Game News Baldur's Gate 3 Panel From Hell 2 - Patch 4 Reveal

[KeighnMcDeath]

Mi

Booba's Gate

missed opportunity to replace the bg3 censor with moo cow head and tongue. Milk makers baby. Yeesh!

Remember the days when most tieflings were supposed to be hideous, or at least disturbing?

Indeed!

Spoiler

Tony DiTerlizzi wasreally the only artist I followed for planescape. Its a style that was different so I can't say tieflings were depicted as fair. From cambion descriptions you'd think they were all nasty looking.

have some modron porn mobs.

 

[Testownia]

Skipping over the trailer it seems like they didn't rework the awfull dialogue system yet, where you have to reload when you want to make a skillcheck with a character who is not the leader of the conversation.
Absolutely baffling, since this should be their number one priority. They changed a lot of good stuff last patch, while this one has glaring omissions like that.

The hag quest they are showcasing there is the one that made me ragequit the beta. The scripting was so broken that the boss never spawned for me.

I guess they said that this patch will have a lot of back end changes.
But looking over lists that are fluctuating on the net for probable patch notes the entire test seems like a waste of time.

This isn't even worth going over point by point, since all of it is shit.
The only thing here that makes the game remotely better is Pathfinding and UI Improvements, and that is vague as fuck.

Overall this made me more pessimistic about the game, but the full patch notes aren't out yet.
Also it looks like they significantly buffed the Druid, which would be hilarious as Moon Druid is one of the most notoriously overpowered classes from 5e.
If they increase the power further this might be the Tier 0 class from BG3. The mechanics currently favor it decently well, as you can easily long rest after every major fight.

Compare that to the development of Star Citizen, and all complaints shall disappear.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

speak with the dead change is
same with targeting party members via portraits, and fleeing
flaming fist change is proof they care about the small things

bg3 will truly be the greatest RPG ever made
all hail swen

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

Remember the days when most tieflings were supposed to be hideous, or at least disturbing?

Not really, no.

Tiefling from the Monstrous Compendium Planescape Appendix I, 1994

 

[Gargaune]

Skipping over the trailer it seems like they didn't rework the awfull dialogue system yet, where you have to reload when you want to make a skillcheck with a character who is not the leader of the conversation.
Absolutely baffling, since this should be their number one priority.

That would be most welcome but the only other game I recall doing it was NWN2 SoZ, it's unfortunately not a widespread feature... unlike basic fucking character selection, which is understood all over the world except for this one town in Belgium.

This isn't even worth going over point by point, since all of it is shit.

Hey, the "Flaming Fist now has their sigil/emblem on their armour shield", that's worth a convention all of its own.

 

[holla_cabezas_de_mierda]

looks amazingly gay

edit---did not get past the harp playing, so who knows after that..

 

[The_Mask]

edit---did not get past the harp playing, so who knows after that..

Alina Gingertail on YouTube. She's ok. God bless her, she tries. And she can be quite charismatic too.

 

[Serious_Business]

"seeing the memes about it"

Look, buddy. Fuck off. You can fuck right off with your mémés and your creative spark. I'll give it to you right up your ass. Go fuck yourself in a corner with your goddamn mémés. Mémees... memeeh. I don't give a fuck about this shit. You'll get the fucking frog and everything else. Whatever the fuck. You'll repeat it to the end of your short days. It'll be fucking dynamic, it'll be enthusiastic, it'll be creative, it'll be Balders Gate. Fuck you

 

[Black_Willow]

"seeing the memes about it"

Look, buddy. Fuck off. You can fuck right off with your mémés and your creative spark. I'll give it to you right up your ass. Go fuck yourself in a corner with your goddamn mémés. Mémees... memeeh. I don't give a fuck about this shit. You'll get the fucking frog and everything else. Whatever the fuck. You'll repeat it to the end of your short days. It'll be fucking dynamic, it'll be enthusiastic, it'll be creative, it'll be Balders Gate. Fuck you

nice meme bro

 

[Dr Schultz]

Skipping over the trailer it seems like they didn't rework the awfull dialogue system yet, where you have to reload when you want to make a skillcheck with a character who is not the leader of the conversation.
Absolutely baffling, since this should be their number one priority.

