If the whole point of this chain control scheme is to allow us to break the party in two, and if the full party only has 4 members to begin with, then why even bother? I mean what does a split party with the chain actually do for us? 2 leaders with 1 follower each in Co-Op? Or 3 leaders where one person has to manage a tag along in a Tri-Op?

If that was the goal they could have just made it like NWN with henchmen, or like every Bioware RPG since Jade Empire.

The defining feature of BG gameplay was controlling the whole group. The group control dynamic provided pretty much all the tactical interest in combat and all the rp interest outside of combat. I don't know, I guess everyone decided at some point that what we really wanted was a successor to Everquest? or another version of Kotor, where the companions just feel like beefed up summons that you could dress?

All I've wanted since 2002 is for another game to come out with full party control for a large party with diverse and compelling companions, using D&D rules, and set in the Forgotten Realms... And every developer since just keeps dropping the ball on it.

Icewind Dale 2 was fun and set in FR, but there were no companions to speak of. ToEE was alright, even if it was buggier than an insect plague at launch, but the Greyhawk setting reminds me too much of 70s Chainmail and airbrushed vans, not the deep nostalgia I feel for late 80s early 90s FR gold box computer games. Pillars was cool with the 5 man for a renaissance attempt, but I just don't care about Eora and blunderbusses. Same deal with Pathfinder, which does most things right, but still can't quite bridge the fact that Golarion isn't Faerun.

Baldur's Gate had the family recipe chocolate chip cookie totally dialed, but then it's like someone decided it needed peanut butter or walnuts or sea salt on top, and now it just doesn't have the same taste. Alas

Always making us settle for best 2 out of 3 on this one. Why can't they just remake the thing in 3D with modern graphics? I honestly now think they should have made a Reboot rather than a Sequel. Because if the game engine could handle that, at least we'd know it would work for the next thing.

Ps. I wonder if NWN2 had launched with a BG1 reboot (as an actual developer created module, instead of a fan made module coming out 10 years later) if that game might have been more successful? One thing it did prove was that the NWN2's base game was pretty ill adapted to a fan tribute/reboot of BG1, and required a shit ton of tinkering and years on the grind to even get close to the same feel. Not so much because of the change from 2nd edition to 3rd, or the change from 2d environments to 3d, but because of the core UI defaults for character selection and party movement.

Still its an interesting thought experiment. Like could BG3's engine support a remake of BG1 that was in any way faithful to the feel of the original ? Right now I don't think it could, even with some serious liberties taken. Not in a satisfying way at any rate. And that's not because of 5e or TB or because the story wouldn't catch, but mainly because of the basic UI and control scheme they've adopted.

Since BG3 came out, I'm not sure I've sunken more than 100 hours into it, but I did replay all of BG1/2 like three times during the same period (well to Watcher's Keep anyway, I keep deciding to re-roll a new toon from the start rather than going for the Throne hehe) but at various points along the way I have paused and thought, 'damn, this battle would be fun to see play out in a turn based scheme' or 'this level would be cool to see in 3d with elevations.' Just using the basic idea adopted for the NWN2 port, where the levels are kind of doubled in size with minor features added but using the same larger shapes and sweeps, that the og game would make a really nice redux. Done that way minor changes might become interesting, like watching a different cut or adaptation of an old film. I'd be cool to see the first battle with Saravok done up in a full cinematic. Or to see Beregost or High Hedge with the same essential quests and merchants and such included, but just made huge and done up to the nines. Seems like it would be a fun pet project, but of course the wizards sold the rights to different companies. They should have kept it all under one roof, so the devs could rip or riff off the same icons or use the old VA or sound effects assets, to make a fun all-in-one for the entire saga, but with a modern engine. It would take all the pressure off the story design, since we already know basically what happens anyway, and put the emphasis on ramping all the other stuff like the environments or battles or minor NPC character flavor.

Has anyone run into Noober yet?

Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by Nibel
Also he likes to separate party members for no reason.
Well, that's easy to explain: because controlling them altogether is borderline painful and even if he's not willing to admit it, his heart knows.

The default should just always have them separated, and the player should have to do something if they want them to move in unison, the classic ctrl+a. If its co-op and you want to take control over a companion follower then sure, have a way to say this go is chained to that guy. But the default should assume that one player is controlling all 4 characters and be easy to work with from that standpoint. I wish it could be 6, with six maybe there would be some interest in a split party with two players each controlling 3 characters, but whatever. In "follow the leader" games the only character that occupies meaningful gamespace is the protagonist, and the henchmen just sort of float around and do whatever the AI likes doing, because that's how those games are meant to work. Like Dragon Age or Kotor where the followers function like a stat boost with window dressing, but the player doesn't really control what they're all doing, or potentially controlling everything for a whole group + summons like in BG. The co-op group dynamic is kind of weird to me. I recall playing BG2 with two people and being perfectly satisfied with how that worked, but it seemed more interesting to play with a party of 2 characters there, you know rather than a party of 6 split into two groups of 3 characters under the control of 2 players. I can understand why in a TB game, you'd want more characters for a more action oriented pace, but then they kind of buck that by capping at 4 anyway. So the potential of the split party or chained groups seems diminished anyway by the focus on smaller party size.

Last edited by Black_Elk; 18/02/21 04:33 AM.