Baldur's Gate Baldur's Gate 3 Pre-Release Thread [EARLY ACCESS RELEASED, GO TO NEW THREAD]

[Lilura]

I don't remember too many details from tidbits I read about the module, but wasn't it integral part of Gygax's design to create a skeletal frame of adventure with the intention that it will be fleshed out differently by each individual DM?

And who is the DM in this case? Troika. My point was that the factional reactivity wasn't fleshed out as per Gygax's writings. Also, I forgot to mention the writing: atrocious. Overall, the campaign wasn't given the treatment it deserved. Campaign-wise, Swordflight is more Gygaxian than ToEE.

 

[Mr. Hiver]

When you completely separate the "spirit" from the ruleset

The problem is, too many people by 'ruleset' understand 'mechanics', but not all rules are covered by mechanics, are they?

Only if you have some special constricted view of what mechanic term entails. I was specifically using the term ruleset to avoid such misunderstanding and personal interpretations. So if youll reply to me keep to what i said.

But the further away from that core and closer to that line you move the mechanics, so the player skills gains more influence on the game content and options within it then character stats, the further away you are from the "spirit"

There are parts of any ruleset that are crucial to the 'spirit' of the game and yet not part of mechanics. Examples: 'XP only for gold' vs 'XP only for kills'; 'Spellslot gain independent from spell aquisition, which happens in game' vs 'Spell aquisition on level-up from all encompassing list'; 'Magic items as a bonus element meant to shake things up' vs 'Wealth per level and expectancy of magic items built in encounters' etc.
The balance between mechanics and player skills has no influence on these.

I am speaking primarily about specific and defining core features of RPG games there. All of those examples you mentioned fall under mechanics of the game or, its entire ruleset.
If you gain XP only from gold, or from kills - or earns skill points instead of XP, thats a specific rule, i.e. mechanic. Same with the rest.

The character abilities and stats that impose limits on the game content and options within it - that the player cannot directly override but must evolve and enhance - are the foundation on which all other features of the RPG are built on. and a foundation that creates unique and defining gameplay of RPG games. Not the only features.

When the player skill grows in influence it unavoidably lesses the characters stats influence. Which lessens the spirit.

But on the other hand, emphasis of player skill over stat influence may boost the spirit in other elements of the game i.e. Gygax's Tomb of Horrors.

That shifts the game toward Action RPG form, or spits it out of the whole genre entirely if its pushed too far. No doubt other types of games and genres have their own "spirit". Thats not the issue here.

Thats a obvious lie, or you are that magnificently retarded. Because we LITERALLY do know something about the game, and we do actually and literally know what wasn't revealed although those are the very basics and foundations of the genre and those specific games...
While only a rare few are actually assuming "shit" specifically.

See? You are demonstrably deranged and should be institutionalized, along Tuco and few others. And i proved that with your own words, not by fallacies, over exaggeration or by lying about anything.

Unless I missed something we know vague comments that don't really say much and that's it. Some are wildly assuming things, and assuming the worst. Those are the people I was mocking. If you're not doing that, good for you, I wasn't talking about you.

Im not that interested in your additional confirmation of your cognitive dissonance and denial of existence of few bits of info we have and few we dont have.
I have already pointed that out in your own words. No need to confirm you are actually doing that repeatedly.

What "some" are doing is their own problem. Argue with them specifically instead of the whole forums - which is exactly what i pointed out.

 

[Artyoan]

The more interesting quotes from Swen:
1. "Specifically, one of the things we wanted to achieve but didn’t really manage that well in DOS2 is how the group of adventurers function as a party – how that plays and impacts them. So we made ‘gather your party’ the motto of BG3. We’re putting a lot of emphasis on how the party dynamics are going to evolve throughout the game."

Obviously I have no idea what that means so I'll speculate. DOS2 was turn based and the chain reactions and synergies were largely environmental. With something real time they can make those synergies more class based so that coordination of abilities and spells transforms the end result for a similar effect?

2. "We had to make a few tweaks, but we’re also trying to bring the stuff that you use in combat to overcome your foes, and which relates to how you imagine the fight to be, and how you imagine your characters doing things. We’re trying to make that possible within the game. So expect something that’s going to give you quite a lot of freedom when it comes to combat."

So a large variety of different ways to create those synergies? I'm thinking something more like DOS2's armor system where instead of dealing physical or magic damage which fractures team work, you have to use class abilities that synergize to deplete the armor before being able to effectively damage them. So building synergy tactics between different party members abilities is important. More party based then one guy having a fire spell that lights the oiled stage on fire by himself.