That would be most welcome but the only other game I recall doing it was NWN2 SoZ, it's unfortunately not a widespread feature... unlike basic fucking character selection, which is understood all over the world except for this one town in Belgium.

Actually, the feature is older and more widespread (Darklands has it, for instance), but - as per the basic fucking selection - I doubt Larian will implement it in the final game.
Not because they don't understand how to make life easier for players, but because this is one key area where they are forced to compromise in order to make the game playable both in single player and in multiplayer (with a drop-in/drop-out logic).
Their designers must assume that at any given moment an unspecified numbers of players (between 1 and 4) are in control of an unspecified number of characters (again, between 1 and 4). Obvious design choices for a single-player game become less obvious in this scenario.

 

[thesheeep]

Their designers must assume that at any given moment an unspecified numbers of players (between 1 and 4) are in control of an unspecified number of characters (again, between 1 and 4). Obvious design choices for a single-player game become less obvious in this scenario.

In D: OS 2 you could jump into / out of conversations at will if you were not the "main" talking character.
It really wouldn't be that much of an issue to go from there to "allow skillchecks for all characters currently partaking in the dialog".

 

[Dr Schultz]

Their designers must assume that at any given moment an unspecified numbers of players (between 1 and 4) are in control of an unspecified number of characters (again, between 1 and 4). Obvious design choices for a single-player game become less obvious in this scenario.

In D: OS 2 you could jump into / out of conversations at will if you were not the "main" talking character.
It really wouldn't be that much of an issue to go from there to "allow skillchecks for all characters currently partaking in the dialog".

Yeah, but who's in charge to select a specific character for a specific skill check? Only the one who started the conversation? The first player who click the option with the desired checks? The one appointed as "party leader"?

It's more complicated than it looks. Technically and designed-wise.

 

[thesheeep]

Yeah, but who's in charge to select a specific character for a specific skill check? Only the one who started the conversation? The first player who click the option with the desired check? The one appointed as "party leader"?

It's more complicated than it looks. Technically and designed-wise.

It really isn't.
The developers just need to make a few decisions - it is clear from the get-go that no decision will be perfect so they can just make any that isn't complete bollocks and stick with it - and be sure to communicate them to players.

 

[Dr Schultz]

Yeah, but who's in charge to select a specific character for a specific skill check? Only the one who started the conversation? The first player who click the option with the desired check? The one appointed as "party leader"?

It's more complicated than it looks. Technically and designed-wise.

It really isn't.
The developers just need to make a few decisions - it is clear from the get-go that no decision will be perfect so they can just make any that isn't complete bollocks and stick with it - and be sure to communicate them to players.

They did. The chose to make only the character who initiates the conversation entitled to perform the checks. Which is the less problematic way to handle all possible scenarios.

 

[thesheeep]

They did. The chose to make only the character who initiates the conversation entitled to perform the checks. Which is the less problematic way to handle all possible scenarios.

Fair enough, I guess.
Lazy, but, yes - indeed the least work involved on their side by far.
And you can't really deny that most will play this alone anyway.

 

[J_C]

I'm pretty sure this had been discussed to death, but the name Baldur's Gate III does a great disservice to this game. Every time I see a footage which actually looks cool, it also looks jarring because I can't disconnect the name from the game. It doesn't have an inch of the atmosphere of the original games. When it comes out I will mod out the main menu and I will call it Neverwinter Nights 3.

 

[Gargaune]

Actually, the feature is older and more widespread (Darklands has it, for instance),

Ah, I didn't know, SoZ was the only I played that let you switch characters in conversation.

but - as per the basic fucking selection - I doubt Larian will implement it in the final game.
Not because they don't understand how to make life easier for players, but because this is one key area where they are forced to compromise in order to make the game playable both in single player and in multiplayer (with a drop-in/drop-out logic).
Their designers must assume that at any given moment an unspecified numbers of players (between 1 and 4) are in control of an unspecified number of characters (again, between 1 and 4). Obvious design choices for a single-player game become less obvious in this scenario.

That's what really gets me and I've rattled about it at length in the main BG "3" thread - this compromise is not necessary to make Multiplayer work.

