Baldur's Gate 3?

[bugarup]

2 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Actually that would be an  effective way  for me to lose interest in Romance, you can only create Romance options around party members like mindflayers 

And an effective way for me to gain it.  Scoring with a booby lady in chainmail bikini is no more realistic than getting it on with a Mr Cthulhu anyway; 'sides, ideal place to use phrase "Can I nom your head". 

[Chilloutman]

42 minutes ago, bugarup said:

And an effective way for me to gain it.  Scoring with a booby lady in chainmail bikini is no more realistic than getting it on with a Mr Cthulhu anyway; 'sides, ideal place to use phrase "Can I nom your head". 

its fantasy, I think most of us fantasy about chainmail bikini chicks than coitus with brain eating squids xD

[BruceVC]

46 minutes ago, Chilloutman said:

its fantasy, I think most of us fantasy about chainmail bikini chicks than coitus with brain eating squids xD

QFT,  that is what a RPG experience is about. Its fantasy and about creating a journey with people you think about....but I cant RP with something I cannot understand on certain levels, like Romance with a mindflayer 

[Mamoulian War]

10 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

QFT,  that is what a RPG experience is about. Its fantasy and about creating a journey with people you think about....but I cant RP with something I cannot understand on certain levels, like Romance with a mindflayer 

Well, a good gamer always prepares for a new challenges. You could for example binge watch some romantic ecchi animes with lots of tenatacles involved, to qualify yourself for such a deep RP experience

[BruceVC]

1 minute ago, Mamoulian War said:

Well, a good gamer always prepares for a new challenges. You could for example binge watch some romantic ecchi animes with lots of tenatacles involved, to qualify yourself for such a deep RP experience

True 

[IndiraLightfoot]

Hmm, Octodad is the vision that pops into my mind, reading about this mindflayer romancing speculation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJKtJG7bDME

Hmm, how to post a Youtube-vid? My old format doesn't seem to work...

And here's a snippet from PCGamer's interview a week ago:

'Vincke suggests the game will be heavily systems-driven and Larian will be creating its own D&D-inspired ruleset. "We'll stay true to our roots, so we'll give players lots of systems and lots of agency to use these systems and try to accomplish what you need to on your personal adventure and your party's adventure. That's not going to change; that's the core of what we're doing. But then there will be an interpretation of D&D, because if you port the core rules—we tried it!—to a videogame, it doesn't work."'

Will this be Sword Coast Legends all over again, with a few skill trees and skills on timers? Since that was a pretty huge mistake on their behalf.

Edited June 17, 2019 by IndiraLightfoot

[kanisatha]

2 hours ago, IndiraLightfoot said:

Hmm, Octodad is the vision that pops into my mind, reading about this mindflayer romancing speculation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJKtJG7bDME

Hmm, how to post a Youtube-vid? My old format doesn't seem to work...

And here's a snippet from PCGamer's interview a week ago:

'Vincke suggests the game will be heavily systems-driven and Larian will be creating its own D&D-inspired ruleset. "We'll stay true to our roots, so we'll give players lots of systems and lots of agency to use these systems and try to accomplish what you need to on your personal adventure and your party's adventure. That's not going to change; that's the core of what we're doing. But then there will be an interpretation of D&D, because if you port the core rules—we tried it!—to a videogame, it doesn't work."'

Will this be Sword Coast Legends all over again, with a few skill trees and skills on timers? Since that was a pretty huge mistake on their behalf.

This article brings up the possibility of replacing spell slots and spell memorization with something else. Lots of interesting (in a non-positive way) things in the article.

https://www.pcgamesn.com/baldurs-gate-3/dungeons-and-dragons-6th-edition

[213374U]

I think there's a lot of romanticizing going on around here. Yes, getting your first +1 dagger was a mind-blowing milestone, but I don't see how being a 6hp mage with 1 Magic Missile per day or being restricted to autoattack as a fighter type was fun or engaging in any way.

I'm all for feeling underpowered in a world where danger lurks behind every shadow, but most of BG1 felt like playing chess with pawns only. No tactical depth to speak of.

Bar's pretty low set for Larian, if it's BG1 gameplay people want to compare to.

[kanisatha]

3 hours ago, 213374U said:

I think there's a lot of romanticizing going on around here. Yes, getting your first +1 dagger was a mind-blowing milestone, but I don't see how being a 6hp mage with 1 Magic Missile per day or being restricted to autoattack as a fighter type was fun or engaging in any way.

I'm all for feeling underpowered in a world where danger lurks behind every shadow, but most of BG1 felt like playing chess with pawns only. No tactical depth to speak of.

Bar's pretty low set for Larian, if it's BG1 gameplay people want to compare to.

What for you is romanticizing for me is realism and immersion. Yes, believe it or not, I like that part of a game where I am just a tiny little pawn. It *is* engaging and fun for me. This is why I prefer playing BG1 over BG2 every single time, and, I prefer the early parts of BG1 over the later parts, essentially beginning to lose interest once I get to the city of Baldur's Gate.

