The Baldur's gate trilogy is, in my opinion (and I'm sure many of yours), the absolute best video game series ever made. New RPGs always seem to fall short of the standard set by Baldur's Gate for some reason, and with the trends in modern gaming you've got to wonder if there will ever be something like it again.
What is it that makes Baldur's Gate a great game for you? What is it that makes new RPGs (like Dragon Age) fall short? If the designers of "Baldur's Gate 3" wanted your opinion on what to include in the game, what would you say?
I'll kick off the discussion with the question of whether a new game should use D&D mechanics. The spell/ability system in modern games (again using the example of Dragon Age) is neat, but in my opinion not nearly in-depth enough to provide the diversity tactics found in Baldur's Gate. Would the inclusion of D&D mechanics be a plus or a minus for you in a new RPG?
Things you want in a new RPG
Débuté par
welcomehome160
, mai 30 2011 03:50
Retour en haut
#2
Posté 30 mai 2011 - 02:04
Moganza
-
- Members
- 73 messages
I think the inclusion of D&D rules would be welcome. I can never find that Ability Points Rolling screen boring 
. And well its familiar to all of us so we can get right. I think a new forgotten realms game with new graphics, keep the isometric view, new spells,weapons,armour and items of course. Keep it the same level of customability as in BG2 (i know they say too much customability is never a bad thing but NWN and NWN2 was kinda overboard imho).
Then they need to weave an epic tale with awesome side quests and scenery. Really they just need to give BG2 one hell of a facelift, throw in a book by J.R.R.Tolkien and make gameplay slightly new and fun. Those were metaphors
Really i wouldnt mind if they released a new story and kept everything the same but i think they need to step it up for the sales and a better experience overall. And i know i emphasized on graphics but thats only because i dont think it takes a lot of effort to bump it up a notch (or a few notches)
. And well its familiar to all of us so we can get right. I think a new forgotten realms game with new graphics, keep the isometric view, new spells,weapons,armour and items of course. Keep it the same level of customability as in BG2 (i know they say too much customability is never a bad thing but NWN and NWN2 was kinda overboard imho).Then they need to weave an epic tale with awesome side quests and scenery. Really they just need to give BG2 one hell of a facelift, throw in a book by J.R.R.Tolkien and make gameplay slightly new and fun. Those were metaphors
Really i wouldnt mind if they released a new story and kept everything the same but i think they need to step it up for the sales and a better experience overall. And i know i emphasized on graphics but thats only because i dont think it takes a lot of effort to bump it up a notch (or a few notches)
#3
Posté 30 mai 2011 - 05:29
BelgarathMTH
-
- Members
- 1 008 messages
What makes Baldur's Gate the greatest of all RPG's to me? Well, there are a lot of elements working together to make it great.
One is that I like the second edition rules, especially for multiclassing. Third edition (Icewind Dale 2, NWN, NWN2) kind of made true multiclassing undoable in favor of "splash" characters, for example mage 17/fighter 1/cleric2, which just isn't the same. But that's all water under the bridge, because nobody's going to make another second edition game.
But I would still prefer third or maybe fourth edition D&D rules to the simplified character development being done now. Agonizing over every decision for my character's training has always been part of the fun for me.
A second element of RPG greatness seen in BG is, of course, the NPC characterization. The characters in BG are so well voice-acted and have such interesting story arcs that they are almost like real people to me; they are my old friends, and I am always glad to see them.
I think Neverwinter Nights 2 and Dragon Age 1 came close to recapturing that "part of a team" feeling, and I still enjoy those games for that reason.
Other important elements include reward for exploration (if you don't uncover every inch of map you will miss lots of fun stuff), an immersive game world with beautiful art and architecture, plus interesting sociology and politics, and of course, the story, which has lots of twists and turns and a few surprise reveals (at least the first time you play).
Another game that comes close to capturing these elements was Knights of the Old Republic 1, especially on the big story reveal. (What,... it's me?)
By contrast, I haven't even bought Dragon Age 2, and I don't think I'm going to, because I believe the negative buzz that they have completely abandoned all the game elements that make our particular crowd want to play.
