Divinity What makes a "Baldur's Gate" to you?

[AwesomeButton]

The question was born from the discussion around "is it D:OS3 or is it BG3?"

I'm just curious to see how different features would get rated and see if the Codex has a roughly common view of what constitutes the spirit of the BG games.

 

[Stormcrowfleet]

I'm the only one that liked creatures exploding when I did a crit ?

 

[mediocrepoet]

I'm the only one that liked creatures exploding when I did a crit ?

I liked the feature and I imagine many others did as well, but is it a defining part of what makes the BG games what they are? Exploding on crit also comes up in a variety of other games such as Fallout.

 

[AwesomeButton]

I'm the only one that liked creatures exploding when I did a crit ?

I love it too, but I just don't consider it that much of a defining feature. My wife suggested I add it to the list tbh

 

[NJClaw]

I am actually gonna take this poll seriously.

To me, it needs to be a party-based isometric D&D adaptation. If these points are met, I am fine with everything else.

 

[GhostCow]

Isometric
Adapted D&D ruleset
Party-based
Party limit of 6
Has to be AD&D ruleset
Campaign set around the Sword Coast
Campaign tone has to be epic high fantasy
RTwP combat, 3s. personal initiative round, etc. ported 1:1 like the IE games
Memorable antagonist character
Power fantasy itemisation
Chunky deaths where enemies blow to pieces when killed

These were my favorite things at least. Other things like returning characters and continuing the story would be nice but really can't be expected. The story was already pretty well wrapped up. I would be pretty forgiving of BG3 if it was rtwp and I think the people who are defending it or excited for it would be way more critical of it if it wasn't turn based. When it comes down to it the gameplay seems to be what people care about the most. At least we can all agree that what we've seen of the writing is shit.

Somewhat offtopic: Personally my favorite thing about the originals was the AD&D ruleset with the stuff from 3e backported. It resulted in a ruleset that I really enjoyed (I love me some thac0) and all kinds of awesome class kits. The class kits made the game so awesome and replayable to me. Especially with the level 1 npcs mod. 5e really seems like shit in comparison to that.

 

[AwesomeButton]

But I am taking it seriously :D

 

[NJClaw]

Isometric
Adapted D&D ruleset
Party-based
Party limit of 6
Has to be AD&D ruleset
Campaign set around the Sword Coast
Campaign tone has to be epic high fantasy
RTwP combat, 3s. personal initiative round, etc. ported 1:1 like the IE games
Memorable antagonist character
Power fantasy itemisation
Chunky deaths where enemies blow to pieces when killed

These were my favorite things at least. Other things like returning characters and continuing the story would be nice but really can't be expected. The story was already pretty well wrapped up. I would be pretty forgiving of BG3 if it was rtwp and I think the people who are defending it or excited for it would be way more critical of it if it wasn't turn based. When it comes down to it the gameplay seems to be what people care about the most. At least we can all agree that what we've seen of the writing is shit.

Somewhat offtopic: Personally my favorite thing about the originals was the AD&D ruleset with the stuff from 3e backported. It resulted in a ruleset that I really enjoyed (I love me some thac0) and all kinds of awesome class kits. The class kits made the game so awesome and replayable to me. Especially with the level 1 npcs mod. 5e really seems like shit in comparison to that.

Wait, 5e archetypes are like super-kits, they are far more distinct from one another and they are all interesting and useful (apart from a selected few that are a total disgrace).
If you enjoyed class kits, then the entire 5th edition is designed around something that you enjoy.

 

[aweigh]

- ruleset (has to be d&d)

- the aesthetic (the atmosphere, the visuals, the art, the music, the sounds, the world it evokes)

- the writing (mainly just put this here to point out that Larian's writing is terrible and doesn't fit BG)

 

[GhostCow]

Wait, 5e archetypes are like super-kits, they are far more distinct from one another and they are all interesting and useful (apart from a selected few that are a total disgrace).
If you enjoyed class kits, then the entire 5th edition is designed around something that you enjoy.

I haven't seen the books so I'm just going off what I've heard from random people on the internet. I had thought that there were far less classes than what we saw in BG2. I was under the impression that you start with a basic class and then get an option to advance into a few different more specialized classes but that the overall number was far lower. All of this talk in the BG3 thread about how any class can be a good tank or whatever else you need sounds like shit too. Sounds like way less specialization and way more forgiving.