[Chilloutman]

I think big appeal of BG1 over BG2 was that whole exploration portion of the game, where you could run around countryside. I was missing that in BG2 a lot

[IndiraLightfoot]

12 minutes ago, kanisatha said:

What for you is romanticizing for me is realism and immersion. Yes, believe it or not, I like that part of a game where I am just a tiny little pawn. It *is* engaging and fun for me. This is why I prefer playing BG1 over BG2 every single time, and, I prefer the early parts of BG1 over the later parts, essentially beginning to lose interest once I get to the city of Baldur's Gate.

Yeah, this is my view in a nutshell. It's like the correct CRPG immersion dialled in for my taste. I have a gazillionth playthrough in the works right now, and I'm utterly hesitant at even entering Baldur's Gate. Ever since my first playthrough, I always have been. We've heard from Swen that the game will take place in a few sections of the city initially (I wonder for how long, though). 

[bringingyouthefuture]

I don't think you can romance a creature that would eat your brain, though I would be open to a game ending romance for sure, whoops I fell in love with the assassin trying to kill me ... just saying lol.

I am not sure I would want BG3 to go from level 1 to 20 in one campaign either.  I read that the prequel campaign goes from 1 to 13 in levels.  Why force the higher levels just because it is a video game?  Plenty of great enemies you can fight at the lower levels, not to mention dragons and demons really feel unique rather than just another beast my overpowered God basically wipes off the map.

[ShadySands]

 

Edited June 17, 2019 by ShadySands
broken formatting

[213374U]

4 hours ago, kanisatha said:

What for you is romanticizing for me is realism and immersion. Yes, believe it or not, I like that part of a game where I am just a tiny little pawn. It *is* engaging and fun for me. This is why I prefer playing BG1 over BG2 every single time, and, I prefer the early parts of BG1 over the later parts, essentially beginning to lose interest once I get to the city of Baldur's Gate.

I can absolutely believe that you prefer BG1 to BG2 or whatever. I have no problem with people preferring the exploration of open wilderness areas to the mostly urban and closed setting of 2. That's cool. Different strokes and all that.

What I have a hard time understanding is how a mechanically simpler game means a more immersive experience. Because it's the shallow mechanics and lack of tactical options that make it more immersive for you, yes? Otherwise, immersion and the feeling of being a hapless pawn could be achieved through narrative means and atmosphere building, and this would be a moot point.

Arguments about "realism" in this context, though, immediately remind me of the old debates about the merits and flaws of boobplate... We simply aren't going to see eye to eye on this one, I think.

Edited June 17, 2019 by 213374U
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Sven_]

Interestingly, the relatively lack of options in AD&D made for an easier translation into real-time, the thing that Bioware back then did. What did Bioware do? Inspired largely by RTS games (mainly their own Warcraft sessions), which Combat had relatively straight Forward resolutions, going with the System now known as RtWP. So, whilst BG(1)'s combat is largely simplistic in comparison; I personally still prefer it over say the bulk of the combat in the recent Pathfinder Kingmaker. There's less depth for sure. Still on Pathfinder there's so much happening simultaneously, also on the opponent's end, that it's hard to get a feel for what really is turning the tides of battle. This inherently complexity naturally grows the higher level the encounter; as the amount of attack rolls resolved across the battle field multiply true to the source material; and opponents also tend to have/use more abilities. [I think it would be much better as a turn-based game, btw].
 
I'm still waiting for a RtWP game that would refute my Theory, but the more complex the mechanics, and the more Abstract the Combat Resolution (concentration checks on spellcasting; positioning triggering flanking conditions; checks on concealment/miss chances), the more you Strip real-time of ist inherent strength. Which is the more natural flow of Combat. IN D&D style Systems, it naturally doesn't help that unlike RTS truly, which are almost like rock-paper-scissor Affairs in comparison in their unit ability design; buffs/debuffs are oft ever stacking marginally increases to hit Chance, etc. which are hard to visualize and get a feel for -- and thus go against the inherent strength of simulating a more "natural flow" of battle itself.

There's also a lot to be said about choice fatigue, but then I've always prefered Myth with its distinct Units/abilities over a Command&Conquer clone that back in the day tried to trump the original by providing hundreds of Units, each of which a slight Variation of the other. Whilst this is subjective; choices don't equal immersion. Whilst it is a wholly different game; the original Thief doesn't provide the player character with a gazillion of options and tools; but each of them have their use, and are meaningful. Actually, the entire game is still a masterclass in minimalism and is as much defined what the player can do, as well as the many things he -- as truly being a Thief -- cannot do.


tldr; I actually think that not a single dev going with real-time combat these days fully understands where Bioware were coming from back then. At the very least, the difference in feel is enormous. An interesting podcast on this, I think. https://www.idlethumbs.net/3ma/episodes/to-infinity-engine-and-beyond-1

Edited June 17, 2019 by Sven_

[bringingyouthefuture]

5 hours ago, ShadySands said:

 

And now I vote no romance ... I have changed my mind lol.