Interfaces aside, BG3's party controls concept is exactly the same as NWN2's, in that you control your leader and the rest of the party follow indedepently. Though it wasn't quite as emphasised as it was in the original design for its predecessor, NWN2 was still built as a co-op platform.

Where BG3 massively screws the pooch is in the interfaces to execute that concept. NWN2 had Orders (via context menu or hotkeys) and BG3 has the Toilet Chain, but NWN2 also implemented standard multi-selection mechanisms via Shift+Click and, later, Marquee Click+Drag. Coupled with the ability to turn AI completely off via Puppet Mode and a keybind to toggle Select All on and off, NWN2's control scheme did allow you to get some basic simile of the old IE controls, and you could come to terms with it after a bit of practice.

BG3's implementation doesn't let you do that, even though all the elements are already there. You don't even have to jettison the Toilet Chain, you just need to add Shift+Click and Marquee on top of it to apply to non-chained characters. Basically, unchaining acts as Puppet Mode and you can manually select multiple characters as needed. If characters are chained together, they act as they do now, and if they're unchained, all of and only the ones which are in your active selection execute. If you Marquee two unchained characters and there's a third character, chained to one of the former two, then obviously that character will continue following its assigned leader. And this doesn't interfere with multiplayer, because it only applies to characters assigned to a given player, you wouldn't be able to Marquee another player's character just like you wouldn't be able to chain them.

In summary - BG3's party controls follow the same concept as NWN2's for the same reason of multiplayer-compatibility, but they're far, far worse in execution.

I'm pretty sure this had been discussed to death, but the name Baldur's Gate III does a great disservice to this game. Every time I see a footage which actually looks cool, it also looks jarring because I can't disconnect the name from the game. It doesn't have an inch of the atmosphere of the original games. When it comes out I will mod out the main menu and I will call it Neverwinter Nights 3.

I've been saying it for months, should've rolled a new brand and used Baldur's Gate as a subtitle for the first entry. And yes, with the heavy focus on multiplayer, it has more DNA in common with NWN as a concept.

 

[jackofshadows]

They did. The chose to make only the character who initiates the conversation entitled to perform the checks. Which is the less problematic way to handle all possible scenarios.

Yes and that's stupid since it's a party-based RPG after all. In co-op, everyone should be able to see their options. In SP by selecting other party member during dialogue you should see his options instead of falling out of dialogue and selecting him globally while initiator is still 'there' (allowing to do stupid stuff a la stealing paints in D:OS).

 

[gurugeorge]

Their designers must assume that at any given moment an unspecified numbers of players (between 1 and 4) are in control of an unspecified number of characters (again, between 1 and 4). Obvious design choices for a single-player game become less obvious in this scenario.

In D: OS 2 you could jump into / out of conversations at will if you were not the "main" talking character.
It really wouldn't be that much of an issue to go from there to "allow skillchecks for all characters currently partaking in the dialog".

Yeah, but who's in charge to select a specific character for a specific skill check? Only the one who started the conversation? The first player who click the option with the desired check? The one appointed as "party leader"?

It's more complicated than it looks. Technically and designed-wise.

The computer knows who the most skilled is, why not just auto-switch to the most skilled?

The only reason I can see why either a single player or a multiplayer party would want not-automatically-the-best-skilled responder would be for rp purposes (the importunate dwarf interjected). In which case everyone has a micro RNG fight like in SWTOR (simulating internal party dissent).

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

I'm pretty sure this had been discussed to death, but the name Baldur's Gate III does a great disservice to this game. Every time I see a footage which actually looks cool, it also looks jarring because I can't disconnect the name from the game. It doesn't have an inch of the atmosphere of the original games. When it comes out I will mod out the main menu and I will call it Neverwinter Nights 3.

That would be an ever greater disservice, to a game that might actually have been worthwhile:

 

[Dr Schultz]

Ah, I didn't know, SoZ was the only I played that let you switch characters in conversation.


That's what really gets me and I've rattled about it at length in the main BG "3" thread - this compromise is not necessary to make Multiplayer work.

Interfaces aside, BG3's party controls concept is exactly the same as NWN2's, in that you control your leader and the rest of the party follow indedepently. Though it wasn't quite as emphasised as it was in the original design for its predecessor, NWN2 was still built as a co-op platform.

