Baldur's Gate Baldur's Gate 3 by Larian Studios - now available on Early Access - next Panel From Hell on July 7th

[0sacred]

so your point is Arcanum level dialogue would be done today if it wasn't for voice acting. Which is probably not true. That was my point

A indie company could do it. Now, a game like Arcanum would cause massive butthurt and be considered antisemitic, racist, fascist, nazist(....)Just like Morrowind, we will never get to see a Morrowind faithful remake cuz just imagine SJW's that complain about orcs in D&D seeing Breton with 50 INT(About IQ = 100 IRL) and Redguards with 30 INT(about IQ = 60 IRL).

But we don't need to talk about Arcanum level of goodness. Imagine a small Serb team wanting to make a game like UnderRail. Now imagine that they are expected to have fully voice acting...

except no one expects full VO in an indie game

 

[vibehunter]

Voiced protag needs to go.

Agreed. The entire standard of everything being fully voice acted is bringing decline to the genre.

The exception is for dungeon crawlers with little to no player agency.

you honestly think writing nowadays would be better if it wasn't voiced? lol

Not necessarily, but opting out of voice acting helps create the opportunity for richer and more expansive dialogue. Of course, whether this opportunity is properly taken advantage of and well-executed still depends on the skill of the writing team.

 

[Reinhardt]

who cares about dialogues

 

[Pink Eye]

this will revoultioinize videog ames. this and starfield. F A C T !!!

 

[Fedora Master]

Voiced protag needs to go.

Agreed. The entire standard of everything being fully voice acted is bringing decline to the genre.

The exception is for dungeon crawlers with little to no player agency.

you honestly think writing nowadays would be better if it wasn't voiced? lol

Not necessarily, but opting out of voice acting helps create the opportunity for richer and more expansive dialogue. Of course, whether this opportunity is properly taken advantage of and well-executed still depends on the skill of the writing team.

You want less Larian dialogue, not more.

 

[BruceVC]

who cares about dialogues

Dialogue is critical to party interaction and participating in companion side quests. Its also intrinsically part of all Romance arcs

But I dont mind or care about full voice, thats cosmetic to me. Just some voice is nice like in BG2 but what is much more important are the dialogue options and outcomes and how they influence the game

 

[Volourn]

It is a Larian game. The dialog uis meaningless. FFS, BG1 which has basic straight to the point writing and doesn't really have dialogue checks had more depth and ud more iterating than Larian or most video game writing. Even with retartet Minsc.

 

[BruceVC]

It is a Larian game. The dialog uis meaningless. FFS, BG1 which has basic straight to the point writing and doesn't really have dialogue checks had more depth and ud more iterating than Larian or most video game writing. Even with retartet Minsc.

Volo do you have any links to confirm the veracity of your views

I dont remember anything terrible about the dialogue in D:OS2, it was fine?

 

[Reinhardt]

Dialogue is critical to party interaction and participating in companion side quests. Its also intrinsically part of all Romance arcs

Who cares about companion side quests and romance arcs. I ain't reading this shit.

 

[BruceVC]

Dialogue is critical to party interaction and participating in companion side quests. Its also intrinsically part of all Romance arcs

Who cares about companion side quests and romance arcs. I ain't reading this shit.

So forget Romance arcs, are you telling me that you dont interact with your party members or have any interest in their stories and who they are?

 

[Sunri]

Dialogue is critical to party interaction and participating in companion side quests. Its also intrinsically part of all Romance arcs

Who cares about companion side quests and romance arcs. I ain't reading this shit.

So forget Romance arcs, are you telling me that you dont interact with your party members or have any interest in their stories and who they are?

He only plays with himself.

 

[Reinhardt]

any interest in their stories and who they are?

no. why should i care? "let's go kill some fags" "sure" - that's enough for me.

 

[BruceVC]

any interest in their stories and who they are?

no. why should i care? "let's go kill some fags" "sure" - that's enough for me.

Great question, " why should I care " ?

Its because party interaction is part of the overall RP aspect of the game and the journey. This doesnt apply to action RPG but it does apply to RPG where the design and mechanics incorporate this

So interaction with your party is important because its part of RP. The dialogue options adds more depth and substance to the game

 

[Reinhardt]

So interaction with your party is important because its part of RP.

we interact in combat. someone heals others, someone buffs - that's enough. me not rp emotional support dog.

 

[Readher]

So interaction with your party is important because its part of RP.

we interact in combat. someone heals others, someone buffs - that's enough. me not rp emotional support dog.

Can't wait for the next Battlefield. Someone heals others, someone gives out ammo. Best RPG ever.

 

[gurugeorge]

any interest in their stories and who they are?

no. why should i care? "let's go kill some fags" "sure" - that's enough for me.

That's just a tactical RPG then (which is fine as a genre too). But the CRPG proper became a thing because it blends tactical gameplay with a story (with some kind of at least semi-interesting writing) and character interaction/development.