 

[kanisatha]

3 hours ago, 213374U said:

I can absolutely believe that you prefer BG1 to BG2 or whatever. I have no problem with people preferring the exploration of open wilderness areas to the mostly urban and closed setting of 2. That's cool. Different strokes and all that.

What I have a hard time understanding is how a mechanically simpler game means a more immersive experience. Because it's the shallow mechanics and lack of tactical options that make it more immersive for you, yes? Otherwise, immersion and the feeling of being a hapless pawn could be achieved through narrative means and atmosphere building, and this would be a moot point.

Arguments about "realism" in this context, though, immediately remind me of the old debates about the merits and flaws of boobplate... We simply aren't going to see eye to eye on this one, I think.

Actually, you've said it right here. For me, immersion comes more from the feel and the world and the story rather than from gameplay mechanics. So that's the difference. And besides, I've never cared for the mechanics and rules-set of 2e anyway, so for me there's not much of any meaningful difference between BG1 and 2 in that regard. And, the EE has brought all of BG2's mechanics and various other gameplay options into BG1. But, you are also right in that at the end of the day this is all very subjective.

[Gromnir]

10 hours ago, Chilloutman said:

I think big appeal of BG1 over BG2 was that whole exploration portion of the game, where you could run around countryside. I was missing that in BG2 a lot

other than too easy/too difficult, single biggest complaint 'bout bg1 on the bg2 development boards were the bg1 map. not kidding. not hyperbolic. even more than complaints 'bout underdeveloped party npcs were criticisms o' the repeated and reflexive mowing o' mostly empty wilderness maps. made folks... unhappy. "exploration" were a curse. weren't no meaningful exploration if all you is doing is uncovering every bit o' fog on every map, eh?

bioware listened. for bg2, bioware took out most 'o the admitted pointless and rote exploration and replaced with dense maps containing involved/multi-step quests. were a paradigm shift focusing on depth over breadth.

other than too easy/too difficult, single biggest post bg2 complaint were questioning why bioware abandoned all the wonderful bg1 exploration.

am having some small sympathy for developers. game development must, at times, feel like groundhog day. doesn't matter what changes is made or what improvements they attempt. doomed to repeat endless cycle.

poe were more streamlined. deadfire went sandbox.  didn't matter. lack o' exploration v. lack o' depth. and cycle repeats.

HA! Good Fun!

[Gorth]

7 hours ago, Sven_ said:

tldr; I actually think that not a single dev going with real-time combat these days fully understands where Bioware were coming from back then.

It's not like Bioware themselves had many choices at the time, when they were told to can Infinity Wars (the run of the mill RTS game they were pitching), but hey, maybe they could do a CRPG with the engine???

 

[InsaneCommander]

On 6/17/2019 at 1:20 AM, BruceVC said:

 Im unsure from an aesthetics perspective if that will work for me ...can you imagine courting a mindflayer

Part of the Romance arc is where you literally RP the dating experience like most other things in a RPG so the person has to have some level of physical connection

Actually that would be an  effective way  for me to lose interest in Romance, you can only create Romance options around party members like mindflayers 

Don't be speciescist! How do you know you won't like it? If Larian reads this topic, they may well use this idea to troll the players.

[algroth]

I mean, some tentacle play would surely attract the weeb market, right?

[Althernai]

On 6/16/2019 at 11:52 PM, IndiraLightfoot said:

As do I. This is why I hold BG1 in higher regard than BG2. I really liked the scarcity of magical items, and also the whole deal of everything being threatening from the get-go (at least before you realized that you could cheese your way through via ranged weapons, etc.) Swen's statement certainly has me worried.

I don't think magical items were that scarce even in BG1. From memory, right at the beginning, there was a Ring of Wizardry that gave a significant bonus to spell slots and very slightly later on (at the gnoll village), there were the Gauntlets of Dexterity which, if given to a character with average Dexterity, amounted to a massive bonus to both Armor Class and ranged attack. If those gauntlets exist in, for example, Pillars of Eternity, they would be an endgame item (which is part of the reason PoE was not as good as the BG series).

And of course BG2 kicked this up several notches. There were several good items even in Chateau Irenicus and once you got out into Chapter 2, there was all kinds of totally awesome stuff the likes of which simply isn't found in modern, balance-obsessed games. I think if Larian structures the loot distribution as it was done in the BG series, this would be a good thing.

[ShadySands]

Both Obsidian and inXile tried to get the rights to BG3

[Sarex]

On 6/18/2019 at 12:50 AM, 213374U said:

Arguments about "realism" in this context, though, immediately remind me of the old debates about the merits and flaws of boobplate... We simply aren't going to see eye to eye on this one, I think.

What do you have against boobplate?

[Mamoulian War]

Some elaborations, why boobplates did not exist, but could be plausible if the right circumstances would happen (in fantasy, they would happen sooner or later, compared to IRL, where some certainly would/could not)

https://youtu.be/lBtvS5yhTA8

 

https://youtu.be/6KHz0qWQA9I

 

He is also comparing it to Dongplate, which existed and was used for combat with fashion in mind ;-)

Edited June 19, 2019 by Mamoulian War