Where BG3 massively screws the pooch is in the interfaces to execute that concept. NWN2 had Orders (via context menu or hotkeys) and BG3 has the Toilet Chain, but NWN2 also implemented standard multi-selection mechanisms via Shift+Click and, later, Marquee Click+Drag. Coupled with the ability to turn AI completely off via Puppet Mode and a keybind to toggle Select All on and off, NWN2's control scheme did allow you to get some basic simile of the old IE controls, and you could come to terms with it after a bit of practice.

BG3's implementation doesn't let you do that, even though all the elements are already there. You don't even have to jettison the Toilet Chain, you just need to add Shift+Click and Marquee on top of it to apply to non-chained characters. Basically, unchaining acts as Puppet Mode and you can manually select multiple characters as needed. If characters are chained together, they act as they do now, and if they're unchained, all of and only the ones which are in your active selection execute. If you Marquee two unchained characters and there's a third character, chained to one of the former two, then obviously that character will continue following its assigned leader. And this doesn't interfere with multiplayer, because it only applies to characters assigned to a given player, you wouldn't be able to Marquee another player's character just like you wouldn't be able to chain them.

In summary - BG3's party controls follow the same concept as NWN2's for the same reason of multiplayer-compatibility, but they're far, far worse in execution.

Too much time has passed since my last playthrough with NWN2 but - truth to be told - all my memories of its "user- friendliness" are tainted by the awful camera controls. So, if Obsidian did something good in terms of party control at the time (and they probably did) now it's completely lost on me.

Having said that, there is a major difference between the two games. In BG3, multiplayer and single-player are basically the same mode because of the drop-in/drop-out feature. Larian's designers, countrary to Obsidian's, have to assume that at any given time a friend (or a stranger) can pop-in an ongoing campaign, take control of an unspecified number of characters (between 1 and 3) and then leave. The toilet-chain, stupid as it may look from a single-player standpoint, it's a smart way to make perfectly clear who controls whom.

Yes and that's stupid since it's a party-based RPG after all. In co-op, everyone should be able to see their options. In SP by selecting other party member during dialogue you should see his options instead of falling out of dialogue and selecting him globally while initiator is still 'there' (allowing to do stupid stuff a la stealing paints in D:OS).

See above. My point is that there is no actual distinction between multiplayer and single-player in the last three Larian games. So, any design solution has to work in both modes at the same time. (I made a specif example below).

The computer knows who the most skilled is, why not just auto-switch to the most skilled?

The only reason I can see why either a single player or a multiplayer party would want not-automatically-the-best-skilled responder would be for rp purposes (the importunate dwarf interjected). In which case everyone has a micro RNG fight like in SWTOR (simulating internal party dissent).

It's not about the optimal result. It's about who is in charge of making the decisions.
I.e: I start a conversation with my main character and I want to use your character to pass a check. I'm entitled to do that? Can you say no? And if you want to do the check but I don't want your help? Can I prevent you from interfering with "my" conversation? And what about the companions that both of us have "chained" to our main characters? Who is in charge of their checks? Me? You? Both of us? One companion each?

All these scenarios are quite easy to handle around a table with a couple of friends, but in a videogame? Complicated... Everything has a trade-off in this case.

 

[J_C]

I'm pretty sure this had been discussed to death, but the name Baldur's Gate III does a great disservice to this game. Every time I see a footage which actually looks cool, it also looks jarring because I can't disconnect the name from the game. It doesn't have an inch of the atmosphere of the original games. When it comes out I will mod out the main menu and I will call it Neverwinter Nights 3.

That would be an ever greater disservice, to a game that might actually have been worthwhile:

LOL, sorry nerd, but nobody remembers this game.


When people say Neverwinter Nights, they talk about the Bioware and Obsidian game. And those look actually similar to Larian's game.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

LOL, sorry nerd, but nobody remembers this game.


When people say Neverwinter Nights, they talk about the Bioware and Obsidian game. And those look actually similar to Larian's game.

In that case, I suggest that Larian adopt the suggestion, originated by Draq and Ontopoly, that their forthcoming game simply be named Baldur's Gate without a numeric suffix. This was one of the consensus findings of the Codex hivemind in the original BGIII thread.