I maintain that the proper definition of a CRPG (inasmuch as a definition can be given or is at all useful) is an adventure simulator. It's an ideal that works on both an intellectual and emotional level, so that you have not only intellectual engagement in the gameplay, but also some degree of emotional immersion in the virtual world, story and characters, with the result that the game is more engrossing and addictive than either alone would be.

 

[Reinhardt]

That's just a tactical RPG

BG1>BG2. "let's go kill some fags" is enough.

 

[BruceVC]

any interest in their stories and who they are?

no. why should i care? "let's go kill some fags" "sure" - that's enough for me.

That's just a tactical RPG then (which is fine as a genre too). But the CRPG proper became a thing because it blends tactical gameplay with a story (with some kind of at least semi-interesting writing) and character interaction/development.

I maintain that the proper definition of a CRPG (inasmuch as a definition can be given or is at all useful) is an adventure simulator. It's an ideal that works on both an intellectual and emotional level, so that you have not only intellectual engagement in the gameplay, but also some degree of emotional immersion in the virtual world, story and characters, with the result that the game is more engrossing and addictive than either alone would be.

This is a complex definition but I agree, do you include Romance in that definition because I consider it emotionally immersive and realistic as part of any party based RPG

If you were on quest to save the world from eternal darkness and you spent many nights around a campfire with the likes of the beautiful and seductive Isabella or Viconia why would you not have a romantic relationship with them? Especially knowing tomorrow could be your last day?

I have always maintained that optional Romance should be included where reasonable in every RPG that has an objective of realism and immersive design

 

[Reinhardt]

beautiful and seductive Isabella

 

[Reinhardt]

every RPG that has an objective of realism

should remove wommyn warriors. so no "romances" for you.

 

[gurugeorge]

any interest in their stories and who they are?

no. why should i care? "let's go kill some fags" "sure" - that's enough for me.

That's just a tactical RPG then (which is fine as a genre too). But the CRPG proper became a thing because it blends tactical gameplay with a story (with some kind of at least semi-interesting writing) and character interaction/development.

I maintain that the proper definition of a CRPG (inasmuch as a definition can be given or is at all useful) is an adventure simulator. It's an ideal that works on both an intellectual and emotional level, so that you have not only intellectual engagement in the gameplay, but also some degree of emotional immersion in the virtual world, story and characters, with the result that the game is more engrossing and addictive than either alone would be.

This is a complex definition but I agree, do you include Romance in that definition because I consider it emotionally immersive and realistic as part of any party based RPG

If you were on quest to save the world from eternal darkness and you spent many nights around a campfire with the likes of the beautiful and seductive Isabella or Viconia why would you not have a romantic relationship with them? Especially knowing tomorrow could be your last day?

I have always maintained that optional Romance should be included where reasonable in every RPG that has an objective of realism and immersive design

It all depends on how well it's done. If it's not done well, or it's an opportunity for a Teaching Moment or whatever, then it's a waste of time. The romances in BG2 were mostly ok, and the concept of romance did add some depth, but it's been badly handled ever since (maybe some of the romances in DAO were ok too, thinking of the campfire thing, with that lovely music).

 

[Sarathiour]

(maybe some of the romances in DAO were ok too

I am this close from posting a compilation of dao sex scene

 

[Cryomancer]

I don't get why so many people care about romances so much. It is completely dissociated from the gameplay almost every single case. There are few exceptions like Mount & Blade, where marrying gives right to rule, affects the relationship with your wive's family and her kingdom/town among other things. Other example is Heather Poe which affects a bit the late parts of the game, but she is more like a blood doll/slave/ghoul than a proper romance option.

Would be interesting if for example in a Ravenloft : Strahd possession, romancing the obcession of Stahd, Tatyana had terrible consequences in the game, with Strahd becoming completely furious, or if sleeping with a succubus could gradually make you enslaved by her and she will demand something atrocious and more sex you had with her makes more difficulty to break her domination spell.

 

[Sunri]

I don't get why so many people care about romances so much. It is completely dissociated from the gameplay almost every single case. There are few exceptions like Mount & Blade, where marrying gives right to rule, affects the relationship with your wive's family and her kingdom/town among other things. Other example is Heather Poe which affects a bit the late parts of the game, but she is more like a blood doll/slave/ghoul than a proper romance option.

Would be interesting if for example in a Ravenloft : Strahd possession, romancing the obcession of Stahd, Tatyana had terrible consequences in the game, with Strahd becoming completely furious, or if sleeping with a succubus could gradually make you enslaved by her and she will demand something atrocious and more sex you had with her makes more difficulty to break her domination spell.

That would be cool, but I'm happy with sex scenes anyway.

 

[Fedora Master]

I don't get why so many people care about romances so much.

Because you're not the deeply lonely tranny/nerd/fujoshi audience this is aimed at.