Jump to content

Baldur's Gate, PoE, sequels and the importance of originality


Recommended Posts

I ran across an article today: Baldur's Gate II: The Anatomy of a Sequel written by Ray Muzyka (one of the co-founders of Bioware) all the way back in 2001. It describes the philosophy and mechanics of the development process of BG2 and is sort of an executive summary version of what will hopefully be in the PoE Making-Of-Documentary once the latter finally comes out. It's kind of interesting to see what the main concerns were back then: it's mostly technical issues like leaving all of the Quality Assurance until the end and a lack of communication within the team. Given that nowadays games are being made by multi-decade industry veterans (Muzyka credits Feargus Urquhart, Chris Parker and Doug Avery for teaching Bioware a bug tracking method even back then) who by now must have streamlined and optimized all of these things to perfection, one would expect PoE (or, for that matter, even Dragon Age: Origins) to be much better than BG2... but by practically all accounts, this is not the case.

 

I tried to think about the cause of this. Part of it is probably that PoE and DA:O are both games which use an engine that is new to the developers and is being adapted (or in the case of DA:O, developed) concurrently with the game. However, I don't think that can be all of it. The original Baldur's Gate suffered from the same issue and while the impact of this can certainly be observed in certain aspects of the game, that didn't really stop it from becoming a classic.

 

I think the main problem PoE has is the very thing that made it so popular during the Kickstarter: it is a successor of the Infinity Engine games. Obsidian delivered exactly what they promised and while it is very good, it's difficult for it to measure up to the older games for people who played the latter first precisely because it is not very different from them (by design!). Somebody in the Codex review thread or maybe in the review itself said that BG was a mediocre game and indeed, if you compare it to the dozen or more descendants from Bioware, Black Isle and Obsidian that it spawned, it is far from the best of them. I personally played BG2 before BG and the latter came off as primitive and unremarkable. However, this sort of complaining completely misses the point: when it was first released, Baldur's Gate was original and innovative. I tried to a similar game and there really aren't any -- you can find its various elements spread out across Japanese RPGs, older D&D games and many others, but the specific combination was quite different from anything that came before.

 

Likewise, BG2 is great partly because it is quite different from its predecessor. The engine is obviously only slightly modified, but they deliberately set out not to make the same game again (Muzyka explicitly says this) and they succeeded. Planescape: Torment is in the same boat: it still uses the Infinity Engine, but the game feels quite different from either BG or BG2. On the other hand, PoE shares its most important features with either BG2 or PS:T or both. It certainly has a lot of differences, but most of them are either not that important or arguably not actually an improvement (i.e. I would argue that the old games did many things better).

 

So, assuming that it gets made (and why wouldn't it?), what can be done with PoE2? One way is to double down on outdoing the IE games on their own turf. It should be easier to do with the sequel because there now exists a stable engine. However, it's still rather difficult because the IE games have the advantage of being original and quite a few aspects of them are hard to beat (e.g. BG2 has some great voice acting -- PoE is good, but nobody is quite at the level of David Warner's Irenicus). An alternative is to try to do even more things differently, but this would only work if the changes are almost universally acknowledged to be good (and even then some people will complain).

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that nowadays games are being made by multi-decade industry veterans (Muzyka credits Feargus Urquhart, Chris Parker and Doug Avery for teaching Bioware a bug tracking method even back then) who by now must have streamlined and optimized all of these things to perfection, one would expect PoE (or, for that matter, even Dragon Age: Origins) to be much better than BG2... but by practically all accounts, this is not the case.

 

This is not the case because it's not a salient expectation to have in the first place. It's a bit like saying you've been playing football at the highest level for 15 years, surely you can kick the ball and hit that guy in the face from fifty metres away every single time. Game development is incredibly complex, and its practices and organisation has also historically been very chaotic. Every single game often has to reinvent the wheel in many different ways, including as you say the engine issue, and there is also extremely high turnover of your team members in the industry (Feargus' experience doesn't count for much when he doesn't work with the same guys each time necessarily), and so on.

 

As for the rest, yes. POE has already made some major, conscious decisions in this first iteration about the kinds of things it wants to do differently and the kinds of things it wants to be its 'signature' - whether it be its classes, engagement, the souls setting, and so on. The key for POE2 will be to build on those signature things and make them much better. Some of them are arleady good and just need extra time; others are still a bit half-baked, but that was also the case with something like BG1. I'm fine with POE trying to be a bit different and build its own strengths and I hope they continue, and I hope they do a good job. No matter what they did someone was always going to complain that it's not like the IE games, or that the IE games were better. I think the most productive way forward for Obsidian is to treat POE as its own thing and to assess what it needs to do to improve itself, and worry less about IE at this point.

