Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 5 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Dunno ... i kinda presumed that once one person of our party drags the Absolute atention, we all get affected.


Vive et vivant. wink
Joined: Sep 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by Flooter
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
the early party long rest cutscene, where everyone feels sick and Lae'zel wants to kill us because she thinks we're turning. But then we wake up feeling perfectly fine, conclusive evidence that our tadpole is different from normal ceremorphosis.

For what it's worth, that cutscene only triggers if the player used tadpole powers. And I'm fairly sure that the first tadpole-power opportunity (when the game encourages the player to try using it for tutorial purposes) doesn't count. So players wary of the tadpole will miss that important bit of knowledge. Not to mention, players who rest as little as seems prudent given the circumstances will miss other cutscenes, such as Gale saying the ceremorphosis timeline is off.

The game never reassures players who play scared (few long rests, no tadpole usage) yet keeps reinforcing the tadpole's danger. In this way, BG3 punishes player immersion by withholding key information from those who choose to take the threat seriously.
Ah, I didn't realize that there was this condition.

Your 2nd paragraph perfectly summarizes my thoughts on this.

Joined: Jul 2021
W
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
W
Joined: Jul 2021
Originally Posted by Ikke
Originally Posted by williams85
Since most companions aren't really the best of friends, why would they run around gossiping to eachother about something i said or did,

From an immersion point of view: some adventurers go out exploring while the rest stay at the camp, doing nothing. After some time, the explorers return to camp, covered in blood and mud, carrying large amounts of cheese. Wouldn´t the people who stayed at camp want to hear what happened?

Originally Posted by williams85
and even if they did tell eachother, the offended companion should confront me and ask if it's true, or ask why i did what i did, maybe i would get a speech check to convince them it was the right decision during those circumstances or something like that, just getting an automatic disapproval from someone through hearsay isn't really fair.

Yes, that would make more sense and be more interesting.

So a conversation between SH and Laezel would go something like this?
-OMG, giiirl, what happened to you??
-Well you see Tav here, saved a bunch really cute puppies, that i really should'nt approve of but i did anyway because i am really conflicted and mysterious..
-He did what!!! Saving Puppies, when we have tadpoles to get rid off! Hmpf, i do not approve of such actions!

I just have a hard time imagining it.
smile

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Italy
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Italy
Originally Posted by Piff
Floaty weapons isn't actually something that is overly breaking for me, perhaps it's that I've spent too long playing crpgs where floaty weapons are a commonly used shortcut and it's become normalised in my mind, but I understand why it's breaking for others. It would be nice if our armour incorporated extra straps or hooks to at least try and make it look like our aren't just velcroed on. I'm also torn on the issue of backpacks, I've played older rpgs that managed to do them, but I also feel like they would cause clipping issues in BG3 and ultimately make things worse.

You are right, there are actually other immensely more immersion-breaking features present in the current iteration of the game. "Floating weapons" are just a case study, used to debate how is ludicrous to try and justify why such a thing is supposed to make sense.

We all know they are there only because Larian has not yet put time into creating more animations for the topic, and not because there is a lore reason behind it. It's bothering because we all know they have the ability and technology to do a proper animation for weapons (DOS1&2 have them and the engine is the same), this is all. I think we can all agree that the game would look nicer if one-handed weapons were sitting on the hips of characters instead of popping out from behind their heads in a quite silly fashion.

https://preview.redd.it/3xobpngr7ct...7b8b34020e53c05214c8f4d2eb4987184baad9bc

All the discussion was about the right of the customer to complain about arguably bad features, and the fact that the developers have the last word on the final build of the game (which is obvious) doesn't imply that they are making the right call.

Originally Posted by Gray Ghost
See, I don't think that's truly conclusive though. All it does is confirm that things are strange. It's another mystery, one that potentially can happen early enough in the game that you lack any information to really extrapolate from it. Sure we can guess that what we felt was ceremorphosis being interrupted, but I don't think you get the effect if there's still uncertainty floating around. Also, just because it's different than normal doesn't mean anything firmly. It's all just adding a layer of mystery and uncertainty. My problem is that they seem to be trying to have it both ways and failing. Either keep up the sense of tension and uncertainty and design the game with that in mind, or firmly and definitively relieve the tension. Based on what they seem to want to be doing, Larian should find a way to firmly establish "we don't need to worry about changing anytime soon, we can take our time" and then postioning it so that the mystery of why is truly front and centre.

