|
So, I'm not sure if I should bump this or start a new thread, but I opted for the bump because...well, it is just a new Baldur's Gate it seems, so the title is pretty appropriate.
http://baldursgate.com/
The countdown has started again! and I've found new other threads or comments relating to this on TL.net
Summary:
PC Gamer wrote:
Taking place between Baldur's Gate 1 and 2, the yet-to-be-named game is not going to be Baldur's Gate III, but the studio says it is "something bigger than we've ever done before."
The studio actually said a fair bit about the unannounced game back in January. The working title is Adventure Y, and it'll run on the Infinity Engine.
[...]
Beamdog founder Trent Oster promised it would be "intimately linked to the Bhallspawn [sic] storyline"
http://www.pcgamer.com/baldurs-gate-countdown-website-points-to-imminent-reveal/
|
Please not another shitty MMORPG.
|
Really curious about this game!
Like, what are they going to do in terms of plot, available NPC, what length it's gonna be, etc.
It seemed to me that the void between BG1 and 2 wasn't that big so I hope they came up with a good story.
Guess we'll find out a bit more in 10 days 
Anyway, I'm going to buy it whatever happens so, I hope it's good :D
|
I am just wondering how they are going to manage character transfers.
You finish BG1 at level 6 i think it was and then transfer that toon into BG2.If you're adding another expansion inbetween BG1 and BG2 doesn't that make the character you import into BG2 more powerful if you are importing it from 1.5 for continuity reasons?
|
On June 29 2015 20:56 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
I am just wondering how they are going to manage character transfers.
You finish BG1 at level 6 i think it was and then transfer that toon into BG2.If you're adding another expansion inbetween BG1 and BG2 doesn't that make the character you import into BG2 more powerful if you are importing it from 1.5 for continuity reasons?
Irenicus experimented on you and took away your extra levels?
|
Is it confirmed that they will let you import the BG "1.5" char to BG 2? Cause I would imagine that they will let you import your char from BG 1 but not let you export it to BG 2.
|
I doubt the XP disparity would be larger than the XP difference between a new BG2 character and an imported BG1 character anyway. The difference between the default starting XP in BG2 and the XP cap in BG1 is enormous.
BG2 XP gain is absolutely bonkers compared to even the very end of BG1 due to 1) trap and spell learning XP becoming absurd, and 2) getting tens of thousands of quest XP. So long as XP gain in "BG1.5" stays closer to end-of-BG1 XP gain, it really won't impact BG2 much at all (although it'd also mean for non-dualclass characters you'd gain maybe 1-2 levels over the course of the entire game tops).
|
On June 30 2015 01:06 TheYango wrote:
I doubt the XP disparity would be larger than the XP difference between a new BG2 character and an imported BG1 character anyway. The difference between the default starting XP in BG2 and the XP cap in BG1 is enormous.
BG2 XP gain is absolutely bonkers compared to even the very end of BG1 due to 1) trap and spell learning XP becoming absurd, and 2) getting tens of thousands of quest XP. So long as XP gain in "BG1.5" stays closer to end-of-BG1 XP gain, it really won't impact BG2 much at all (although it'd also mean for non-dualclass characters you'd gain maybe 1-2 levels over the course of the entire game tops).
You forgot spell scrolls now giving their level x 1000 xp :D
I used to make a Kensai for BG2, collect as many scrolls as possible and then dual class him to mage and learn all the scrolls and instantly bring him to lvl 7 or more :D
|
I didn't forget that.
1) trap and spell learning XP becoming absurd
|
My real concern is, if they use the same D&D ruleset that was used in BG 2. I am no expert but I don't see a reason why Hasbro would grant them a licence for a out of date system. I don't think they would want any kind of promotion for for such an old system.
|
They kind of have to for the importing process to be not terrible.
D&D 3.5/4/5e are too different for an import from 2e to be seamless, ESPECIALLY if it has to back-import for BG2.
Plus, I personally hated how 3e played in the Infinity Engine for IWD2, so I hope they don't go that direction.
Though really, I'm not too worried. Licensing of D&D for a game is more about the branding than of the specifics actual ruleset in question (i.e. they care more that it's "D&D" than if it's "D&D 5e").
|
On June 30 2015 01:06 TheYango wrote:
I doubt the XP disparity would be larger than the XP difference between a new BG2 character and an imported BG1 character anyway. The difference between the default starting XP in BG2 and the XP cap in BG1 is enormous.
You sure about that? I seem to remember that with Tales of the Sword Coast installed, the BG1 XP cap is exactly BG2 starting XP...
|
Honestly I'm more concerned about the writing, the new content while it was fun it was definitely lacking in comparison to the vanilla.