Talking out of my ass. But what else is there to do.

 

[Mr. Hiver]

Impossible to say to what that specifically refers to. Some kind of environmental effects synergies (they said nothing about transferring those over in some form) seems least likely because thats the role of magic abilities more then a party mechanic. I would guess there will be such synergies but more as a role for some magic spells, not a party mechanic. It may be simply the inter relations within the party, or maybe how different classes work with each other... maybe buff eachother and have some purely martial synergies.

There was already too much "freedom" in DOS games in combat, as any character had their own long jumps, flying, teleportation and whatnot abilities because there were duplicate skills and you could choose any for any character.
Here character builds should be more constricted by classes.

But making armor behaving like extra HP bloat again would be a major mistake and a disaster. It would reduce the options you have in combat just like it did the last time. Hopefully they wont be able to bend the DnD rules that much. But i doubt thats what they mean or intend to do.

 

[AwesomeButton]

But making armor behaving like extra HP bloat again would be a major mistake and a disaster. It would reduce the options you have in combat just like it did the last time. Hopefully they wont be able to bend the DnD rules that much. But i doubt thats what they mean or intend to do.

How much of a bending is it to turn a system where you have to-hit rolls into a system where you can't miss?

 

[Mr. Hiver]

Less then replacing a whole armor system. Especially for something they admitted was a bad idea.

And he did not say "never miss", but adjustments so you dont miss as much as it happens in DnD... which could be nothing worse then graze mechanic.
But remains to be seen exactly what he meant.

 

[Fairfax]

Gygax may have only meant the "spirit of adventure" there, but specific rulesets are what provides that unique defining style of gameplay through characters and their abilities, not direct player skills. That creates distinct different roles and options, choices and consequences. When the player skill grows in influence it unavoidably lesses the characters stats influence. Which lessens the spirit.

There are different ways of rewarding player skill. Twitchy ARPG combat is the wrong answer for D&D, of course, but promoting clever/skillful decision-making doesn't lessen the original spirit, it does the opposite. The way 3E de-emphasized player skill is one of the reasons it's so different to the originals, and one of the core principles of the OSR is "player skill over character skill".

Gygax had much to say about that and other factors that made 3E so opposed to the original style and spirit:

The major appeal of the FRPG is the fantastic, the assumption of a character role in a world filled with strange creatures, and by dint of effort, building through deeds of action and intellect that game persona from a lowly adventurer to a renowned figure with power and prestiege in his milieu. There is little satisfaction in such accomplishment if it isn't earned.

The basis for the D&D game, including 3E and 3.5E is not the superheroic, but the heroic. IMO, the new system hands players on a proverbial silver platter what once had to be earned, and so there is an escalation in character powers and those of "monsters" as those who play the new game seek to find the satisfaction they will never gain from it, because there is no earning of rank through long play that gives actual experience and understanding, grants the ability of clever play, not mere use of gifted powers.

In OAD&D there was plenty of play aimed at power, just as there is in 3E. Of course those that I knew as "good" players aimed first and foremost at having fun playing the game, regardless of rise in rank and all the rest that goes with power gaming. The challenge of each session was enjoyed more from a group perspective, likely. As the team prospered, so too the enjoyment, cameraderie, and resulting stories. Many a group downplayed combat, developed campaigns in which roleplay was the key. Politics and economics? Sure. While OAD&D certainly focused on combat mechanics and rules, it did not hinder other sorts of play. The XP system in 3E does that with a vengence.

IMO there has been a vast shift in game focus in 3E. The archetype has gone by the board, comic book-like feats are a feature, the whole purpose of play is set on killing things, and power gaming is encouraged.

There is no relationship between 3E and original D&D, or OAD&D for that matter. Different games, style, and spirit.

Also, the way that skills and feats are presented tends to both encourage multi-classing while blurring the archetypes. Yes, one can still play 3E with archetypes, but the system does not encourage it, nor is that in the spirit of the system--gaining power.

My opinion is this: I think 3E is made for power gamers and relies on seek & destroy for its appeal, so having verisimilitude in any setting in which the system is employed is not of much importance. The changes made in 3E simply up the power of humans, making them more like supermen than the older systems allowed.

New D&D is a very different game from O/AD&D, and there's no possible debate regarding that.

As the original author of the two systems from which new D&D springs, I must concur. the new version is not in the spirit of those games. That new D&D is played and enjoyed my many gamers means it is unquestionably a good game in its own right, but it is "D&D" in name only when compared to its progenitors.

