whole legal system against them.

Well, the legal thing was specifically in regard to Rag's question whether it mattered if a certain quote could be interpreted in different ways. And it is important. We were taught to always be as transparent and as specific as possible when dealing with journalists as to hinder any misconception on the readers part. Sure, being vague can have its uses when deflecting those misconceptions but it's always better if they don't arise from the very start. As you've seen, saying "based upon" is not very definitive on your intentions.

But, going through my responses in this thread, I can admit, although it pains me, that I might...just barely....been a tiny little bit...zealous and derailing in my answers. For that...I apologize. Pfww, that was hard.

Last edited by PrivateRaccoon; 10/11/21 12:56 AM.
Joined: Sep 2017
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2017
Originally Posted by Niara
They said, in their initial interviews, before EA even came out, that they were excited to be making Baldur's Gate 3, that they would be making it using the fifth edition of the dungeons and dragons ruleset, which they were going to be implementing as faithfully as possible. Those were the original advertising comments made. Those comments were weakened and backtracked very hard after EA launched. This is not a shared hallucination - this happened. No, I can't provide quoted interviews - they've disappeared.

It may well be that those initial comments were made indelicately, and were not, exactly, intended to deceive... but they were nevertheless not indicative of their actual intention and so people who came to the game excited and invested in it, based on those comments, got very upset when it became clear that those initial comments were not actually reflective of what they were doing at all.

Baldur's Gate 3 is based on the fifth edition D&D ruleset, which Wizards of the Coast designed to make the game more accessible to new people. Vincke said that made his team's job a little easier than what a still-young BioWare faced in the '90s.

Based on; The interview also goes on to mention trial and error in interpreting TT into video game translation.

Baldur's Gate 3 will utilize Dungeons and Dragons' 5th Edition Rules.

Utilize means to make use of, not necessarily fully and solely only use without interpretation.

Vincke also confirms that Baldur's Gate 3 will emphasize environmental interaction of some sort, though it's unclear what form it will ultimately take. When I ask Vincke if Baldur's Gate 2 will have interactions similar to that of Divinity: Original Sin 2, where you could set up massive combos by, say, arcing lightning across water, he says, "And more."

In reference to earlier statements on the forums. Homebrew / extra system designs were talked about long before EA release.

Q: On the subject of gameplay, is it going to be influenced by Original Sin or are you trying to make something that's closer to the original Baldur's Gate games?

A: We are moving forward, so we don't want to go look backward. We want to innovate within the RPG genre and we have a bunch of ideas. We took the D&D fifth edition ruleset, we ported it to video game format, and we saw the things that didn't work. So we started working on that. And then we also added systems that would replace the game master because there's no human sitting inside of your computer. And that allows you to do things that you would otherwise not be able to do. And so that is pretty much the approach that we've taken. All the core values that were important to us in Original Sin, like the fact that the game reacts to what you did and that the story would change in a logical way are still in, except that we are doing more.

Boldened text implies creative liberties / changes to the ruleset deemed necessary for a video game format. Hence, not 100%. (Though this isn't meant to disqualify criticisms / requests of turning current design to be closer than it currently is, I too want this. I'm just putting cards on the table here.)

Edit/Appendix: Whether or not having tried it in video game format, or comparisons with Solasta is beyond the point, I think most of the critiques among us, me included believes there's a lot of current changes steering away from PHB that would be better if changed back to RAW. Point is what was said, namely clear indication of some homebrew and creative liberty in interpretation of the ruleset. Expectations beyond this is solely on the player individually.

FL: What rule set will you be using?

Vincke: Based on the 5th Edition because we ported all the rules to the computer game and looked at what worked and what didn’t work. There are somethings that don’t work for video games. But there is also the aspect if you’re playing tabletop, the game master and imaginations is a large part of it. There are things that are just not described in the rule set that you could do and we obviously have to make it work inside of the video game, that is something that we have to add on top of it.

Similarly, based on.

Now here's the real kicker. It's not vanished. Here's every single interview available on google specifically published before 2020. Dig in!

Last edited by The Composer; 10/11/21 01:09 AM.
Joined: Sep 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by The Composer
FL: What rule set will you be using?

