Baldur's Gate Baldur's Gate 3 Early Access Thread [GAME RELEASED, GO TO NEW THREAD]

[Grunker]

Just finished up the cultist demon boss for ToSC. Jeez I don't remember this guy being so tough.

My Berzerker and Kensai playthroughs mowed this guy down instantly. I had to actually use some strategies to win.

Maybe because the game got patched he's tougher or I didn't have the right protection spells? F/M multi will get strong eventually right?

Did you play SCS? Cultist fight competes with final battle for toughest fight on SCS.

On non-SCS it can be trivialized with wands among other things

 

[whydoibother]

Imagine Haer'dalis in the modern age.

Asterion strikes me as way more obnoxious than Haer'Dalis

Asterion has a lot more edge to him. From his dialogue in EA, he's a nasty psycho for real, not just a dark and brooding femoid fapbait.

 

[The_Mask]

So I went to have a look at Haer'Dalis' dialogue from BG2 and now I'm depressed at the state of modern RPG writing compared to stuff that was written 20 years ago

Now imagine that he is voiced by Michael Bell. Imagine this: putting the voice of Raziel into BG II. The man turned those mediocre lines into gold.

Now imagine what awaits us next.

 

[Nerevar]

Did you play SCS? Cultist fight competes with final battle for toughest fight on SCS.

On non-SCS it can be trivialized with wands among other things

No mods installed. I've heard of SCS but never used it maybe I'll use it next playthrough.

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

Everything from the way inventory works to the environmental interactions or just interacting with the world. The game’s “base” is indistinguishable from interacting with DOS. Must have saved them a bunch of time.

I wouldn't necessarily call that "assets" though. I'd call that the base engine.

When I want to say Bethesda reuses an old engine, I just say that. If I said "Bethesda is just using old assets", it would immediately make people think I was saying they used old 3D models or some such.

An engine is technically an asset in the literal definition, but just not what people think of the way an object, sound effect or a map is.

But I see what you're saying now, and basically agree in principle.

 

[whydoibother]

If I said "Bethesda is just using old assets", it would immediately make people think I was saying they used old 3D models or some such.

Bethesda are reusing old assets. Not textures or model skeletons, maybe. But they reuse the same scripts all the time. That's why they often have the same bugs in multiple games, they just copy the script with its bug.

 

[Grunker]

Everything from the way inventory works to the environmental interactions or just interacting with the world. The game’s “base” is indistinguishable from interacting with DOS. Must have saved them a bunch of time.

I wouldn't necessarily call that "assets" though. I'd call that the base engine.

When I want to say Bethesda reuses an old engine, I just say that. If I said "Bethesda is just using old assets", it would immediately make people think I was saying they used old 3D models or some such.

An engine is technically an asset in the literal definition, but just not what people think of the way an object, sound effect or a map is.

But I see what you're saying now, and basically agree in principle.

It definitely is assets. Animations are assets. Programming of mechanics are assets. And a bunch of the actual graphics are identical but have just been reskinned - much like in BG2. This is the case for the vast majority of world objects, for example.

But I mean, we’re really doing a semantic exercise here. My point stands: that working with an engine, a bunch of assets and a set of mechanics the team and leadership was incredibly comfortable with has got to have been crucial for the scope of BG3.

 

[whydoibother]

Everything from the way inventory works to the environmental interactions or just interacting with the world. The game’s “base” is indistinguishable from interacting with DOS. Must have saved them a bunch of time.

I wouldn't necessarily call that "assets" though. I'd call that the base engine.

When I want to say Bethesda reuses an old engine, I just say that. If I said "Bethesda is just using old assets", it would immediately make people think I was saying they used old 3D models or some such.

An engine is technically an asset in the literal definition, but just not what people think of the way an object, sound effect or a map is.

But I see what you're saying now, and basically agree in principle.

It definitely is assets. Animations are assets. Programming of mechanics are assets. And a bunch of the of the actual graphics are identical but have just been reskinned - much like in BG2. This is the case for the vast majority of world objects, for example.

But I mean, we’re really doing a semantic exercise here. My point stands: that working with an engine, a bunch of assets and a set of mechanics the team and leadership was incredibly comfortable with has got to have been crucial for the scope of BG3.

If you copy pathfinding.cpp from Divinity/Oblivion into BG/Skyrim, you are reusing assets. This is perfectly fine, rational, and expected. Indie devs are correct to point out they aren't in a position to do so, but I don't get why they are so vocal about it now.

 

[Grunker]

You’ll get it when you have your hands on the game, Non-Edgy. The game feels so close to DOS “in your hands” the similarities are impossible to argue.

The combat and overall visual identity are the main differences. It’s even similar in a bunch of specific design ways, like the way you exhaust map content by moving from POI to POI.

 

[Grunker]

Everything from the way inventory works to the environmental interactions or just interacting with the world. The game’s “base” is indistinguishable from interacting with DOS. Must have saved them a bunch of time.

I wouldn't necessarily call that "assets" though. I'd call that the base engine.

When I want to say Bethesda reuses an old engine, I just say that. If I said "Bethesda is just using old assets", it would immediately make people think I was saying they used old 3D models or some such.