Any able DM can craft adventures that weed out unwise and inept players who think to bulldoze their way through problems by use of undeserved power. That’s possible only in computer games where saved games and cheat codes serve to reward such play.

Gygax thought Troika/Cain understood the adventure's spirit, but that didn't make the game "faithful" (Gygax never said that, nor did I). Had Gygax played ToEE, he certainly would've noticed how much the adventure is brought down by the ruleset (not to mention Troika's take on the adventure, which is a different issue). Still, it's not a clear cut issue. Different rulesets can have a similar spirit, and the same ruleset can be used to achieve a different one. For instance, AD&D, LA, and C&C have very different rulesets, but Gygax said all three have the same spirit. On the other end, there is LotFP, which has similar rules to OD&D but a completely different style. Arcana Unearthed/Evolved uses 3E as basis in a very different way, and that one is Gygax-approved.

So again, where does one draw the line? Most Codex users have a clear preference for 3.5E, but one could reasonably argue that a 3.5E game cannot be "faithful to D&D", no matter how perfect the adaptation is. Many draw the line at turn-based combat, but AD&D is phase-based, so how could TB be a requirement? I do think it's important to discuss and preserve D&D's original spirit, but there are very few mechanics that are sine qua nons (attack rolls are an obvious one, Swen is undeniably wrong). OD&D, AD&D, 3E, 4E, and 5E are all so different that everyone's requirements will be biased towards a specific edition/game, so the attempt to make this a binary thing is pointless. It's better to take each for what they're worth and judge their respective adaptations accordingly.

BG3 is different because the title alone ensures it'll be compared to the originals, which had their own style and spirit, while also adapting a different ruleset. It'll be hard for Larian to walk that line, but they chose that title to take advantage of the legacy carved by the originals, so it's only fair that the bar is set higher.

 

[Master]

This trailer wasn't bad but it would've been more effective if they didn't show the Cthulhu monster at the end, and if they ended it with just shadows of tentacles on the wall.

 

[Lady_Error]

Okay, maybe it will be turn-based after all - possibly a Realms of Arkania type hybrid with 1st person exploration and isometric combat.

In a party-based game, you can only do TB or RTwP. And if they do consoles, then that leaves only TB.

 

[luj1]

This trailer wasn't bad but it would've been more effective if they didn't show the Cthulhu monster at the end, and if they ended it with just shadows of tentacles on the wall.

Lies! Clearly they know how to handle a 30 year old intellectual property

Spoiler

 

[Master]

Right. Well, im not getting my hopes high for this.

 

[Kyl Von Kull]

Thats a obvious lie, or you are that magnificently retarded. Because we LITERALLY do know something about the game, and we do actually and literally know what wasn't revealed although those are the very basics and foundations of the genre and those specific games...

While only a rare few are actually assuming "shit" specifically.

See? You are demonstrably deranged and should be institutionalized, along Tuco and few others. And i proved that with your own words, not by fallacies, over exaggeration or by lying about anything.

Unless I missed something we know vague comments that don't really say much and that's it. Some are wildly assuming things, and assuming the worst. Those are the people I was mocking. If you're not doing that, good for you, I wasn't talking about you.

We know there are 300 people on the team! If this is turn based or RTWP, it would be perhaps the most expensive such project in video game history (with the possible exception of some Final Fantasy titles). Dragon Age: Origins had a team of 180 people. The Witcher 3 had 250 people, who were paid in potatobucks.

Larian, on the other hand, is paying first world wages to 200 employees and 100 more contractors to make Baldur’s Gate 3. That imposes real constraints on the project. The company couldn’t have gotten where it has by ignoring market forces. You talk about wild assumptions as though it’s crazy to believe that Larian wants to turn a profit. I think it’s a wild assumption to believe otherwise. Swen’s running a business, not a charity for neglected grognards.

Some of you guys are acting like this is Schrödinger‘s RPG: until Larian explicitly tells us how the combat will work, it could be anything. So let’s treat this cat box like a game with randomized loot. In theory a particular chest could contain anything on the loot table; however, if you’ve looked at the table and you know the odds of getting an enchanted weapon are 2%, while the odds of getting a healing potion are 60%, you’re going to expect a healing potion. You might hope for a +3 greatsword with 2d6 fire damage, but that doesn’t change the odds. If you saw your friend getting excited about every chest because it might have a magic item, you’d probably warn them to lower their expectations and spare themselves the disappointment.