 

[AwesomeButton]

For me the most defining feature of BG is a feature of the Infinity Engine, and by extention of the IE games. It's the swinging animations during a round. The fake swings are not different than the swings with actual hit rolls behind them. I end up watching the sprites swing at each other with this anticipation of a slot machine junkie, waiting for the reels to stop spinning and line up. No other RTwP rpg has given me that.

 

[NJClaw]

Wait, 5e archetypes are like super-kits, they are far more distinct from one another and they are all interesting and useful (apart from a selected few that are a total disgrace).
If you enjoyed class kits, then the entire 5th edition is designed around something that you enjoy.

I haven't seen the books so I'm just going off what I've heard from random people on the internet. I had thought that there were far less classes than what we saw in BG2. I was under the impression that you start with a basic class and then get an option to advance into a few different more specialized classes but that the overall number was far lower. All of this talk in the BG3 thread about how any class can be a good tank or whatever else you need sounds like shit too. Sounds like way less specialization and way more forgiving.

I remember that BG2 had a maximum of 3 kits for each class, am I wrong? 5th edition classes have at least 3 archetypes each (in the Player's Handbook), then each class has been expanded with more archetypes in published splatbooks and work-in-progress articles.
As for the "far less classes", 5th edition has BG2 classes + warlock.

 

[GhostCow]

I remember that BG2 had a maximum of 3 kits for each class, am I wrong? 5th edition classes have at least 3 archetypes each (in the Player's Handbook), then each class has been expanded with more archetypes in published splatbooks and work-in-progress articles.
As for the "far less classes", 5th edition has BG2 classes + warlock.

Nope, looks like you're right. I'm trying to find a list of 5e kits now so I can decide if they are as good or not. Looks like they don't want you to know this stuff without buying the books though. Most classes being able to fill any role still sounds like shit though. I'm big on min/maxing. I'm also not a huge fan of active abilities for melee classes which is one of the things I don't really like about the stuff that came after AD&D but that's mostly me being lazy

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Isometric
Adapted D&D ruleset
Party-based
Party limit of 6
Has to be AD&D ruleset
Campaign set around the Sword Coast
Campaign tone has to be epic high fantasy
RTwP combat, 3s. personal initiative round, etc. ported 1:1 like the IE games
Memorable antagonist character
Power fantasy itemisation
Chunky deaths where enemies blow to pieces when killed

These were my favorite things at least. Other things like returning characters and continuing the story would be nice but really can't be expected. The story was already pretty well wrapped up. I would be pretty forgiving of BG3 if it was rtwp and I think the people who are defending it or excited for it would be way more critical of it if it wasn't turn based. When it comes down to it the gameplay seems to be what people care about the most. At least we can all agree that what we've seen of the writing is shit.

Somewhat offtopic: Personally my favorite thing about the originals was the AD&D ruleset with the stuff from 3e backported. It resulted in a ruleset that I really enjoyed (I love me some thac0) and all kinds of awesome class kits. The class kits made the game so awesome and replayable to me. Especially with the level 1 npcs mod. 5e really seems like shit in comparison to that.

Wait, 5e archetypes are like super-kits, they are far more distinct from one another and they are all interesting and useful (apart from a selected few that are a total disgrace).
If you enjoyed class kits, then the entire 5th edition is designed around something that you enjoy.

As someone who hasn't played a 5E game(I haven't played a tabletop game in many years) but has read the core rulebooks: it seems like they basically set out to make a better 2E tbh.

 

[GhostCow]

I found something that gives a very VERY basic rundown of the 5e archetypes. Kensei is a monk now? That was one of my favorite classes in BG2 but I have a feeling I wouldn't like the 5e version. Here's the list I'm looking at. It's kind of shit in that it doesn't really tell you anything about modifiers or abilities: https://www.tribality.com/2019/01/1...classes-ideal-to-show-to-your-players-part-2/

edit: Sun Soul sounds like the weeb dbz fan's ultimate class. That does sound kind of fun. Who doesn't like shooting kamehamehas?

edit2: No bow focused archetype for Rangers? Gay.