  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

The approach to main story was very linear. It got in the way of actually role playing your character and they could have easily added a handful of text options to change that up. Instead of worrying about your condition, why not approach the main quest from the animancy/hollowborn pov? It felt like railroading. In baldur's gate you actually had 3 things going for you to start your journey. The iron crisis, your foster father's killer and the (sometimes overpowered) people who have been hired to hunt you down. And that plot was, at first, your typical D&D excuse to go dungeon crawling.

 

But I'd think a completely different way to go would be in order if we continue with the watcher. You're probably going to be level 12 at the start of the next game. You're already in your "heroic" levels so to speak. What if the next game starts completely episodic? Your reputations mean certain people will approach you as you go from one town to the next. You'll be offered jobs and asked for help. From there the plot will be revealed in bits and pieces through your interactions. I think it could both, be relatable to a lot of fantasy fiction. Plus it would give way more freedom and have the plot revealed in a more organic way.

 

Perhaps letting you buy equipment at the beginning of the game instead of sticking you with a loadout?

 

I like the idea I seen mentioned where you don't automatically know the names of everyone. This would fit in with my first idea in that people will approach you. You can learn new contacts through them, and from there you can learn more people that might be needing work. And every inn and tavern has a help wanted/bounty board. That way you don't have the characters name acting as some sort of job marker.

  • Like 4

It's good to criticize things you love.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Given that nowadays games are being made by multi-decade industry veterans (Muzyka credits Feargus Urquhart, Chris Parker and Doug Avery for teaching Bioware a bug tracking method even back then) who by now must have streamlined and optimized all of these things to perfection, one would expect PoE (or, for that matter, even Dragon Age: Origins) to be much better than BG2... but by practically all accounts, this is not the case.

 

This is not the case because it's not a salient expectation to have in the first place. It's a bit like saying you've been playing football at the highest level for 15 years, surely you can kick the ball and hit that guy in the face from fifty metres away every single time. Game development is incredibly complex, and its practices and organisation has also historically been very chaotic. Every single game often has to reinvent the wheel in many different ways, including as you say the engine issue, and there is also extremely high turnover of your team members in the industry (Feargus' experience doesn't count for much when he doesn't work with the same guys each time necessarily), and so on.

 

As for the rest, yes. POE has already made some major, conscious decisions in this first iteration about the kinds of things it wants to do differently and the kinds of things it wants to be its 'signature' - whether it be its classes, engagement, the souls setting, and so on. The key for POE2 will be to build on those signature things and make them much better. Some of them are arleady good and just need extra time; others are still a bit half-baked, but that was also the case with something like BG1. I'm fine with POE trying to be a bit different and build its own strengths and I hope they continue, and I hope they do a good job. No matter what they did someone was always going to complain that it's not like the IE games, or that the IE games were better. I think the most productive way forward for Obsidian is to treat POE as its own thing and to assess what it needs to do to improve itself, and worry less about IE at this point.

 

I agree with this point. I've stated in previous posts that PoE's success will be based on  how sufficiently they play on the strings of nostalgia and originality. In order to stay relevant and successful, PoE must be a game or series that plays like the IE classics but has a degree of uniqueness that will allow it to stand on its own identity.

 

Personally, I'm hoping the developers are able to take what they've learned from making PoE (which is amazing in its own right) and build an even better experience for PoE 2. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

"This is not the case because it's not a salient expectation to have in the first place. It's a bit like saying you've been playing football at the highest level for 15 years, surely you can kick the ball and hit that guy in the face from fifty metres away every single time. Game development is incredibly complex, and its practices and organisation has also historically been very chaotic. Every single game often has to reinvent the wheel in many different ways, including as you say the engine issue, and there is also extremely high turnover of your team members in the industry (Feargus' experience doesn't count for much when he doesn't work with the same guys each time necessarily), and so on."