I’m not saying Baldur’s Gate 3 will be bad. A 3D action RPG set in the Forgotten Realms with lots of well-fleshed-out systems to toy with, both in and out of combat, could potentially be a lot of fun. Though I don’t like Larian, they’re the right studio to make wizards really shine outside of combat like they do in pen & paper.

But it’s probably going to be an action game or it will have new BioWare style RTwP. Is that a guess? Sure, but it’s an educated guess.

Given: the market for action games is much larger than the market for turn based or RTwP.
Given: the more you spend developing a game, the larger your addressable market needs to be to turn a profit.
Given: Larian is spending a fuckton of money on this thing.
Assumption: Swen wants to turn a profit.
Assumption: Swen is a halfway decent businessman.
Q.E.D. Swen is making an ARPG.

 

[Mr. Hiver]

Master That was a ship, not a Cthulu monster, but otherwise agreed. Although, considering for which audience it was done... it could have been worse.

There are different ways of rewarding player skill. Twitchy ARPG combat is the wrong answer for D&D, of course, but promoting clever/skillful decision-making doesn't lessen the original spirit, it does the opposite. The way 3E de-emphasized player skill is one of the reasons it's so different to the originals, and one of the core principles of the OSR is "player skill over character skill".

Gygax had much to say about that and other factors that made 3E so opposed to the original style and spirit

"promoting clever/skillful decision-making doesn't lessen the original spirit" - And nothing says that has to be done through player skills taking over character stats influence on the game content and options within it.
The player is always tasked to be clever and skillful - in using the character abilities and stats to solve specific quests and tasks. In even choosing them at the start to build a specific type of a character and then evolving them further.
Thats a different type of gameplay then using player skills inside the game content that override character based restrictions - if there are any at all.

One is closer to that original spirit, the other further away. It may still have some of that spirit, like various Action RPGs do have, but it is not the same thing.

As Gary says himself:

Gary Gygax said:
The major appeal of the FRPG is the fantastic, the assumption of a character role in a world filled with strange creatures, and by dint of effort, building through deeds of action and intellect that game persona from a lowly adventurer to a renowned figure with power and prestiege in his milieu. There is little satisfaction in such accomplishment if it isn't earned.

The basis for the D&D game, including 3E and 3.5E is not the superheroic, but the heroic. IMO, the new system hands players on a proverbial silver platter what once had to be earned, and so there is an escalation in character powers and those of "monsters" as those who play the new game seek to find the satisfaction they will never gain from it, because there is no earning of rank through long play that gives actual experience and understanding, grants the ability of clever play, not mere use of gifted powers.

The crucial part of it is:

"the assumption of a character role"

"and by dint of effort, building through deeds of action and intellect that game persona"

To do both, you have to have a system where character abilities and stats impose limits on the game content and options within it - that the player skills cannot override and so is forced to play with. That creates A Role that is substantial, solid thing the player is not just pretending about. That he cannot override with his own twitch skills but must build, use and evolve and must accept all the consequences that specific build creates. Limits as well as options.

The rest of his quotes talk about specific style of gameplay, the focus on combat and power gaming instead of expanding the content of a game - such as Fallouts did, for example. Where you could talk, sneak, cheat, science the fuck out of and swindle your way out of most situations - all limited by your character abilities.

 

[AwesomeButton]

I like it how we have to summarize what we know and what we can extrapolate from what we know every few pages for every late fabulous optimist.

I cannot for the life of me see why you people take the bit about missing to mean BG3 won't be TB, when Larian's most successful game by far had TB without misses.

Everything is shit until proven otherwise. :D

But seriously, I've listed the things that make me suspicious they are going towards a DA:I gameplay - the dev team enlargement, the focus on production values, the refusal to commit to an answer in interviews.

Or from where such an idea can even come from.

From WotC, sadly.

Edit: Swen likes RPGs, but he also likes money.

 

[Kyl Von Kull]

I like it how we have to summarize what we know and what we can extrapolate from what we know every few pages for every late fabulous optimist.

You’d think a community of RPG fans would be better at math.

So a veteran of those games (proven by write-ups) and a veteran of NWN2 (proven by write-ups) is telling you that Electron's cam can be set at a tactical-isometric angle with the added benefit of rotation, zoom and on-rails tracking (I even posted screencaps earlier), but you just put your head in the sand and prefer to double down on your parrot-ignorance; so much so, that I begin to wonder if you are an SJW as well

Heartbreaking. Has Lilura been radicalized?

 

[Lacrymas]

Okay, maybe it will be turn-based after all - possibly a Realms of Arkania type hybrid with 1st person exploration and isometric combat.