An engine is technically an asset in the literal definition, but just not what people think of the way an object, sound effect or a map is.

But I see what you're saying now, and basically agree in principle.

It definitely is assets. Animations are assets. Programming of mechanics are assets. And a bunch of the of the actual graphics are identical but have just been reskinned - much like in BG2. This is the case for the vast majority of world objects, for example.

But I mean, we’re really doing a semantic exercise here. My point stands: that working with an engine, a bunch of assets and a set of mechanics the team and leadership was incredibly comfortable with has got to have been crucial for the scope of BG3.

If you copy pathfinding.cpp from Divinity/Oblivion into BG/Skyrim, you are reusing assets. This is perfectly fine, rational, and expected. Indie devs are correct to point out they aren't in a position to do so, but I don't get why they are so vocal about it now.

Are they? Like I said, if Tactical doesn’t make a new game with Solasta’s engine it’s pretty much QED for my point

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

But they reuse the same scripts all the time.

Whoop-de-do.

If I made a game with the Unreal Engine and copied royalty-free open-source scripts into it in the process, would you say "he's reusing assets!"? Nope. Because a) you probably would never know and b) you know people would laugh at you.

Reusing assets generally looks like what BG2's devs did. There were items, sounds, sprites and effects that were literally reused from the previous game and, iirc, other Infinity Engine games.

They could do that, since it was all within a fairly close timeframe, within the same universe, and they had a similar level of quality.

But if Larian were literally copy/pasting the starter map from DOS2 into BG3 instead of just starting on the beach as an easter egg, people would notice it and they would feel like it was them being cheap. And that's exactly what some people itt (not Grunker, the other guy - draksomething) are implying.

 

[Pizzashoes]

Astarion is the rogue of Baldur's Gate 3 and he will be the popular emblem of roguish charm going forward. Haer'dalis was hamming it up shouting out "The Doomguard will strike a blow" or "At last... oblivion" and it wasn't cringe. He confidently hit on every woman in a realistic way. The two aren't the same, and I'm not sure Astarion is even decline yet. But the writers have him assault your main character. For a party leader, you have to kill him.

SCS is the standard for replays of Baldur's Gate I and II. I'm no maniac elitist pretending to be an authority on a twenty year old game, but the game's combat system becomes way more fleshed out. The basic argument for it is: Demiliches and Wizards with 18 Intellect should utilize their intelligence and actually cast their own spells. Yes, some of it is cheesey, and the wizards have contingencies they fill on the fly. But SCS forces you to learn how to play the game and use your abilities better.

 

[Zeriel]

So I went to have a look at Haer'Dalis' dialogue from BG2 and now I'm depressed at the state of modern RPG writing compared to stuff that was written 20 years ago

It's wild to read media from the 90s made for literal children that sounds more mature than the glorified "mature" output of 2023. It really isn't nostalgia glasses, things are just getting worse exponentially year by year.

 

[Grunker]

But they reuse the same scripts all the time.

Whoop-de-do.

If I made a game with the Unreal Engine and copied royalty-free open-source scripts into it in the process, would you say "he's reusing assets!"? Nope. Because a) you probably would never know and b) you know people would laugh at you.

Reusing assets generally looks like what BG2's devs did. There were items, sounds, sprites and effects that were literally reused from the previous game and, iirc, other Infinity Engine games.

They could do that, since it was all within a fairly close timeframe, within the same universe, and they had a similar level of quality.

But if Larian were literally copy/pasting the starter map from DOS2 into BG3 instead of just starting on the beach as an easter egg, people would notice it and they would feel like it was them being cheap. And that's exactly what some people itt (not Grunker, the other guy - draksomething) are implying.

But that’s exactly my point. They’re not being cheap - they’re being smart.

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

You’ll get it when you have your hands on the game, Non-Edgy. The game feels so close to DOS “in your hands” the similarities are impossible to argue,

I...already do have my hands on the game?

And like I said, I understand what you're saying, but "gosh, this feels the similar! they're using the same engine!" isn't the same as "wow, I played this exact map before and I've seen these same lizardmen models before" or "did they reuse this item icon?".

 

[Zeriel]

So I went to have a look at Haer'Dalis' dialogue from BG2 and now I'm depressed at the state of modern RPG writing compared to stuff that was written 20 years ago

Now imagine that he is voiced by Michael Bell. Imagine this: putting the voice of Raziel into BG II. The man turned those mediocre lines into gold.

Now imagine what awaits us next.

Using AI voices of Michael Bell, Tony Jay, and Simon Templeman and replacing the audio in any modern game with them would probably be a huge upgrade. Now I'm sad no one has done AI training for them.

 

[Grunker]

Astarion is the rogue of Baldur's Gate 3 and he will be the popular emblem of roguish charm going forward. Haer'dalis was hamming it up shouting out "The Doomguard will strike a blow" or "At last... oblivion" and it wasn't cringe. He confidently hit on every women in a realistic way. The two aren't the same, and I'm not sure Astarion even decline yet. But the writers have him assault your main character. For a party leader, you have to kill him.