 

[Gargaune]

Too much time has passed since my last playthrough with NWN2 but - truth to be told - all my memories of its "user- friendliness" are tainted by the awful camera controls. So, if Obsidian did something good in terms of party control at the time (and they probably did) now it's completely lost on me.

"Good" isn't the right word for NWN2's party controls, but you can make them tolerable. In contrast, with BG3 I got more frustrated the longer I went and it actively disincentives strategising your approach. Incidentally, you've also hit on my second biggest grievance with BG3, its camera is also worse than NWN2's - zoom-locked pitch, limited zoom range, no edge turning when character-locked, and automatic character lock on turn start are all an endless source of aggravation.

Having said that, there is a major difference between the two games. In BG3, multiplayer and single-player are basically the same mode because of the drop-in/drop-out feature. Larian's designers, countrary to Obsidian's, have to assume that at any given time a friend (or a stranger) can pop-in an ongoing campaign, take controls of an unspecified number of characters (between 1 and 3) and then leave. The toilet-chain, stupid as it may look from a single-player standpoint, it's a smart way to make perfectly clear who controls whom.

I haven't tried the multiplayer, so I'll grant you that maybe I'm missing something that sets BG3 apart from NWN2, but I cannot fathom it, what you described could easily be worked into NWN2. You also have to keep in mind I'm not saying they should remove the Toilet Chain, just add regular multi-selection on top of it to cover unchained characters under your assigned control. Even if you should need an extra highlighting feature, it's well worth doing away with the unapologetic catastrophe that is BG3's current selection handling and that's not restricted to single-player - there's proportionally less hassle if you only have to do it for two characters, but you still have to drag them in and out of the chain rather than simply clicking or marquee-ing them.

 

[Dr Schultz]

Too much time has passed since my last playthrough with NWN2 but - truth to be told - all my memories of its "user- friendliness" are tainted by the awful camera controls. So, if Obsidian did something good in terms of party control at the time (and they probably did) now it's completely lost on me.

"Good" isn't the right word for NWN2's party controls, but you can make them tolerable. In contrast, with BG3 I got more frustrated the longer I went and it actively disincentives strategising your approach. Incidentally, you've also hit on my second biggest grievance with BG3, its camera is also worse than NWN2's - zoom-locked pitch, limited zoom range, no edge turning when character-locked, and automatic character lock on turn start are all an endless source of aggravation.

Having said that, there is a major difference between the two games. In BG3, multiplayer and single-player are basically the same mode because of the drop-in/drop-out feature. Larian's designers, countrary to Obsidian's, have to assume that at any given time a friend (or a stranger) can pop-in an ongoing campaign, take controls of an unspecified number of characters (between 1 and 3) and then leave. The toilet-chain, stupid as it may look from a single-player standpoint, it's a smart way to make perfectly clear who controls whom.

I haven't tried the multiplayer, so I'll grant you that maybe I'm missing something that sets BG3 apart from NWN2, but I cannot fathom it, what you described could easily be worked into NWN2. You also have to keep in mind I'm not saying they should remove the Toilet Chain, just add regular multi-selection on top of it to cover unchained characters under your assigned control. Even if you should need an extra highlighting feature, it's well worth doing away with the unapologetic catastrophe that is BG3's current selection handling and that's not restricted to single-player - there's proportionally less hassle if you only have to do it for two characters, but you still have to drag them in and out of the chain rather than simply clicking or marquee-ing them.

I gotta be honest, I can't remember a worse experience with camera controls than the one I had with NWN2. Maybe it's my memory and the camera wasn't that BAD, but I think this is the main reason why I've never replayed MotB and SoZ despite the enjoyment I had at time with both expansions.

In comparison, DOS camera (and by extension BG3 camera as long as you don't zoom in) struck me a serviceable, especially considering the variety of purposes it serves (allowing smooth interactions with a shitload of small objects, giving a good overview of the battlefield during combat, dealing with a lot of verticality during exploration, etc...).
This is a camera with a complicated job: Like dealing with the needs of Ultima 7 and ToEE at the same time, with more verticality than both games ever had.