In a party-based game, you can only do TB or RTwP. And if they do consoles, then that leaves only TB.

:fabulouslyoptimistic:

You can have a party-based game without pause or TB by not controlling the rest of the party or having other people in multiplayer control them. Or the third option is Mass Effect, pause only to control your party in the most rudimentary way possible, but that won't work in multiplayer.

 

[FeelTheRads]

You just lack the basic human intelligence required in order to work it out. I'm dead set serious: you 'tards are on par with those who can't work out Gothic's controls.

Well, then I must lack that basic intelligence to use it.

The thing is, though, you shouldn't need intelligence to use the camera. It should just work.

And no, it doesn't. What's the big improvement that this strategic camera offers compared to the others? Free scrolling? Is that the big technical achievement? Obsidian discovered free scrolling?
Too bad they didn't figure out how to make the camera zoom follow the terrain so if you move up a hill or something you end up with a locked zoom unless you scroll in and out to unlock it. Every fucking time.
Too bad they didn't figure out a decent amount of zoom. In fact, I often used the trick above and go on a hill, unlock the zoom and zoom out the farthest I could and then keep the camera at that height. Then I'd have a more acceptable level of zoom and could see more of the fucking game in the other areas that were not hills. Well, at least until map change because, well...
Too bad they didn't figure out how to keep the camera at least in its position if not the zoom too on map change, and you always end up in a "cinematic experience" camera with the view right up your party's butt. Even when using the amazing strategic camera.

Every fucking map change you need to adjust the camera. Every fucking turn in a dungeon you need to adjust the camera.

It's less about not being able to use it, it's about having to "use" it all the time.

But congratulations on adopting J_C's apologism, I guess. He also thinks he's very clever because he figured out how to rotate a 3D camera.

By the way, rotation doesn't offer ANY advantage. Nothing that NWN2 takes advantage of anyway. Rotation only causes many of the issues, causing you to constantly need to adjust the camera.

Blizzard can make 3D cameras with no rotation and they're way more usable, because guess what, they act like a 2D camera. No loss from having no rotation.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Well, why haven't you been banned yet?

In fact, how about you kill yourself and save "the mods" the trouble?

 

[Master]

tactical-isometric angle with the added benefit of rotation

I dont see the benefit of rotation (in these games), other than just to show off the 3d. Its better and maybe easier for the devs if the angle is just locked and fights designed accordingly.

 

[Grunker]

I’m probably way late to the party here but what the fuck is up with Sven saying in that GameSpot interview that BG1 and 2 is based on D&D 3.5?

Does not exactly inspire confidence. Infinitron has the man himself tweeted about it?

 

[Infinitron]

Swen must have given like ten back-to-back interviews that day. He can be excused for making a flub.

 

[Mr. Hiver]

Way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way,way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way,way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, late.

Its too late Grunker. Swen also thinks BG games were made by Valve.

Its going to be Baldurs mass effect.

 

[Grunker]

Swen must have given like ten back-to-back interviews that day. He can be excused for making a flub.

That’s a pretty big fucking flub

 

[luj1]

It depends on whether he instantly reprimanded himself or not. Which I assume he didn't.

 

[Lilura]

The thing is, though, you shouldn't need intelligence to use the camera. It should just work.

I said "basic human intelligence", you lousy nimrod. Which is simply activating Strategy mode, clicking Camera Mode: Can Be Moved Freely (Free Camera), Ceilings Always Off and Marquee Select On. Wow, my brain hurts.

And no, it doesn't. What's the big improvement that this strategic camera offers compared to the others? Free scrolling? Is that the big technical achievement? Obsidian discovered free scrolling?

Cams don't "scroll". And no other cam tracks like the Electron one does.

The power of tracking in Electron:

The flaws highlighted by you were highlighted by me already, both in this thread and on my blog. In fact, you probably only know about them from my writings, you parrot.

Its pros still outweigh its cons. And my argument was only that this cam should be employed by BG3, with these kinks ironed out.

By the way, rotation doesn't offer ANY advantage. Nothing that NWN2 takes advantage of anyway. Rotation only causes many of the issues, causing you to constantly need to adjust the camera.

In 2d isometric games such as Fallout shit gets hidden behind wall-tiles and isn't easy to see. Only Jagged Alliance 2 did things properly. The ability to rotate is clearly advantageous. And tracking facilitates proper large-scale battles, such as the one I posted a screencap of earlier.

Don't let your fanboyism for Fallout and isometric blind yourself to the evolution. This is the most tactical cam for RPGs, full stop. And anyone who devalues it is written off immediately, including you.