Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Is it possible to create a 'true successor' to Baldur's gate?

Neanderthal

Arcane
Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Messages
3,626
Location
Granbretan
I think I might have played Stormbringer at some point, is that the one where spells were mostly powered by summonation? You want fire, you have to summon an elemental and constrain it to do what you want etc. As I recall it did fit the books quite well, but then again Elric hardly ever uses his spells in the books does he? I mean of course in comparison to a D&D mage, sorcerer or whatever where their spells are their main method of combat, with Elric he only relied on his magic when pressed and unable to proceed via his usual method of "kill it with Stormbringer."

I always thought that he was a bit like Kullervo in this, kind of a stupid hero despite his intelligence, who fucks up everything through his own actions.
 

Neanderthal

Arcane
Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Messages
3,626
Location
Granbretan
Funny thing is Moorcock can be a bloody good writer at times, but at other times yeah he's a bit crap, personally I think his prose is beautiful in the Knight of Swords and some of his other less mainstream works, while in the Elric saga it is massively variable. From enchanting to excruciating by turns. That said one thing he has in spades on modern hack writers such as Weis, Hickman, Salvatore and Eddings is a relentless originality and manic inventiveness, in a lot of ways this is a lot like Howard, even though Moorcock wrote what can best be described as the antithesis of Howards titular Cimmerian.
 

octavius

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
19,182
Location
Bjørgvin
It's funny how Moorcock hated Tolkien (partly for political reasons I'm sure, Moorcock being a rabid leftist), yet they both used the saga of Kullervo as inspiration for their most tragic and memorable heroes.

Agree about his Elric stories varying wildly in quality. Corum OTOH has a consistent high quality, while some of he other Eternal Champion stuff was the lowest form of pulp, some novels written during a few days IIRC.
 

Neanderthal

Arcane
Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Messages
3,626
Location
Granbretan
I think they probably liked the unusual archetype, the Oedipal hero is farely rare, and far more complex than what they usually dealt with.

I read somewhere that Moorcock didn't hate Tolkien in person however, quite admired the old man, but absolutely detested his prose. Calling it "Epic Pooh" after Winny the Pooh apparently, prose made to lull a child to sleep. Though the visions of the Dead Marshes are not what I would call reassuring or childish, especially when Tolkien based them on his remembrance of the young friends floating dead in the waters of the trenches he defended during the Great War. You can see why the professor was using escapism after living through such shit, and if he wanted to dream of a perfect world like the Shire, well who'd hold it against him.
 

SkeleTony

Augur
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
938
I think I might have played Stormbringer at some point, is that the one where spells were mostly powered by summonation? You want fire, you have to summon an elemental and constrain it to do what you want etc. As I recall it did fit the books quite well, but then again Elric hardly ever uses his spells in the books does he? I mean of course in comparison to a D&D mage, sorcerer or whatever where their spells are their main method of combat, with Elric he only relied on his magic when pressed and unable to proceed via his usual method of "kill it with Stormbringer."

I always thought that he was a bit like Kullervo in this, kind of a stupid hero despite his intelligence, who fucks up everything through his own actions.


It has been a while (I still have the boxed 1st edition of Stormbringer in my closet somewhere) but my suspect memory agrees with you about the magic in Stormbringer. In Moorcock's books magic of the sort where mortal sorcerers are casting spells and shit tends to be rare and more ritualistic and involving summoning elementals or demons or some such. The basic BRP magic system (from RQ at least, where nearly everyone can cast spells of some sort) had to be tweaked a bit to accurately represent Elric's world IIRC.

I would not call Elric stupid. More of a tragic character trying in vain to fight fate itself but no matter how smart or morally right an action he takes the result usually ends up a disaster.
 

SkeleTony

Augur
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
938
It's funny how Moorcock hated Tolkien (partly for political reasons I'm sure, Moorcock being a rabid leftist), yet they both used the saga of Kullervo as inspiration for their most tragic and memorable heroes.

Agree about his Elric stories varying wildly in quality. Corum OTOH has a consistent high quality, while some of he other Eternal Champion stuff was the lowest form of pulp, some novels written during a few days IIRC.


As big a fan of Elric as I am (still Moorcock's best character and maybe to most compelling character in heroic fantasy fiction IMO) I have to concede this. Every time I read through the series I had to scratch my head over much of Sailor on the Seas of Fate, The Vanishing Tower and of course Elric at the End of Time. Except for some parts here and there (in those first two above I mentioned) these seemed to have a good degree of filler.
 