SCS is the standard for replays of Baldur's Gate I and II. I'm no maniac elitist pretending to be an authority on a twenty year old game, but the game's combat system becomes way more fleshed out. The basic argument for it is: Demiliches and Wizards with 18 Intellect should utilize their intelligence and actually cast their own spells. Yes, some of it is cheesey, and the wizards have contingencies they fill on the fly. But SCS forces you to learn how to play the game and use your abilities better.

Bang on post, this.

Though I will say, playing the game, the companions seem more interesting than I thought they would be. Even Astarion seems less obnoxious than I thought, though still incredibly obnoxious

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

So I went to have a look at Haer'Dalis' dialogue from BG2 and now I'm depressed at the state of modern RPG writing compared to stuff that was written 20 years ago

He did have much better writing. He was clearly a unique character and a memorable one.

However, I always found him 10x more annoying a faggot than Astarion, so I'm sure there are better examples...

 

[Grunker]

A lot of the issues with modern RPG writing is how much modern language and especially modern idioms characters use compared to something like BG2 (barring meme characters like Minsc)

 

[whydoibother]

But they reuse the same scripts all the time.

Whoop-de-do.

Bruh you are the only person here who thinks reusing existing assets is bad. You are the guy out of touch with industry practice, who thinks we are attacking Larian or Bethesda for pointing out they have an existing library of resources that they are reintegrating into this project.

Are they? Like I said, if Tactical doesn’t make a new game with Solasta’s engine it’s pretty much QED for my point

In order to make Game 2 reusing the assets from Game 1, you need to have the good luck and capital to publish and ship Game 1, have it be successful, and retain the staff to make Game 2. Which already is "getting lucky" in indie dev terms.
To then get hired to make Game 3, with a big brand license, is getting very lucky. I don't think we'll see Tactical go Solasta -> Solasta 2: Revengeance -> Solasta: Star Wars.

 

[Grunker]

But they reuse the same scripts all the time.

Whoop-de-do.

Bruh you are the only person here who thinks reusing existing assets is bad. You are the guy out of touch with industry practice, who thinks we are attacking Larian or Bethesda for pointing out they have an existing library of resources that they are reintegrating into this project.

Are they? Like I said, if Tactical doesn’t make a new game with Solasta’s engine it’s pretty much QED for my point

In order to make Game 2 reusing the assets from Game 1, you need to have the good luck and capital to publish and ship Game 1, have it be successful, and retain the staff to make Game 2. Which already is "getting lucky" in indie dev terms.
To then get hired to make Game 3, with a big brand license, is getting very lucky. I don't think we'll see Tactical go Solasta -> Solasta 2: Revengeance -> Solasta: Star Wars.

Solasta is a lot cheaper to make. And with something like Pillars/Josh, the excuses become even less usable. This guy had the same opportunities that Larian had, more or less, he just spent them less well. And I say this as a Pillars fan.

BG3’s success is clearly making these guys butthurt

 

[Grunker]

But they reuse the same scripts all the time.

Whoop-de-do.

Bruh you are the only person here who thinks reusing existing assets is bad. You are the guy out of touch with industry practice, who thinks we are attacking Larian or Bethesda for pointing out they have an existing library of resources that they are reintegrating into this project.

Bingo

I mean, who criticized asset reuse in BG2? It’s literally the reason the game is amazing

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

Bruh you are the only person here who thinks reusing existing assets is bad. You are the guy out of touch with industry practice, who thinks we are attacking Larian or Bethesda for pointing out they have an existing library of resources that they are reintegrating into this project.

I realize you're ESL, so maybe you don't understand: I don't like your use of the word "assets" because it's misleading.

You can say no one cares (apart from that one Drak guy, who clearly does care, since he posted negatively about it), but that's not the issue. The issue is that it's misleading.

I am fine with what Larian has done. I am fine with reusing a game engine.

I am not fine with reusing (especially visual) assets from a game that's more than 5 years old and from a different franchise, and that's what saying simply "they reused assets from DOS2" implies to me.

Now, maybe I'm just ignorant of "industry practice here", unlike a professional game designer like yourself, but I disagree with the use of that word. Nothing more. I don't think either of you are attacking anything.

 

[whydoibother]

I realize you're ESL, so maybe you don't understand: I don't like your use of the word "assets" because it's misleading.

Game scripts are assets. They are literally sold in the assets shop for Unreal Engine and Unity. I guess these are dirty ESL companies who can't speak english.
Btw, I'm a developer too. Not in gamedev, but I do work on multiple projects, and there is a folder called "assets" that contains.... code. Scripts. Files I copy from other projects, like for validating dates or citizen ID numbers or car registration, etc. Literally reusing assets from my older work.

Asset doesn't just mean textures, visual assets aren't the only type of asset. You are being silly, and dying on a silly hill.

 

[Grunker]

I am not fine with reusing assets from a game that's more than 5 years Old

Why. This is why we can’t have nice things.

They’re definitely doing that btw, even with your limited definition of assets. A ton of the world objects like cups and plates are clearly reused. Others are reskinned. This is also the case with some icons - books even have the same “background glow” as in dos.