The people developing games now don't believe that there is enough of a market to make a complicated, classic RPG be financially successful. If we are to ever have another game as good and timeless as Baldur's Gate, there will have to be a small, maverick company who sells to our niche market and succeeds at it.
I do believe that there are enough of us out here to financially support such a company - I would even pay a premium on the price, say something in the $100 dollar range, for a game from a company that successfully got itself branded the way Bioware used to be.
What it will take is the right combination of artistic talent, programming talent, and business talent coming together. We can always hope, and maybe some ambitious young person reading this will get some ideas in his or her head and will actually make it happen in the next decade or two. Somebody has the potential to get very rich from our currently completely unserved market.
One is that I like the second edition rules, especially for multiclassing. Third edition (Icewind Dale 2, NWN, NWN2) kind of made true multiclassing undoable in favor of "splash" characters, for example mage 17/fighter 1/cleric2, which just isn't the same. But that's all water under the bridge, because nobody's going to make another second edition game.
But I would still prefer third or maybe fourth edition D&D rules to the simplified character development being done now. Agonizing over every decision for my character's training has always been part of the fun for me.
A second element of RPG greatness seen in BG is, of course, the NPC characterization. The characters in BG are so well voice-acted and have such interesting story arcs that they are almost like real people to me; they are my old friends, and I am always glad to see them.
I think Neverwinter Nights 2 and Dragon Age 1 came close to recapturing that "part of a team" feeling, and I still enjoy those games for that reason.
Other important elements include reward for exploration (if you don't uncover every inch of map you will miss lots of fun stuff), an immersive game world with beautiful art and architecture, plus interesting sociology and politics, and of course, the story, which has lots of twists and turns and a few surprise reveals (at least the first time you play).
Another game that comes close to capturing these elements was Knights of the Old Republic 1, especially on the big story reveal. (What,... it's me?)
By contrast, I haven't even bought Dragon Age 2, and I don't think I'm going to, because I believe the negative buzz that they have completely abandoned all the game elements that make our particular crowd want to play.
The people developing games now don't believe that there is enough of a market to make a complicated, classic RPG be financially successful. If we are to ever have another game as good and timeless as Baldur's Gate, there will have to be a small, maverick company who sells to our niche market and succeeds at it.
I do believe that there are enough of us out here to financially support such a company - I would even pay a premium on the price, say something in the $100 dollar range, for a game from a company that successfully got itself branded the way Bioware used to be.
What it will take is the right combination of artistic talent, programming talent, and business talent coming together. We can always hope, and maybe some ambitious young person reading this will get some ideas in his or her head and will actually make it happen in the next decade or two. Somebody has the potential to get very rich from our currently completely unserved market.
#4
Posté 31 mai 2011 - 02:08
BelgarathMTH
-
- Members
- 1 008 messages
Sorry for double posting, but I thought of a couple more reasons why Baldur's Gate is a great rpg:
1) combat tactics - you have to learn to be a good squad commander to succeed at combat in BG. If you don't learn good tactics, you die, almost comically fast. Dead party members stay dead until you go through considerable inconvenience and expense of your resources to get them raised, so death really means something.
Most of the post-classical games have lost this element, maybe all of them. The current philosophy is that the average player wants to just plow through every battle with minimal effort and doesn't want to think or have any sense of risk.
2) realism - most games now have completely lost it; there is no day-night cycle or circadian rhythm that means anything. The fatigue system in Baldur's Gate makes you rest for 8 hours every 24 hour cycle. My party works at most from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. at the latest, and we don't go skulking about at night. We avoid camping when possible and try to rest at inns.
Other people probably really like to be night owls and sleep during the day.
This realism of day/night and work/rest greatly increases immersion and suspension of disbelief. Games have gradually been losing this in every generation in favor of greatly simplified time mechanics that provide no more than an illusion of day/night that doesn't mean anything.
Another example of a game from the classical era that captures the essential elements of great RPG's is the old Might and Magic series.
In answer to the OP's question, I want somebody to make another classical RPG game that has all the essential elements.