 

Football analogy is a fail since in football someone is actively trying to sabatoge you and who that person is varies game to game let alone 15 years a part (if you last that long in the NFL). Game development you don't have some actively trying to sabatoge you (lol publishers lol) so you should be able to make a better game than before. That said, the issue is not that newer games are technically worse (they usually are better) but sadly they're not first. Plenty of people, afterall, enjoy BG1 more than BG2 simply because it has no number beside it.

DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Football analogy is a fail since in football someone is actively trying to sabatoge you

 

In development, the person trying to actively sabotage you is named Circumstances, and she is the best saboteur there ever was.

 

I'm not getting into anything else here, I just feel that it's important to remember how easily something can go wrong in a multi-person project, even when no one is at fault.

Edited by gkathellar
  • Like 2

If I'm typing in red, it means I'm being sarcastic. But not this time.

Dark green, on the other hand, is for jokes and irony in general.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"BG2 had the benefit of being a sequel to a game - that meant things like setting, rules, engine, and so forth were already established.  POE 1 serves as the foundation for future iterations, that are very likely to equal or surpass BG2."

 

\PE had the benefit of seeing all these games being released and able to cherry pick the good from those past games and getting rid of the bad. PE's foundation was set eyars before.

\

\It should have been better than these earlier 10+ year old games EASILY (and in some ways it is others not so much).

 

\Not o mention the expeirence levels of game development differences between Obsidian and BG BIO or even PST BIS.

Edited by Volourn

DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"BG2 had the benefit of being a sequel to a game - that meant things like setting, rules, engine, and so forth were already established.  POE 1 serves as the foundation for future iterations, that are very likely to equal or surpass BG2."

 

\PE had the benefit of seeing all these games being released and able to cherry pick the good from those past games and getting rid of the bad. PE's foundation was set eyars before.

\

\It should have been better than these earlier 10+ year old games EASILY (and in some ways it is others not so much).

 

\Not o mention the expeirence levels of game development differences between Obsidian and BG BIO or even PST BIS.

 

Hardly.  You are missing the fact that there are fundamental differences from then and today:

 

 

Rules - Obsidian isn't using D&D rules, and has had to make its own ruleset.  While undoubtedly superior to D&D for videogames, they still had to develop and balance them.

 

Setting - Once again, they are not using D&D.  BG1, BG2, New Vegas, and Neverwinter Nights 2 used pre-existing settings.  POE doesn't, so someone had to write the details.

 

Technology - They are using an unfamiliar engine, with vastly different capabilities from GameBryo, Infinity Engine, or Electron.

 

Standards - Gamers have expectations regarding quest design, story, graphics, crafting, balancing, and so on that constantly pushes the envelope.  Veteran developers run the risk of being obsolete if they do not understand modern games.

 

Assets - Obsidian had to make assets from scratch.  Models, maps, music, and so forth.  Baldur's Gate 2 and New Vegas drew on resources from prior games.

 

Iteration - BG1 had various things tied up together when it was done.  This meant that BG2 was able to refine upon BG1 with relative ease.  Ditto for New Vegas.  POE should be afforded the same understanding.

 

Funds - $4,000,000 is chump change for any major game developer.  Furthermore, Obsidian did not have the ties and connections of a publisher to aid in the development of the game.  While publishers can restrict and impoverish developers, they may also offer assistance in other areas:  Hiring talent, business negotiations, ties to other companies, and so on.

 

 

 

Seriously.  Obsidian is a good developer, but that doesn't mean that you can place unrealistic expectations on them.  That is just setting yourself up for disappointment.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt BG1 was an expensive game to make. It was BIO's 3rd game and I doubt the budget they got for it was super high. Bottom line PE/OBS has no excuses and making excuses for the poor stuff in the game is silly. Stronghold is best example. It is the worst part of the game and there is no excuse for it. It is,, BY FAR, the WORST stronghold ever in a RPG. How could they not have learned from previous strongholds (INCLUDING their own) and make a good stronghold? It reeks of sloppy and lazy design.\

 

\The rules, by the way, are DnDish enough that there simply isn't even difference make it so hard to do.

 

\I feel you are belittling Obsidian by poo pooing their experience and setting the bar low while making excuses. A company with devs who have decades of experience who have their hands in the mix with  multiple top tier RPGs of the past have no excuse whatsoever.