 

[Ulysa]

For me it's more than D&D, isometric and RTwP. You are in a horrible dungeon where your enemy tortures his followers , the atmosphere is real, this is shit, but then Minsc starts talking about kicking evil in the butt and you feel happy. Finding a Lich in a tabern, a dragon that kills your party at the beginning of the game just because you decided to explore. The fucking music. The writing (which sometimes can be really silly, but not when it matters, for example the dreams). The quests ...gods! not knowing where will they take you. The party whining for your decisions, fighting each other, you don't brainwash them like Shepard in Mass effect, they won't agree to do things that are against their wishes, they leave you, and thus they feel real and you care about them.

A world that is there not for you, you are just in the world like everyone else. It's probable that you will miss tons of stuff and the game won't force you to find them. And that is what it makes it feel real. That excitement when you get your party and think "ok where do we go?" knowing that you are able to go wherever the hell you want.

Ah... bah, I could go on for ages, but yes, it's the sum of tiny infinite elements that end up builiding a compelling not forced "save the world" story with unforgettable characters and a world you WANT to explore.

 

[Riddler]

Aesthetic(not only visual but audio as well), writing and combat system. The other things are superfluous fluff. I'm even willing to compromise on the combat stuff but the aesthetic and writing has to be there and that's what Larian is failing to deliver the hardest.

 

[AwesomeButton]

Aesthetic(not only visual but audio as well), writing and combat system. The other things are superfluous fluff. I'm even willing to compromise on the combat stuff but the aesthetic and writing has to be there and that's what Larian is failing to deliver the hardest.

I agree but I thought these were too difficult to translate into an objectively measurable trait that can be representred by a checkbox.

I know the color pallete can be measured and compared, but who here would do this for both games?

 

[Falksi]

Along with some of the suggestions already made, (2-D isometric, party based, adapted D&D ruleset etc.) another vote for aesthetic here.

When I look at BG3 I instantly assume I'm playing in Rivellon. They made Divinity TDKS look as such, DOS 1 look as such, DOS 2 look as such. Why the fuck would they now expect anyone who's not been locked up getting bummed in David Gaider's "fun closet" for 20 odd years to suddenly buy into the aesthetics for BG3 being set in BG's world?

I'm a big Dragon Age:Origins fan and see it as a spiritual successor to BG, but it set off on it's own path so I could buy into some of the more dramatic modernizations. Even if they were shit I wasn't trying to find the BG in there.

With BG3 however I'm drawn out the vibe nearly every other second, wondering who has what connection to stuff like the Dragon Knights etc exist.

It's bollocks.

 

[Saravan]

It must put me in a perpetual state of childhood, anything that may remind me that 20 years has passed is not Baldur's Gate.

 

[DraQ]

No "being rather mediocre game that somehow became an all time classic"?

 

[NJClaw]

As someone who hasn't played a 5E game(I haven't played a tabletop game in many years) but has read the core rulebooks: it seems like they basically set out to make a better 2E tbh.

With 5e they wanted to "go back to the roots". One of their design goals was to build a game that would feel like old school D&D, but with every design lesson that they learned during all these years.

 

[Riddler]

Aesthetic(not only visual but audio as well), writing and combat system. The other things are superfluous fluff. I'm even willing to compromise on the combat stuff but the aesthetic and writing has to be there and that's what Larian is failing to deliver the hardest.

I agree but I thought these were too difficult to translate into an objectively measurable trait that can be representred by a checkbox.

I know the color pallete can be measured and compared, but who here would do this for both games?

There is a million little things but one important one is that the writing should fit the scene and even if it is ridiculous at times it needs to be played straight at important moments.

There should be a through line of seriousness that is offset by an occasional joke, not the reverse.

 

[AwesomeButton]

No "being rather mediocre game that somehow became an all time classic"?

It's not "somehow" though. And we can't change history.

 

[Alpan]

This question is framed incorrectly. It should be:

What are the features with the addition of which a game cannot be a part of the "Baldur's Gate" line of games?

The answer is "aesthetics imported straight from an unrelated line of Divinity: Original Sin games".

Baldur's Gate III will in all likelihood be a very enjoyable game. It will in all likelihood feature numerous homages and references to the first two games. However, it will be regarded historically as the natural continuation of not Baldur's Gate, but the Divinity Original Sin series.