1) combat tactics - you have to learn to be a good squad commander to succeed at combat in BG. If you don't learn good tactics, you die, almost comically fast. Dead party members stay dead until you go through considerable inconvenience and expense of your resources to get them raised, so death really means something.
Most of the post-classical games have lost this element, maybe all of them. The current philosophy is that the average player wants to just plow through every battle with minimal effort and doesn't want to think or have any sense of risk.
2) realism - most games now have completely lost it; there is no day-night cycle or circadian rhythm that means anything. The fatigue system in Baldur's Gate makes you rest for 8 hours every 24 hour cycle. My party works at most from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. at the latest, and we don't go skulking about at night. We avoid camping when possible and try to rest at inns.
Other people probably really like to be night owls and sleep during the day.
This realism of day/night and work/rest greatly increases immersion and suspension of disbelief. Games have gradually been losing this in every generation in favor of greatly simplified time mechanics that provide no more than an illusion of day/night that doesn't mean anything.
Another example of a game from the classical era that captures the essential elements of great RPG's is the old Might and Magic series.
In answer to the OP's question, I want somebody to make another classical RPG game that has all the essential elements.
Modifié par BelgarathMTH, 31 mai 2011 - 02:10 .
#5
Posté 31 mai 2011 - 02:44
Moganza
-
- Members
- 73 messages
While i agree that combat tactics is amazingly good at BG. its one of those mechanics that once mastered things pose little threat. I would like a new rpg to requires both strategy and reflexes. Maybe removing pause would emulate something like this and alternative would be to increase the level of AI and random monsters so that things are less predictable and u are forced to think on the spot as opposed to simply reloading until u got the method down. Thats my opinion anyway
#6
Posté 31 mai 2011 - 10:50
bussinrounds
-
- Members
- 1 434 messages
Moganza wrote...
While i agree that combat tactics is amazingly good at BG. its one of those mechanics that once mastered things pose little threat. I would like a new rpg to requires both strategy and reflexes. Maybe removing pause would emulate something like this and alternative would be to increase the level of AI and random monsters so that things are less predictable and u are forced to think on the spot as opposed to simply reloading until u got the method down. Thats my opinion anyway
There's always the tactical setup on the BWP to increase the difficulty.
#7
Posté 12 juin 2011 - 10:25
Azione
-
- Members
- 21 messages
Non-linear plots. Non-good/bad choices. Give me a real chance for me to roleplaying over and over again!!
#8
Posté 13 juin 2011 - 02:25
Windfoot
-
- Members
- 71 messages
Welcomehome160,
Do you work in the industry?
Non-linear gameplay, but...
1. there has to be a reason to do the sidequests. I would go into more detail but this is the no spoiler forum.
2. you have to have a meaningful gaming experience. Just like there has to be a reason to do the sidequests, the story line has to draw you in and seem plausable...if you found yourself in that situation would you have the proper motivation to do side quests or continue on in the storyline?...saving a loved one is a pretty good motivator.
A consistant and complex rule set.
1. Consistant: It's very frustrating to play a game where the NPCs "cheat"...where they have abilities you don't have access to and that you can't counter in some way. For the most part the bosses in BG are using the same spells and effects you or someone in your party could use.
2. Complex: BG's rule set is complex and complete. Any effect has a counter to it (ex. imprision/freedom or level drain/negative plane protection). Also, as part of the complexity, you can get magical effect through other means than just a caster..for instance, potions, using scrolls, effects on equipment.) This allows multiple class to be effective and allows you enough flexibility to want to replay or even solo. Having more different classes than you can have in any one party also enhances replay since you want to try them all out and in different combinations (yet again dual and multi-class increases the replay value).
multidimensional NPCs
1. a roubust history and questline makes the NPCs more real and makes them seem like friends. But here again their questline needs to make sense (i.e. plausable)
2. the NPCs can't be overpowered or drastically underpowered. They need to have both strengths and weaknesses.
class system:
1. The class system has to have both benefits and weaknesses. The powergamers will always try to find the "best" class or kit(spec). It's up to the desgners to ensure there are weakness to offset powers. For example Kensai are awesome at melee but can't wear armor (glass cannon anyone?) or a specialist mage can cast an extra spell per level but there is a whole school of spells they cant cast.