  • Like 1

DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think moving away from a tight plot structure is the best bet for any sandbox game. The urgency should be in what hooks the individual. Let's use a conspiracy as an example

 

You have your main conspiracy as the "main plot" but you don't just slap it on the table. You give people room to breathe and they see bits of this conspiracy happening around them. So they get interested in the conspiracy, not because the plot says "GO THERE TO MOVE PLOT FORWARD" but because you find a subtle clue in this ruin you're exploring. Or this faction your working with has some compelling funny business going on in the background. What could it be? Could it be a faction playing the other factions against each other? Someone using them for a shady, if not nefarious deed? I guess the idea is that the plot is this background mystery that becomes more and more apparent as you get further into the lives and inner workings of the region you're in. 

 

But if you want to know mechanics, I think the next game should meet bg/pillars in between. In BG you were too squishy (until level 3) and in Pillars you're too durable from the get go. From the get go it's a bit of a slugfest. I also think that they are holding on to the vision distance for all the wrong reasons. On a clear day you should be able to see for 3 miles over flat land without obstruction. Which is bigger than any map. Sure darkness will shorten that, as would fog. But as long as you had light, and nothing obscured your path, you should be able to see it. I think it's an IE holdover that doesn't really need to remain there to have you to only be able to see 30 meters (if that). This would also allow you for "sniper" characters. If accuracy decreases past a certain range, then it shouldn't be too easy to be a sniper. Especially with better AI. 

It's good to criticize things you love.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt BG1 was an expensive game to make. It was BIO's 3rd game and I doubt the budget they got for it was super high. Bottom line PE/OBS has no excuses and making excuses for the poor stuff in the game is silly. Stronghold is best example. It is the worst part of the game and there is no excuse for it. It is,, BY FAR, the WORST stronghold ever in a RPG. How could they not have learned from previous strongholds (INCLUDING their own) and make a good stronghold? It reeks of sloppy and lazy design.\

 

\The rules, by the way, are DnDish enough that there simply isn't even difference make it so hard to do.

 

\I feel you are belittling Obsidian by poo pooing their experience and setting the bar low while making excuses. A company with devs who have decades of experience who have their hands in the mix with  multiple top tier RPGs of the past have no excuse whatsoever.

 

 

I am not belittling Obsidian in the slightest.  Games are iterative products, and the state of POE reflects that.  The expansions and sequel ought to be far superior, since the fundamental basics are now finished.

 

By the way:  The rules are different from D&D for two reasons - the first to not provoke a lawsuit from Wizards of the Coast.  The second reason is that they are built for a videogame.  That is very different from Pen & Paper rules, because Obsidian can put a "face" to the rules meant for players, while hiding various technical aspects that would confuse the player.  This allows them to create rules far more complex than most P&P games without becoming unplayable.   The notion of "just DnDish enough" is not very realistic, and actually insinuates that Obsidian lacks the skill to make their own rules.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think moving away from a tight plot structure is the best bet for any sandbox game. The urgency should be in what hooks the individual. Let's use a conspiracy as an example

 

You have your main conspiracy as the "main plot" but you don't just slap it on the table. You give people room to breathe and they see bits of this conspiracy happening around them. So they get interested in the conspiracy, not because the plot says "GO THERE TO MOVE PLOT FORWARD" but because you find a subtle clue in this ruin you're exploring. Or this faction your working with has some compelling funny business going on in the background. What could it be? Could it be a faction playing the other factions against each other? Someone using them for a shady, if not nefarious deed? I guess the idea is that the plot is this background mystery that becomes more and more apparent as you get further into the lives and inner workings of the region you're in. 

 

But if you want to know mechanics, I think the next game should meet bg/pillars in between. In BG you were too squishy (until level 3) and in Pillars you're too durable from the get go. From the get go it's a bit of a slugfest. I also think that they are holding on to the vision distance for all the wrong reasons. On a clear day you should be able to see for 3 miles over flat land without obstruction. Which is bigger than any map. Sure darkness will shorten that, as would fog. But as long as you had light, and nothing obscured your path, you should be able to see it. I think it's an IE holdover that doesn't really need to remain there to have you to only be able to see 30 meters (if that). This would also allow you for "sniper" characters. If accuracy decreases past a certain range, then it shouldn't be too easy to be a sniper. Especially with better AI. 

 

I think the vision system could be improved, along with the stealth.  Concerning vision distance, I think it would be good if NPCs at a long distance would give a "general" shape without telling the players what it is specifically.  Classes, skills, tools, range, lighting, and abilities can alter the vision cone so that it would be possible to identify creatures at range.

 

Extreme range =  Quadruped shape

Medium range = Dog shape

Short range    =  Hound of Magran

 

Mind you, there is an issue that crops up with vision and distance:  If you can see other creatures, they presumably can see you.  This might result in monsters gravitating towards the player.  Depending on how they are balanced and the intention for the area, that can create an unintended consequences.  On the other hand, not including that would be unrealistic.  :unsure:

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think moving away from a tight plot structure is the best bet for any sandbox game. The urgency should be in what hooks the individual. Let's use a conspiracy as an example

 

You have your main conspiracy as the "main plot" but you don't just slap it on the table. You give people room to breathe and they see bits of this conspiracy happening around them. So they get interested in the conspiracy, not because the plot says "GO THERE TO MOVE PLOT FORWARD" but because you find a subtle clue in this ruin you're exploring. Or this faction your working with has some compelling funny business going on in the background. What could it be? Could it be a faction playing the other factions against each other? Someone using them for a shady, if not nefarious deed? I guess the idea is that the plot is this background mystery that becomes more and more apparent as you get further into the lives and inner workings of the region you're in. 

 

But if you want to know mechanics, I think the next game should meet bg/pillars in between. In BG you were too squishy (until level 3) and in Pillars you're too durable from the get go. From the get go it's a bit of a slugfest. I also think that they are holding on to the vision distance for all the wrong reasons. On a clear day you should be able to see for 3 miles over flat land without obstruction. Which is bigger than any map. Sure darkness will shorten that, as would fog. But as long as you had light, and nothing obscured your path, you should be able to see it. I think it's an IE holdover that doesn't really need to remain there to have you to only be able to see 30 meters (if that). This would also allow you for "sniper" characters. If accuracy decreases past a certain range, then it shouldn't be too easy to be a sniper. Especially with better AI. 

 

I think the vision system could be improved, along with the stealth.  Concerning vision distance, I think it would be good if NPCs at a long distance would give a "general" shape without telling the players what it is specifically.  Classes, skills, tools, range, lighting, and abilities can alter the vision cone so that it would be possible to identify creatures at range.

 

Extreme range =  Quadruped shape

Medium range = Dog shape

Short range    =  Hound of Magran

 

Mind you, there is an issue that crops up with vision and distance:  If you can see other creatures, they presumably can see you.  This might result in monsters gravitating towards the player.  Depending on how they are balanced and the intention for the area, that can create an unintended consequences.  On the other hand, not including that would be unrealistic.  :unsure:

 

maybe what those distances are could be altered by perception?

 

And yeah, that could be a problem, but most things shouldn't swarm you from a distance. Also, if an animal gets attacked from another long distance away they should probably start off on the defensive by trying to avoid the next attack. Maybe slip behind the trees and go into stealth mode (we really need to bring back individual members in stealth mode and combat stealth). But since detecting hidden objects is mechanics (which makes no sense) that would be very awkward.

It's good to criticize things you love.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think moving away from a tight plot structure is the best bet for any sandbox game.

 

Well I hope to god PoE doesn't try to be a sandbox game. Sandbox games suck. I play Obsidian game for the tight plot structure and amazing storylines.

  • Like 2

"Wizards do not need to be The Dudes Who Can AoE Nuke You and Gish and Take as Many Hits as a Fighter and Make all Skills Irrelevant Because Magic."

-Josh Sawyer

Link to post
Share on other sites

(throws fire suit in the corner)

 

PoE is ****ing awesome! I'm digging the setting, writing, roleplaying options, and the design. Can't stop playing or talking about it to people. Is it perfect? Nope, not yet. Is it fun? That's the important questio and will vary but to me, it's insanely fun.

 

Bg2 had resourses from engine, lore, abilities, equipment, classes, basically everything pretty much everything already done for them from dnd rule books, previous game of BG and iwd and temple of evil to draw upon, hell even campions from previous games with a bigger budget. PoE had almost NONE of that, was built from scratch, and nowhere near the budget.

People who are saying that the absence of all that preestablished lore and equipment and a lot less money don't mean ****, it's all excuses......I have to shake my head. I mean I can understand why they would want to think that but so many things pop up that screams "noooooo ain't gonna happen!" Sometimes I think the developers worst enemies are the very people they are trying to cater too.

 

But I'm very happy and still excited about the game. I'm loving it and so are my friends too. I can't wait for patch 1.05 and the expansions!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think moving away from a tight plot structure is the best bet for any sandbox game.

 

Well I hope to god PoE doesn't try to be a sandbox game. Sandbox games suck. I play Obsidian game for the tight plot structure and amazing storylines.

 

 

Ditto.  I prefer narrow experiences for my games, because they concentrate enough "awesome" to make me notice.   A jack of all trades like Skyrim just makes me feel nothing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It already is a sandbox game. Compare it to say, Drakensang, where most places besides Ferdok you can't revisit after you complete it's main quest. Maybe we have different definitions of sandboxes though.

 

I really cannot stand being railroaded in a crpg. I can understand it in a jrpg because that's their modus operandi. But even then, in ff6 I rush to get out of the world of balance for that reason. I guess I can explain what I think would make an interesting game is to have the main quest be introduced from many different angles and in a way that would feel very natural. Even if it's not necessarily the gradual reveal I was talking about before. IE I felt the hollowborn epidemic and the leaden key's plot to stifle progress was way more important than my "condition". But I always forced to ask about it.  

Edited by Dadalama

It's good to criticize things you love.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's probably never going to happen, but I would really like for Obsidian to make a sequel through another kickstarter, only this time without actually taking any of the backers' opinions into account. That way they can do what they do best - deliver us one of the best games out there. I can't tell you how many times I've replayed KotOR2, for example. The dark setting, story and all the gameplay improvements over the original were just right on spot for me. Of course, everyone has his own tastes, but if it's possible I would really like to see an Obsidian game without any sort of limitations. Not having a publisher can sure be a plus but trying to satisfy some always whining backers must be a small kind of hell (I don't really mean to offense anyone) on its own.

 

Anyway, I'll write my feedback about PoE sometime later and someone of the OE staff here may read it, but I would like you to just view it as it is - my personal opinion. You people know how to make a great game. I don't. The rest is up to you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt BG1 was an expensive game to make. It was BIO's 3rd game and I doubt the budget they got for it was super high. Bottom line PE/OBS has no excuses and making excuses for the poor stuff in the game is silly. Stronghold is best example. It is the worst part of the game and there is no excuse for it. It is,, BY FAR, the WORST stronghold ever in a RPG. How could they not have learned from previous strongholds (INCLUDING their own) and make a good stronghold?

I disagree. I think Skyhold from Dragon Age Inquisition was far worse. It didnt even have a dungeon! Not to mention the terrible clothing you had to wear while in Skyhold.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dadalama's points about plot are really good. Not that I have any objections with PoE's plot - I like it a lot - but they should try something less linear next time. Also, the visibility range that he very correctly mentions, was something I also pointed out twice in the backer forums a year ago. This visibility style HAS to be dropped off. It's embarrassing not to have realistic visibility in 2015. ALL other isometric games did it right: Wasteland 2, Divinity: Original Sin, Shadowrun Returns. You could see as far as the eye goes and not just a fixed 5 meters away. It also helps in tactics cause you can see the entire enemy group and maneouvre around/take positions easier.

 

I believe the sequel's gonna be what BG2 was for BG1 if not more. And I REALLY hope they don't go via kickstarter next time. Heck, they already have a publisher now! Find the appropriate budget and do your best! (that way I won't complain again about game price either :p )

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't love BG2 till around my sixth playthrough. And I didn't even like BG1 till a couple of years ago (modding saved it). I've so far done one, fairly quick playthrough of POE, and I like it much more than I did both BG games in my initial run. Especially BG2 was just encredibily exhausting to me at the beginning, and the sheer amount of content made me lose track and interest in the overall story. Now, both games hold up even today, but what I'm saying is that a lot of our love for those games has been built up over the years since release, and if all three games came out today, with the same graphics, I'm certainly not sure which game I would rank highest (though BG1 would be at the bottom). In the long run, I imagine that BG2 will win out, but in my case that's actually because of the amount of replayability due to the enourmous amount of content, which of course also reflects a bigger budget. But with regards to most other things, even the story, POE comes very close IMHO.

Edited by Prime-Mover
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I ran across an article today: Baldur's Gate II: The Anatomy of a Sequel written by Ray Muzyka (one of the co-founders of Bioware) all the way back in 2001.

 

That was an interesting read, too bad Bioware forgot everything of this after DA:O :lol:

"A reader lives a thousand lives before he dies, the man who never reads lives one."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...