At the end of the camp scene you talk about, everyone assumes that it was just them having had a bad meal, no one knows what happened and the idea that it had to do with ceremorphosis isn't even brought up again. We as the audience can guess, and that's great for keeping us tense and wondering what's going on. But that's not catharsis. That's not a big, emotional release. That's building up the tension. Oh, we thought the big moment was here but instead it was nothing. Now we know less than we thought we did. The tension of this plotline doesn't rise to a crescendo. It rises and then fizzles out.

Exactly this. The thing that our ceremorphsis process is anomalous doesn't really mean anything, maybe it's just going to take a week more, maybe a single day more. The fact that the tadpole is "dormant" doesn't imply that it's going to stay that way indefinitely, maybe it's just going to wake up the next morning and eat our brains.

All this situation is dysfunctional for the game. The devs want us to use long rests, since a lot of content and cutscenes trigger with long rests, but the plot urges us to advance at the speed of light and rest only the strict necessary not to collapse.
It's the same problem Cyberpunk2077 has, where you have a brain killing device ticking in your head but, instead of going to solve the problem immediately, if you want to explore 90% of the content the game has to offer you need to pretend the main plot doesn't exist. The Witcher 3 had the same problem also, at least for the first half of the game, where the main plot urges you to find Ciri but instead you can just go around playing Gwent and, since you don't know if finding Ciri will end the game or not, you are going to do all the side quests first, even if it doesn't make any sense.

Having an urgent objective is an amazing plot device, but it must be used wisely. If the plot wants me to go straight from point A to point B, then please, don't put there additional content which doesn't make sense to play until point B is reached.

Also, on a side note (which was already brought up: resurrection is waaaaaaay too common and makes little sense:
1) We cannot resurrect NPCs. I know this will force Larian to write more dialogue for the resurrected NPCs, but for at least the most likely ones to be resurrected (for example, the Tiefling child killed by the snake) it should be implemented.
2) We saw that when an NPC with a tadpole like ours inside its head dies, the tadpole just runs away into the wilderness. Ok, so why when one of my characters dies can't I just wait for the tadpole to run away and then resurrect it? I mean, every one of them has at least one resurrection scroll in their inventory (absurd), plus we have an undead dude in our camp selling more of them.

I understand the need to let people resurrect their PCs, but this is not really the way to implement this feature. Resurrection is a rare and really costly spell in D&D (and in the FR), the game should reflect that. And if it chooses not to, at least make resurrection consistent with the plot/game you created (see points 1 and 2).

Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
veteran
Online Confused
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
No exacly floating weapon, but entertaining defence of back scabbards. Just to give Larian some ideas ;-) Also, nice brigandine


Joined: Aug 2014
Ikke Offline OP
member
OP Offline
member
Joined: Aug 2014
Originally Posted by Sharet
every one of them has at least one resurrection scroll in their inventory (absurd)

Yes, that is one of the immersion killers not mentioned in the first message, but it is something awkward right at the start of the game. We learn that mindflayers can die. I have no reason to doubt that they can then be resurrected with a resurrection spell. We also understand that the mindflayers want us to have a tadpole behind our eyeball. And since they are not stupid and know about their own tadpoles, they will understand that dying and resurrecting rids people of the tadpole. So why didn´t they pat us down and confiscate our resurrection scrolls before putting us inside of a pod???

On a side note: how does cenemorphosis change a victim's clothes into mindflayer clothes?

Last edited by Ikke; 17/05/22 08:48 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Italy
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Italy
Originally Posted by Ikke
Yes, that is one of the immersion killers not mentioned in the first message, but it is something awkward right at the start of the game. We learn that mindflayers can die. I have no reason to doubt that they can then be resurrected with a resurrection spell. We also understand that the mindflayers want us to have a tadpole behind our eyeball. And since they are not stupid and know about their own tadpoles, they will understand that dying and resurrecting rids people of the tadpole. So why didn´t they pat us down and confiscate our resurrection scrolls before putting us inside of a pod???

They just put the scroll there for gameplay purposes, I think they expect people just to be happy with them, so there would have been no need for an explanation.
Still, due to the implication of having such a powerful and rare spell in such a large supply, without it making sense or the possibility to use it on key NPCs, is really off-putting.

I mean, Larian is spending tons of time and resources on iterations such as the one in the Grimforge PFH, where the conversations change in the 0,1% chance that the second player is going to steal the powder while player 1 is engaged in the conversation, but is overlooking much more important matters from both a gameplay and roleplaying standpoint like this problem with the resurrection scrolls.


Originally Posted by Ikke
On a side note: how does cenemorphosis change a victim's clothes into mindflayer clothes?

I asked myself the same thing about the clothes in the trailer xD I think was an oversight (we can justify it by saying that that one was a particularly powerful mind flayer who conjured its robe right after the transformation), because the girl turning inside the pod in the nautiloid was naked after her transformation, if I remember correctly.
There are different kinds of transmutation spells which change also the equipment (polymorph, natural form etc.) but I don't think that is the case, probably just an oversight, as I said.

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Metamorphosis project monthly meeting:
"The process is going as planned. It's total efficacy and speed has been significantly increased up to 300%! Sucessful completion is now possible within a week"
" Great, great! Gentlemans, but what happens once they change?"
Confused looks.
" They...become mindflayers?"
" Naked mindflayers, I'm afraid".
*Noises of horror, someone pukes in the corner of the room"
"Josh, include clothe conjuration spell in the process"
"Of course my tentacleness!"


Alt+ left click in the inventory on an item while the camp stash is opened transfers the item there. Make it a reality.
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Italy
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Italy
Originally Posted by virion
Metamorphosis project monthly meeting:
"The process is going as planned. It's total efficacy and speed has been significantly increased up to 300%! Sucessful completion is now possible within a week"
" Great, great! Gentlemans, but what happens once they change?"
Confused looks.
" They...become mindflayers?"
" Naked mindflayers, I'm afraid".
*Noises of horror, someone pukes in the corner of the room"
"Josh, include clothe conjuration spell in the process"
"Of course my tentacleness!"

That made me chuckle, thank you! laugh

Joined: Oct 2021
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2021
This thread reminds me of Agent Smith explaining that the first Matrix was initially an ideal world (ie fun) but ultimately failed because the humans rejected it as unrealistic. Only be recreating the drudgery and and tedium of reality could they achieve the full immersion required to keep the batteries humming away.

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Ranxerox
This thread reminds me of Agent Smith explaining that the first Matrix was initially an ideal world (ie fun) but ultimately failed because the humans rejected it as unrealistic. Only be recreating the drudgery and and tedium of reality could they achieve the full immersion required to keep the batteries humming away.
laugh

Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
Originally Posted by Ranxerox
This thread reminds me of Agent Smith explaining that the first Matrix was initially an ideal world (ie fun) but ultimately failed because the humans rejected it as unrealistic. Only be recreating the drudgery and and tedium of reality could they achieve the full immersion required to keep the batteries humming away.
Except for the fact that no "fun" would be lost in the process.


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
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
I mean WTF?
Whats up with nearly everyone getting mixed up with IMMERSION = REALISM ???
Nobody is saying that. You dont need an Earthly <realistic> world to be immersed in a fantasy game environment.
Its all about how your game world lore and fantasy atmosphere is integrated within the game, making you feel your actually there adventuring within these fantasy rules.

Simple Day/night timer cycles with random weather and various fantasy sounds based on your zone is immersive.
24 hour day night cycles with moon cycles, weather patterns based on the planets movements, humidity levels, clouds, variable wind direction on trees, flora growing etc... goes beyond immersion, its REALISTIC.

Right now Larian is giving us very little in terms of common RPG immersion elements. Time is still. No day night. Not much weather effects. Environmental sounds lacking. Not much banter/comments based on area. Stuff/areas is way too close to each other. Camping implementation is still silly. Lots of gear does not fit the world lore, the UI isn't the slightest integrated with the world (spellbooks not looking like spellbooks but like a smartphone app...)...

I think gamers (and devs..) as changed to a point that they just dont care to be immersed anymore; and have no idea what that means. I mean would ANY RPG gamer say "who needs day/night, its just cosmetics?" in the late 90s early 2000s??? Lets get rid of day/night for BG2! People hated it in the first game right ?!

Yet thats exactly whats going on here now. People care now for just <the meat> of things. 6 character parties? Too much. 300 spells/30 classes? Too much. 20 playable NPCs? Too much.

Mainstream RPGs now : Give me the encounter. Give me the loot. Give me the sex. NEXT.

Last edited by mr_planescapist; 31/05/22 03:04 PM.
Joined: May 2022
E
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
E
Joined: May 2022
Well my first post in this forum, so hey to everyone.

I do understand the concept of immersion. However, I do understand that the concept is largely subjective and additionally is overused as an argument to criticize games. Lack of day/night cycle does nothing to my immersion in the game since it is clearly stated that I'm ending the day when I rest. If I would feel clearly that my party spent more than 12 hours adventuring between rests it might be an issue for my immersion.

It doesn't take away the fact that being able to decide to adventure during the night would be a fun option. But the lack thereof isn't as big of a problem for me specifically and is understandable considering the implementation might require too many resources.

Background noises (and most other repeated sound bites) in most games (including BGs) are often cited as the biggest offenders in immersion breaking. Still, I acknowledge that the sound design in BG3 still requires work and hopefully we will get to experience improvements in that regard.

Originally Posted by mr_planescapist
I mean WTF?
I mean would ANY RPG gamer say "who needs day/night, its just cosmetics?" in the late 90s early 2000s???

Let me paraphrase your statement and ask: Would ANY RPG gamer in the late 90s say "Who needs full VO and cinematics?" I assure you that most people that played BI games at that time would love to hear and see more. One of the reason why BG or Torment were so beloved in my country was a stellar localization by VAs. Imagining games that would have more cinematic flair was common then. If Bioware had a technical possibility of delivering more VO and cinematics in BG they certainly would. Look at their later games.

Still I've seen people on this forum express an opinion that cinematics are pointless in BG3 and a waste. I personally couldn't disagree more.

One last point:
BG originals had many subclasses and it didn't help that half of them were really not worth playing. Pathfinder WOTR has tons of classes, but a lot of them don't work properly and are clearly just bad options. I love both games, but I don't mind seeing what a more restrained approach might bring us.

Last edited by Elebhra; 31/05/22 05:01 PM.
Joined: Oct 2021
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2021
Originally Posted by Elebhra
Lack of day/night cycle does nothing to my immersion in the game since it is clearly stated that I'm ending the day when I rest.

I agree.

Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
For me one of the main problems with immersion is the fact that RPG games tend to give rather limited sense of exploring the unknown: the game worlds are usually so small you can't get lost in them, and exploration is mostly a challenge just because of external factors like hostile encounters. If the world is divided into small separate maps(like in BG3), it's inevitable that you'll have to settle for a sort of theater setting for the whole duration of the game with a minimal sense of physical exploration. Open world games aren't really much better in this respect, since they're usually saddled with bad world building(bad writing, sterile world design) and packed with quests/loot/encounters rewarding the player at every turn. You're also at all times aware exactly where you are and where you should go, unless you can turn the ingame gps -systems and fast travel off. Quite often exploration/travel in RPG's is as immersive as plotting a shopping trip IRL in a familiar town via your local route app.

But, despite really loving a well implemented day/night cycle in RPGs, I sort of understand why people don't care about stuff like that in BG3, since it or most other RPGs aren't really that immersive in the first place, and don't really do much with the feature. If BG3 had an exploration emphasis where day/night cycle would affect your environment, and therefore your ability to move/function/survive in the world, day/night cycle would be a nice addition, but it's just not that kind of game.