Vincke: Based on the 5th Edition because we ported all the rules to the computer game and looked at what worked and what didn’t work. There are somethings that don’t work for video games. But there is also the aspect if you’re playing tabletop, the game master and imaginations is a large part of it. There are things that are just not described in the rule set that you could do and we obviously have to make it work inside of the video game, that is something that we have to add on top of it.
The highlighted is obviously a lie though. Baldur's Gate 3 does not have a proper reaction system, and comments by Swen/Larian have heavily implied that they are still working on the reaction system to make it work better with 5e. But how can they simultaneously have had "ported [5e's reaction system] to the computer game" and yet, 1 year after EA release, 2-4 years past initial development, still have a reaction system with less functionality than tabletop that they're trying to make work more like 5e? Shouldn't they just able able to use that original build?

There are numerous other aspects of BG3 that don't make any sense if Larian truly "ported all the rules to the computer game" first. Height and Backstab Advantage, countless spells, shove checks not working properly (atheletics vs athletics/acrobatics skill check), jump+disengage bonus action, bonus action hide, darkvision, the short rest system, Prone implementing unconscious (and losing concentration), casting 2 leveled spells in a turn, surfaces, mage hand being a summon, the list goes on. And many of these are universal things, not niche "one subclass's ability" things that it'd be reasonable for Larian to implement only in later builds.

Sure, it's possible that
- Larian implemented all of these exactly matching 5e (modulo bugs and misunderstanding the rules)
- Larian then changed these things to their homebrew versions
- For a good number of them, Larian then changed BACK to closer to RAW

But it's overwhelmingly more likely that Larian did not start with a build that was just 5e rules. They started with a D&D-DOS hybrid which was much more DOS than it is currently, and only after releasing the game to the public they were told by many players about all the shortcomings of their homebrew changes and began implementing these things closer to per 5e rules.

Edit: To clarify, it's perfectly fine that Larian literally did not implement every single D&D rule first; "all rules" obviously is an exaggeration. At the very least they wouldn't have all classes implemented in this first build, which again is fine. The problem is the sheer number of important rules that were clearly changed from 5e RAW on initial EA release, rules which realistically wouldn't have been implemented that way had Larian truly tried 5e RAW first.

Last edited by mrfuji3; 10/11/21 01:32 AM.
Joined: Sep 2017
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2017
Oh I have my doubts as well. Could be that rules and systems are differentiated, or that it's implemented on a theoretical design level - Who knows. Not to get into depths of my speculations, it's rather besides the point. The point is what's said about promising an 'as faithful as possible' interpretation, which similar words have been said on context, but everyone's using that out of context here.

Last edited by The Composer; 10/11/21 01:33 AM.
Joined: Jun 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
Thanks for those Composer.

These are some of the comments that I would point to as well, specifically as being misleading. A company can wiggle and wheedle and say "Yes well, saying 'utilise' is not the same as saying we're actually using that system", but that's not how it reads, or comes off. It comes off as saying: "Hey, what rule system are you suing for your game?" "We're using D&D 5e!". And that is not the reality... it may not have intended to mislead, but misleading it is. I will speak from the perspective of players, and payers, who read that, felt it said something very clear and quite specific, and then were upset when that turned out not to bee the case, and felt strongly misled.

This doesn't feel like it's based on D&D 5e at all - or at least it does not seem to be so - It feels like it's based on something more personal to Larian, with 5e being worked into it and mapped over it. It feels like it would have been more honest to say "We're excited to see how our Divnity style gameplay and mechanics can make use of a 5e framework".

Here is where I have to step away from pure analytics:

Quote
We took the D&D fifth edition ruleset, we ported it to video game format, and we saw the things that didn't work.

I've seen this quote plenty. I simply do not believe it. I cannot accept it as an honest statement of truth. It looks, smells, tastes and feels in every way, and with all evidence present, as a dishonesty. There is no feasible, believable way that they started with a faithful implementation, and then rolled through design process from that, to what we have now - something that in it's earliest patches was almost a majority built out of D:OS2.

At very best... at very best, what I can see in this statement that I could actually believe, is that they set out the rules for 5e On Paper, looked at them, and then said "Well, we can't do that and that with our engine, and the probably wouldn't be fun, I don't think, I want to do more than that... Let's do it our way, start with what we've got, and try to see how much of this 5e we can work in as we go." And all without much actual contact with playing 5e or D&D in general.


I'm sorry that I'm so cynical about that... I just cannot buy it.

Joined: Sep 2017
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2017
Same, but it too is besides the point. I'm purely talking about player expectation of "faithful translation" being a hyperbolic self-imposed expectation that we as gamers often do (I fear I might be in that dangerous pool for Halo Infinite, biting nails in anticipation to not be disappointed) and using faint memories of statements where the context or details are long forgotten. I've provided the details and sources now, so you can make up your mind more clearly in a grounded way, so that our criticism can be genuine, instead of emotional or based on a fading memory.