I assume they'll stick with 2e, would be funny if they use the 5th edition. Honestly I'd like a NWN type of game with the rules of the 5th edition, it's more RP centric compared to 3.5 but still has potential of producing of some interesting character builds.
|
On June 30 2015 03:04 Merany wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 01:06 TheYango wrote:
I doubt the XP disparity would be larger than the XP difference between a new BG2 character and an imported BG1 character anyway. The difference between the default starting XP in BG2 and the XP cap in BG1 is enormous. You sure about that? I seem to remember that with Tales of the Sword Coast installed, the BG1 XP cap is exactly BG2 starting XP...
You misremembered slightly. A new character made purely in BG2 starts with 89,000 XP. This is the same as the BG1 XP cap WITHOUT TotSC. WITH TotSC, the XP cap in BG1 rises to 161,000, which, in the context of BG1 XP gains, is enormous (but is tiny in the context of BG2, since you'll accumulate that amount of XP likely within minutes of stepping out of Chateau Irenicus).
On June 30 2015 03:18 Andre wrote:
I assume they'll stick with 2e, would be funny if they use the 5th edition. Honestly I'd like a NWN type of game with the rules of the 5th edition, it's more RP centric compared to 3.5 but still has potential of producing of some interesting character builds.
The thing is, it's really hard to design a game that makes use of all of the character options introduced in 3e-5e. Even in NWN, which cut a massive number of skills from the system, many of those included are worthless or one-dimensional and don't really offer anything to the design of the game. In tabletop, it's much easier to make use of the options due to a human DM being able to account for more variation in player decisions (or at least adapt to them on the fly), but in a computer game, the designer has a hard time accounting for everything, and so only a few options really get explored in detail.
Because of the limitations of what can be hand-crafted into the game, systems more recent than 2e are really hard to make full use of in a cRPG. Even for really faithful games like ToEE, it's really hard to argue that the more complex system actually resulted in more gameplay depth as opposed to just adding more noob traps to character building.
TBH all of the cRPGs that offered really good character building systems IMO are based on systems crafted specifically for the video game medium. Most of the mediocre attempts to port some D&D/d20 variation just result in a hybrid system with a small number of optimal "builds"/characters, a large number of noob trap choices, and very little meaningful gameplay variation (granted, those faults describe most RPG character systems in general).
|
Russian Federation1401 Posts
Pillars of Eternity devs said that they considered getting licence for the DnD rulesets and that they only had the choice of purchasing the most up-to-date versions. So 2.0 is completely out of the question.
|
On June 30 2015 04:11 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 03:04 Merany wrote:On June 30 2015 01:06 TheYango wrote:
I doubt the XP disparity would be larger than the XP difference between a new BG2 character and an imported BG1 character anyway. The difference between the default starting XP in BG2 and the XP cap in BG1 is enormous. You sure about that? I seem to remember that with Tales of the Sword Coast installed, the BG1 XP cap is exactly BG2 starting XP... You misremembered slightly. A new character made purely in BG2 starts with 89,000 XP. This is the same as the BG1 XP cap WITHOUT TotSC. WITH TotSC, the XP cap in BG1 rises to 161,000, which, in the context of BG1 XP gains, is enormous (but is tiny in the context of BG2, since you'll accumulate that amount of XP likely within minutes of stepping out of Chateau Irenicus). Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 03:18 Andre wrote:
I assume they'll stick with 2e, would be funny if they use the 5th edition. Honestly I'd like a NWN type of game with the rules of the 5th edition, it's more RP centric compared to 3.5 but still has potential of producing of some interesting character builds. The thing is, it's really hard to design a game that makes use of all of the character options introduced in 3e-5e. Even in NWN, which cut a massive number of skills from the system, many of those included are worthless or one-dimensional and don't really offer anything to the design of the game. In tabletop, it's much easier to make use of the options due to a human DM being able to account for more variation in player decisions (or at least adapt to them on the fly), but in a computer game, the designer has a hard time accounting for everything, and so only a few options really get explored in detail. Because of the limitations of what can be hand-crafted into the game, systems more recent than 2e are really hard to make full use of in a cRPG. Even for really faithful games like ToEE, it's really hard to argue that the more complex system actually resulted in more gameplay depth as opposed to just adding more noob traps to character building. TBH all of the cRPGs that offered really good character building systems IMO are based on systems crafted specifically for the video game medium. Most of the mediocre attempts to port some D&D/d20 variation just result in a hybrid system with a small number of optimal "builds"/characters, a large number of noob trap choices, and very little meaningful gameplay variation (granted, those faults describe most RPG character systems in general).
From what i know about it, 4th Ed should work well as a cRPG. It is pretty much a system designed for mechanics-focussed tactical combat (I have never played it, that isn't the style of tabletop RPG i enjoy).
And regarding the noobtraps, i am pretty sure that that is not because of porting it to a computer, that is just how DnD works. They want to sell books full of feats and classes, so there must be a lot of feats and stuff. Logically, most of those will be worse than others, and the more there are the more specific interactions will make a character just miles stronger than someone who just picks stuff that sounds cool.