Last edited by IdPreferNotTo; 31/05/22 05:59 PM.

The promise of being led to death is reason enough to follow.
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Originally Posted by Elebhra
Let me paraphrase your statement and ask: Would ANY RPG gamer in the late 90s say "Who needs full VO and cinematics?" I assure you that most people that played BI games at that time would love to hear and see more. One of the reason why BG or Torment were so beloved in my country was a stellar localization by VAs. Imagining games that would have more cinematic flair was common then. If Bioware had a technical possibility of delivering more VO and cinematics in BG they certainly would. Look at their later games.

Still I've seen people on this forum express an opinion that cinematics are pointless in BG3 and a waste. I personally couldn't disagree more.

I agree with you but wasn't it because the old games were mostly immersive on most point (or at least they don't have too many "immersion breaking" things) that players "would have killed" to have cinematics ?
Could a game with "beautifull graphics and dialogs" and many other immersion breaking things be considered as "immersive" ?

Everyone has its own preferences of course but I'm mostly sure different games requires different things to really be immersive.
Immersion in a CRPG is not the same as in a survival game or in a strategy game. Isn't "the sims" an immersive life simulation despite its awefull graphics ?

I guess we could agree to say that cRPG, besides the gameplay (obvious part of a "game"), are mostly foccused on the characters, the story and the world.

But is a world in which time and NPCs are completely frozen immersive ?
Is a world in which distance are "compressed" immersive ?
Is a world in which cows can climb ladder immersive ?
Is a story in which an army cannot find something that's right next to them (and not really hidden) immersive ?

It's just a few exemple but in my opinion it's not and that's my biggest dissapointment with BG3.
"Immersion" is only defined by other elements rather than being a goal that itself defines other elements.

I fully agree with mrplanescapist when he said that people tend to confuse immersion and realism even if both have strong links in some genre (i.e survival games).
He's totally right and that's maybe why a lot of developers often favour "beautiful graphics" rather than "immersion" itself.

But imo it's because modern games like TW were immersive on top of being beautifull that they have become legendary games.

Last edited by Maximuuus; 31/05/22 06:36 PM.
Joined: Aug 2014
Ikke Offline OP
member
OP Offline
member
Joined: Aug 2014
Originally Posted by Elebhra
Still I've seen people on this forum express an opinion that cinematics are pointless in BG3 and a waste. I personally couldn't disagree more.

I love the cinematics. And they do a very good job at making characters come to life. So in my opinion cinematics do increase immersion. They may even increase the gap between being sucked into the game and being torn out of it by things that make no sense in the game world.

For instance, I just stumbled upon another immersion breaker: One of my party had fallen into a dungeon with a locked door. The other three were far away and encountered a merchant. The character that was locked up was still able to trade with the merchant.

About the day/night cycle: I don't find the eternal day a problem, although I would love to see sunset, night and sunrise. But the lack of progress of time is rather unsettling. The whole world seems to frozen and only springs to life when you appear on the scene. And when you leave, it resumes being frozen. That effect *is* something that breaks immersion for me.

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Elebhra
Well my first post in this forum, so hey to everyone.
Welcome to the forum!😊

Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
I guess we could agree to say that cRPG, besides the gameplay (obvious part of a "game"), are mostly foccused on the characters, the story and the world.

But is a world in which time and NPCs are completely frozen immersive ?
Is a world in which distance are "compressed" immersive ?
Is a world in which cows can climb ladder immersive ?
Is a story in which an army cannot find something that's right next to them (and not really hidden) immersive ?


The stuff you listed doesn't really detract that much from my immersion(or lack of it) though, since it's the story and the characters(if they're any good) that elicit most of the immersion for me. The world that most RPGs offer is hardly ever very complex, spacious or alive, so I equate it mostly with a theater set, and in theater most of the stuff you listed, despite being silly, doesn't really break immersion.


The promise of being led to death is reason enough to follow.
Page 5 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

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