In My Safe Space
Joined
Dec 11, 2009
Messages
21,899
Codex 2012
I would not call Elric stupid. More of a tragic character trying in vain to fight fate itself but no matter how smart or morally right an action he takes the result usually ends up a disaster.
He does make some really bad decisions, though. Like sparing his cousin and then putting him on throne.
 

Deleted member 7219

Guest
Beamdog are making a true sequel to Baldur's Gate.

Obsidian have already surpassed it with MotB and Pillars of Eternity.
 

Kem0sabe

Arcane
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
13,076
Location
Azores Islands
The closest we got to a great old school isometric rpg in the style of Bg was Arcanum, and it was ruined by a truly mindfucking horrible combat system and the progressively bad content as the game went on.
 

Stella Brando

Arcane
Joined
Oct 5, 2005
Messages
8,968
Location
Castle Volkihar
Minsc is ok. You're just a hater. Thematically speaking he's the typical "big guy of the group" crossed with "gentle giant" and "comedy relief character". And they pulled off this composition pretty decent. Not everything has to be grimdark faggotry you know...

Go play Witcher 3, it has about 12 hours of extra-mature(tm) theme reinforcing cutscenes just for people like you...;)
Divinity: Original Sin all had companions with a common theme. http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/divinity-original-sin.92612/page-317#post-3967785

The idea of reinforcing a theme likely didn't cross Lukas Kristjanson's mind at all. The very first line is a Nietzsche quote that means fuck all about anything in the story, they just included it because it sounded cool.
It's to do with being a Bhaalspawn.

I think it's also partially because Conan did it. "What doesn't kill me makes me stronger."

I always imagined Minsc is supposed to represent that friend larping an obnoxious character. Everyone trades glances and wishes he'd roll something that doesn't shit on the adventure's tone all the time but nobody has the courage to ruin his fun

You may be absolutely right with this.

Wasn't the memorization fluff changed to 'Wizard prepares spell by casting the majority of the magical formula during rest phase, triggers prepared spell during the day but doesn't really forget it' pretty early in dnd?

He's the king of Greece.

Lowbrow D&D "angsty teenage" writing being optional, but I still romanced Aerie & Vi 7 times.
Did you romance them the Vancian way ? Fuck and forget.

Lol.
 
Last edited:

Deleted Member 16721

Guest
We won't see a true spiritual successor because everyone thinks companions need to have 100k worth of words in dialogue now. No longer can you have a basic companion who has a small side quest. Rather than adding a little bit of banter to flesh out their personality we get scrolls upon scrolls of words. I want to see a spirtual successor that has 20 joinable companions, each with a small side quest and some banter, that's it. And each character would be unique gameplay wise with interesting and odd classes so you can experiment more with your party make-up and have interesting gameplay consequences. But u fucks keep promoting "characters need quests and dialoguesssss!!!11" so we'll never get it. U fucks.
 

Ladonna

Arcane
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
10,636
Although this thread was brought back to life, I have seen this sentiment around the net even recently. Why would anyone want another Baldurs Gate? Was there something not wrapped up in the story that people still want to desperately have closure on? Or is it wanting a return to iso, rtwp, 2nd edition dnd in the forgotten realms?
 

Deleted Member 16721

Guest
It's wanting to return to a cozy, 2nd Edition D&D where you actually have a feeling of adventure and roaming the land, in no particular rush, just seeing the sights, exploring, figuring things out as you go. We want less set pieces like BG2 had and more open adventure where it actually feels like a REAL ADVENTURE. It's a very cozy game for that reason. 2nd Edition is absolutely mandatory, but a pen-and-paper adaptation of some sort is. Forgotten Realms is also not necessary, but again, what is necessary is a pen-and-paper fleshed out setting. Just give us that open adventure with some intrigue and lazy exploration again. Kingmaker, for as good as it is, did not really feel like a connected world like BG did, as each map was smaller and sort of a set piece in itself. I'm playing some Serpent in the Staglands now to see if that fits the bill for me. There's a reason I replayed BG1 3 or 4 times already, it's just a great adventure.
 
Joined
May 31, 2018
Messages
2,509
Location
The Present
It's many things. So much so, that's it's difficult to be succinct in listing them. First off, the actual games of BG were just lighting in a bottle. They got it all right. The story, combat, magic, characters, items, adventure, quests, encounters, and yes--even the writing. Not only was the quality very consistent, but there was so very much content! Hundreds of hours. People scoff at any given one of those points in retrospect, but they are ignorant of hindsight. Putting that aside, let's me attempt to make a chronically overlooked insight.