As a tabletop RPG, DnD is in my opinion pretty strictly inferior to a lot of more modern Indie titles which focus less on gigantic amounts of rules and exceptions and more on a very crisp basis. As a ruleset of a cRPG, it is ok. Single player cRPGs are about two things: Mechanical Optimisation and/or storytelling. And with the large amount of rules and exceptions, optimising DnD characters is something one can spend quite a bit of time with.
|
On July 01 2015 02:17 SF-Fork wrote:
Pillars of Eternity devs said that they considered getting licence for the DnD rulesets and that they only had the choice of purchasing the most up-to-date versions. So 2.0 is completely out of the question.
You know, I don't think a 5th ed video game even exists.
|
IIRC Sword Coast Legends is supposed to be on 5E.
|
On July 01 2015 03:07 Simberto wrote:
From what i know about it, 4th Ed should work well as a cRPG. It is pretty much a system designed for mechanics-focussed tactical combat (I have never played it, that isn't the style of tabletop RPG i enjoy).
4th Edition has other flaws that as a whole make it a weak system for both tabletop and for a computer game.
On July 01 2015 03:07 Simberto wrote:
And regarding the noobtraps, i am pretty sure that that is not because of porting it to a computer, that is just how DnD works. They want to sell books full of feats and classes, so there must be a lot of feats and stuff. Logically, most of those will be worse than others, and the more there are the more specific interactions will make a character just miles stronger than someone who just picks stuff that sounds cool.
I wasn't talking about optimization gameplay when I mentioned noob traps. That's its own can of worms. Let me try to be a little more specific:
Take, for example, the skill system. Core D&D 3.5 has 36 skills (not including subdivisions such as the Craft, Knowledge, and Profession sub-skills, after which the number is closer to ~50). It is simply not possible for a cRPG designer to make use of all of these in a meaningful way. The end result is that most of the time, these aren't meaningfully used, and are simple one-off gimmicks (e.g. some single-digit number of checks for a skill that have no real impact on the outcome of the game in any real way). As such, despite the significant added complexity of the 3.5e skill system, it fails to result in gameplay that's any deeper than BG/BG2's simplified version of the 2nd Ed skill system.
The alternate combat options (Bull Rush, Grapple, Sunder, Trip, etc.) are similar. Either you have a character that focuses one-dimensionally on doing one of those things, or the penalties are too large to be worth doing on any other character. So the specialist character does it all the time, and the other characters never do them. So what should be "tactical options" fail to be that, and the end result is, again, gameplay that is no deeper than BG's system where fighters only really get to A-move things. The only depth greater than that really observed in a cRPG is Power Attack DPS optimization, but ToEE is basically the only d20 adaptation that actually preserved fully variable Power Attack values. Most other adaptations used fixed -X attack +Y damage values that can be turned on and off, rather than a flexible slider.
The takeaway point of all of these being that while on paper, the higher complexity and greater number of character options of 3e-5e relative to 2e seems like they should make a deeper and more engaging character system, in practice, these options are impractical or infeasible to really take advantage of in a computer game due to the limitations of a system limited to a small number of play options for any given game state.
As such, the "noob traps" I was referring to are apparent gameplay options that are not actually used, and only serve to add to the complexity of the game without adding to the depth. A new player will mistakenly use these skills or combat options without knowing that the designer has deliberately designed the game to not use them due to the limitations. A character with maxed Bluff is essentially throwing away skill points into a hole when the game has 3 Bluff checks made the entire game. This isn't an inherent flaw of the system, because a DM in a tabletop game can adapt to the character options his players are using. This is purely a limitation of a cRPG.
Returning to optimization gameplay, there are also "noob traps" in the sense that you're referring to, but these are conceptually less bad, because those simply require an understanding of the game mechanics to uncover (which are really all available from the get-go). The noob traps I'm referring to require actual foreknowledge of the game itself to avoid.
|
Optimization in general is much more interesting in 3.5. It suits the PC platform better than 2e because of this. There were many possible character builds for a fighter in NWN2 for example, mainly just because of the multiclassing difference between 3.5 and 2e. You also weren't bound to the 'main' fighter attributes when designing some of the builds. In BG you didn't really have any choice. Multiclassingi was there but some of the limitations didn't make any sense. Like fighter/clerics being limited to the cleric's weapons because of dogma, uhh.
Also in tabletop games when you have an OP character which is often the case with some players, even if the DM tries to address this you have issues when other party members suck in comparison and not necessarily even combat wise. Skill monkeys can be as annoying as some combat centric powerbuilds. Just my personal experience, but it's of course dependant on what kind of players you have playing DnD.
In general the implementation of skills is going to be an issue just because of how games are inherently limited. Storm of Zehir probably had the best implementation of the 3.5 skill system. It still sucked compared to the real deal but there was some potential.
edit: to add, I think skills suck anyway. 3.5e has too many of them, it's not even an issue only on PC. Even when playing a 3.5e game you rarely even use half the skills that a character can possess. This is why I assume a lot of people like 2e because you can actually roleplay instead of rolling for every arbitrary action.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