Edit: I've even forwarded some criticism of my own that was brought up to Swen at some point, where I quote myself from private conversations:

Quote
[...] ...criticism for Swen is that I think he should stop referring to acts in any measure in how he did with Dos2, because it just confuses players. Saying it has three acts (just like Dos2 had in his words) makes people think act 1 is 1/3 of the game, which in the definition of how he uses those terms, doesn't equate in reality at all. Call it acts, but not in the whole "beginning, middle and an end" thing because players view each section of the game as an act, not how it's narratively segmented

Context here is Larian internally refers to acts as three-fold. DOS2 had three acts according to Swen: Fort Joy > Reaper's Coast + Nameless Isle > Arx. The rest of us would say Act 1 is Fort Joy, Act 2 is Reaper's Coast, Act 3 is Nameless Isle, Act 4 is ARX. That has seemed to be a trend for BG3 too which I believe is not speaking the language of the audience. So a lot of people think of EA as one third of the full game, because Act 1 out of 3 acts in the language they know from earlier games.

So there's all sorts of criticisms I'd make too, and I don't disagree with you. I'm just trying to ensure that we're speaking the same language here, and not relying on inaccurate claims based on memory.

Last edited by The Composer; 10/11/21 01:40 AM.
Joined: Sep 2017
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2017
Originally Posted by Niara
At very best... at very best, what I can see in this statement that I could actually believe, is that they set out the rules for 5e On Paper, looked at them, and then said "Well, we can't do that and that with our engine, and the probably wouldn't be fun, I don't think, I want to do more than that... Let's do it our way, start with what we've got, and try to see how much of this 5e we can work in as we go." And all without much actual contact with playing 5e or D&D in general.
.

This is closer to what I'd imagine too. Which isn't necessarly bad IMO. But now it's up to us to voice that feedback (and I've forwarded soooo much...) and hope that Larian comes to their senses and give it a practical shot. One of my top current examples being certain bonus actions that should be actions as per PHB, because the ripple effect is undermining the class fantasy and value of eg. Rogue.

But it helps to focus on that, rather than misquoting and rallying up anger about something that is a fading memory at best. I know you, and that you're not angry. But one post leads to another, and halfway through the next page it'd be spiraling the wrong way otherwise by someone else that has less control of temper.

Joined: Jun 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
You are right, and I should have kept an eye on myself better - constructive conversation is what matters.

Though... I'm not sure what the odds are, at this point, of them taking a step back, giving the whole engine an overhaul to actually work in a way that's deigned for 5e, and going from there. It seems a slim hope given how far throug the process we are now.

But... wee do know that a major update to magic, spellcasting and its associated systems is something that is happening, so, maybe the best thing to do is remain vocal about wanting a game system that feels like it was legitimately made to play 5e or something 5e-like, and hope that the architectural changes continue.

Joined: Sep 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by The Composer
Same, but it too is besides the point. I'm purely talking about player expectation of "faithful translation" being a hyperbolic self-imposed expectation that we as gamers often do (I fear I might be in that dangerous pool for Halo Infinite, biting nails in anticipation to not be disappointed) and using faint memories of statements where the context or details are long forgotten. I've provided the details and sources now, so you can make up your mind more clearly in a grounded way, so that our criticism can be genuine, instead of emotional or based on a fading memory.
[...]
So there's all sorts of criticisms I'd make too, and I don't disagree with you. I'm just trying to ensure that we're speaking the same language here, and not relying on inaccurate claims based on memory.
I don't think you can disentangle Larian's promise that they "ported it to video game format" first from the general expectations of BG3 set by Larian. It's part of their Full Statementâ„¢ on how well BG3 will match 5e RAW, and taken together it heavily implies that BG3 will be as close to 5e RAW as possible. That the vast majority of changed rules will be those that are un-fun or simply don't work in a video game.

So I suppose it's breaking the spirit of their words rather than the letter (except actually the letter of the specific "ported 5e rules video game first" sentence). Yes, they literally said that there would be modifications. But they also implied that they'd only modify 5e rules when necessary, which doesn't seem to be the case imo.

Can I sue Larian for false advertising? Absolutely not. Am I disappointed at many of the (imo needless) changes away from 5e they've made, which doesn't quite match the impression I had prior to EA release? Yes. But of course, as you say, the best way to advocate for any changes is to argue for why BG3 would be better if Mechanic X was changed.

p.s. I agree that the "Act" language is confusing, especially given that Larian map design naturally leads to considering a single theme-park location as one "Act."

Page 4 of 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 25 26

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