BG made superb utilization of the outstanding Forgotten Realms setting. This cannot be underestimated. The locations, the monsters, the factions--it's all marvelously utilized. It was the setting everyone knew and loved. If you somehow didn't already, then BG gave that appreciation to you. This game delivered the perfect low-level adventure before kobolds, bandits, and spiders were considered tedious and mundane. It then subsequently hit a home run by bringing us the fantastical and wondrous in BG2. This game took what was previously constrained to imaginations around a PnP table and made them (quasi) real. That was a big deal.

This is one reason why people complain that games of the past 15+ years haven't had the same love in them. Early games pulled on decades of imagination in an attempt to fulfill them. Those itches have now been scratched, and people want more, something new, yet just as good. The BG series had nearly 30 years of lovingly crafted inspiration to draw from and brought forth a magical game when the market was still very young. Those conditions are not easily replicated. It's difficult to create something new now. Even when it is, by virtue of being new it lacks the depth and polish that only comes with decades of cultivation.

If you're only looking for a spiritual successor, then that has already come and gone. Believer it or not, it was Mass Effect. Wail if you must.
 
Joined
Dec 17, 2013
Messages
5,103
The big boys (studios with real talent and resources) have moved on to third/first person action based RPGs, with more emphasis on realism and mature themes, so it's much harder for them to capture the charming innocence of something like Baldur's Gate and many other older games. The Witcher series for example has great lore and atmosphere, but it's very different from something like BG.

Imagine some fairly tale you heard as a kid. It's really touching and charming, but if someone starts deconstructing it in a college course, you are left with a pile of debris. Back in the 80s and 90s, RPGs were about real fantasy and charm, they were a lot like fairy tales. Since then, everyone tries to make much more realistic and mature games, some with more success than others. But you go from the silly Imoen saying "Hey, it's me Imoen!" to bloody, grimdark worlds, feminist female heroes, and allegorical storylines about our own world. This is neither worse nor better than the old way, it depends on the implementation and people's tastes and preferences, but it does change things.
 

Lyric Suite

Converting to Islam
Joined
Mar 23, 2006
Messages
56,157
The big boys (studios with real talent and resources) have moved on to third/first person action based RPGs, with more emphasis on realism and mature themes, so it's much harder for them to capture the charming innocence of something like Baldur's Gate and many other older games. The Witcher series for example has great lore and atmosphere, but it's very different from something like BG.

Imagine some fairly tale you heard as a kid. It's really touching and charming, but if someone starts deconstructing it in a college course, you are left with a pile of debris. Back in the 80s and 90s, RPGs were about real fantasy and charm, they were a lot like fairy tales. Since then, everyone tries to make much more realistic and mature games, some with more success than others. But you go from the silly Imoen saying "Hey, it's me Imoen!" to bloody, grimdark worlds, feminist female heroes, and allegorical storylines about our own world. This is neither worse nor better than the old way, it depends on the implementation and people's tastes and preferences, but it does change things.

It's definitely worse, because it is not actually about making things more "realistic" but dictating what reality is according to a specific world view, the result being actually no more or less realistic than the fairy tales in question, and worse all around in terms of enjoyment.

I hated the Witcher precisely because it broke with the more innocent way of story telling the older games used and introduced gratuitous and try hard grimdark that is just has fantastical as the fairy tales in question.

And with the success of Game of Thrones among normies there's no going back.
 
Joined
May 31, 2018
Messages
2,509
Location
The Present
A very good point, though it misses the mark just slightly. The change was that studios (with their cinematic inspirations) choose emotional engagement rather than a good story. It's not that people have a love for grim-dark, so much as it is an adolescent's mechanism for provoking strong emotions. Baldur's Gate had whores, sex, murder, betrayal, and everything else, but that wasn't the point. The story came first, and the accouterments came second. Today the goal is to hook you emotionally, rather than with a compelling narrative. The result is a gormet chef with replicating a Big Mac. We can taste the difference.
 

SwiftCrack

Arcane
Joined
Oct 3, 2012
Messages
1,836
A very good point, though it misses the mark just slightly. The change was that studios (with their cinematic inspirations) choose emotional engagement rather than a good story. It's not that people have a love for grim-dark, so much as it is an adolescent's mechanism for provoking strong emotions. Baldur's Gate had whores, sex, murder, betrayal, and everything else, but that wasn't the point. The story came first, and the accouterments came second. Today the goal is to hook you emotionally, rather than with a compelling narrative. The result is a gormet chef with replicating a Big Mac. We can taste the difference.

I remember asking my mom what a Courtesan was when I was 11 and first played BG1 and saw them in Beregost. Those type of NPCs would indeed be thrown in your face in modern games.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom