Baldur's Gate I've never played DoS2. Should I be worried about Larian's version of BG?

[Alpan]

What pics? luj1 Care to share?

agris is referring to a bunch of pictures screencapped from a Larian Studios documentary, where a few untextured NPC models and faces are shown on an artist's computer screen. Contains no information about the game (or any game, for that matter), but given the timeline of the documentary, it's decent circumstantial evidence that BG3 will be a third-person game.

EDIT: Source.

 

[Silly Germans]

I doubt that BG3 will be anything like its predecessors and I am glad that i stopped caring for brand names a long time ago.
D:OS 1/2 were both pretty good, and even if the new game might not be a good as a successor it will probably still turn out
as a decent rpg on its own.

I also dislike the character recycling in game series. Most of the time it doesn't work and you have people complaining. If they
want to include the old characters, they should do it in an indirect way, via stories, notes, books or whatever. Its much more
fun to discover the fate of your old companions in this way than having them included directly in a version which doesn't agree
with your perception of them. And they can keep it ambiguous with indirect storytelling, leaving room for your own imagination
how things turned out.

 

[Mark Richard]

BG1 is literally autistically running through mostly empty maps. It has some good content, encounters, and itemization, but the overall exploration is so laughably bad, BG2 wins easily in comparison.

BG2 simulates the highlights of a campaign whereas BG1 simulates a campaign in its entirety. There's a price to such a plodding approach, including long intervals where little of consequence happens, hundreds of enterable houses containing nothing but irked peasants, and massive open spaces which need to be meticulously combed for anything of interest. Its a price I pay gladly. Some folk would prefer watching the Fellowship of the Ring jump from notable places like Rivendell and Moria, others prefer experiencing every aspect of the journey so it feels like just that - a journey. BG2 scratches many itches, but wanderlust isn't one of them.

 

[smaug]

BG1 is literally autistically running through mostly empty maps. It has some good content, encounters, and itemization, but the overall exploration is so laughably bad, BG2 wins easily in comparison.

BG2 simulates the highlights of a campaign whereas BG1 simulates a campaign in its entirety. There's a price to such a plodding approach, including long intervals where little of consequence happens, hundreds of enterable houses containing nothing but irked peasants, and massive open spaces which need to be meticulously combed for anything of interest. Its a price I pay gladly. Some folk would prefer watching the Fellowship of the Ring jump from notable places like Rivendell and Moria, others prefer experiencing every aspect of the journey so it feels like just that - a journey. BG2 scratches many itches, but wanderlust isn't one of them.

Wanderlust is great, something I wish BG2 had, however, it doesn’t mean it was done well in BG1.

 

[samuraigaiden]

Could be third-person turn-based, like Valkyria Chronicles.

 

[DraQ]

Larian has only made one truly badly written game so far as far as I know (DOS1).
As for the humour I would be much happier if no one ever told biowarean that such thing exists, all their attempts to date have been utterly ghastly, MDK2 included.

BG2 simulates the highlights of a campaign whereas BG1 simulates a campaign in its entirety.

With absentee GM.

BG2 scratches many itches, but wanderlust isn't one of them.

That's what TES is for. (Apart from Oblivion, as usual)

 

[Mexi]

BG2 is a decidedly inferior game to BG1. I couldn't even finish BG2, and I've beat the first like four different times.

I've beat the first like 10 times, and only beat BG2 once. BG2 is the better game.

 

[FreeKaner]

There isn't much difference between BG2's writing and Larian's. Including the cringe romance.

It also has to be said, BG1 is a much better game than both BG2 and whatever Larian made. Indeed it is not even close, people who like BG2 over BG1 are simply degenerates with bloat fetish.

 

[Delterius]

it's just that it's not even funny

That makes them perfect for Baldur's Gate.

 

[FranticDistortion]

Larian did make Divine Divinity back in the day, it was a quite serious game with bits of, not necessarily good mind you, dark humor sprinkled in. They can pull grimdark atmosphere and decent gameplay off, but quality of their writing varies (from trash to decent).

 

[Morality Games]

So I've played DoS and found the writing to be laughable. The gameplay also didn't really grab me. I decided to pass on dos 2 which is supposedly the game of the century for some. Should I be worried about Larian handling bg? Why?

D:OS2 vastly reduced lol-zy factor and didn't depend on memes as a substitution for a world with stories and characters, like the original OS. Larian is definitely more on the side of lighthearted "swords and sorcery" high adventure than subdued and gritty dark fantasy, however, and I wouldn't expect that to change.

But honestly, I think at this point what separates Divinity from Baldur's Gate is less the writing and more the art style.

 

[Mastermind]

Make it RTWP - it will be kludgy mess like the original, smarter portion of the audience will bitch.

Yeah, the people who can't keep track of a handful of actors are the "smarter portion of the audience".

"I can't find my character, making me the genius!"

TB tards are the Wimp Lo of of the codex.

 

[DraQ]

Make it RTWP - it will be kludgy mess like the original, smarter portion of the audience will bitch.

Yeah, the people who can't keep track of a handful of actors are the "smarter portion of the audience".

No, but people who realize that making controls ill-suited for the task adds nothing to the game are.

 

[Thal]

I've played D:OS1 and am playing D:OS2 right now. Larian's biggest problems are the stupid setting that they're married to which inevitably produces banal plots they end up recycling in each and every game. I don't give a fuck about the Source, Void or Divinity. With Forgotten Realms and DnD they have similarly conventional fantasy setting except this time its good at what it does. Moreover, Forgotten Realms has been around long enough that it has a history (as does TES btw), whereas Rivellon feels like it ceases to exist when you quit the game. The other "problem" that has caused some ruckus is the randomized drops and the character system tied to it. But I wouldn't consider this a minus, since both Original Sins have some of best tactical combat experiences in all rpgs.

Everything else is solid or top notch. Larian rpgs always reward creative thinking whether inside or outside combat. Most of all, Original Sin maps are insanely good. In fact they've done the almost-impossible and it's actually possible to miss quests, items, secrets and even sub-areas in a top-down/isometric rpg with small maps. If you take PoE, for example, only Raedric's hold compares.

Take their basic design formula to DnD and you should have a quality game. OP shouldn't worry about Larian per se, but rather the usual suspects. How much do they need to dumb it down to reach sales targets? What is the extent of publisher control/idiocy? Is the team too large to make a consistently good game? Also a big question mark: Is it possible to transfer the basic combat formula to DnD? Quest, environment and map design should be fine and those alone should quarantee a good rpg.