2. It's a given your avatar has to be able to progress. The act of improving your characater draws you into the character and keeps you invested. So, you need to make sure the characters don't cap out until near the end of the game, but they need to be able to reach the cap before the game is over.
You also need to have multiple ways to complete an encounter. If you have too many encounters where you cast X spell and the encounter is over and people loose interest. You should be able to be a bull and charge in and try to keep the fighter healed until the boss is dead, or use stealth and backstab a boss and poison it, or trap it, or use magic on it. Scripted storyline (dialoge) is fine.. overly scripted combat (like WoW) is bad.
V/R,
Windfoot
Do you work in the industry?
Non-linear gameplay, but...
1. there has to be a reason to do the sidequests. I would go into more detail but this is the no spoiler forum.
2. you have to have a meaningful gaming experience. Just like there has to be a reason to do the sidequests, the story line has to draw you in and seem plausable...if you found yourself in that situation would you have the proper motivation to do side quests or continue on in the storyline?...saving a loved one is a pretty good motivator.
A consistant and complex rule set.
1. Consistant: It's very frustrating to play a game where the NPCs "cheat"...where they have abilities you don't have access to and that you can't counter in some way. For the most part the bosses in BG are using the same spells and effects you or someone in your party could use.
2. Complex: BG's rule set is complex and complete. Any effect has a counter to it (ex. imprision/freedom or level drain/negative plane protection). Also, as part of the complexity, you can get magical effect through other means than just a caster..for instance, potions, using scrolls, effects on equipment.) This allows multiple class to be effective and allows you enough flexibility to want to replay or even solo. Having more different classes than you can have in any one party also enhances replay since you want to try them all out and in different combinations (yet again dual and multi-class increases the replay value).
multidimensional NPCs
1. a roubust history and questline makes the NPCs more real and makes them seem like friends. But here again their questline needs to make sense (i.e. plausable)
2. the NPCs can't be overpowered or drastically underpowered. They need to have both strengths and weaknesses.
class system:
1. The class system has to have both benefits and weaknesses. The powergamers will always try to find the "best" class or kit(spec). It's up to the desgners to ensure there are weakness to offset powers. For example Kensai are awesome at melee but can't wear armor (glass cannon anyone?) or a specialist mage can cast an extra spell per level but there is a whole school of spells they cant cast.
2. It's a given your avatar has to be able to progress. The act of improving your characater draws you into the character and keeps you invested. So, you need to make sure the characters don't cap out until near the end of the game, but they need to be able to reach the cap before the game is over.
You also need to have multiple ways to complete an encounter. If you have too many encounters where you cast X spell and the encounter is over and people loose interest. You should be able to be a bull and charge in and try to keep the fighter healed until the boss is dead, or use stealth and backstab a boss and poison it, or trap it, or use magic on it. Scripted storyline (dialoge) is fine.. overly scripted combat (like WoW) is bad.
V/R,
Windfoot
Modifié par Windfoot, 13 juin 2011 - 02:32 .
#9
Posté 13 juin 2011 - 03:01
Dante2377
-
- Members
- 252 messages
Windfoot wrote...
A consistant and complex rule set.
1. Consistant: It's very frustrating to play a game where the NPCs "cheat"...where they have abilities you don't have access to and that you can't counter in some way. For the most part the bosses in BG are using the same spells and effects you or someone in your party could use.
Windfoot
to be fair to the discussion, many many enemies have abilities you do not or spells/triggers that aren't allowed to PC/NPCs. Such as, contingencies with Spell Immunity in them, unlimited scripted abilities (e.g. every 5 rounds cast PfMW, etc), illegal triggers, multiple contingencies, Balthazar's monk powers that other monks don't have (won't get into them bc this is non-spoiler. to be fair you could claim bc they are bhaal-spawn powers).
Part of what SCSII tries to do is exactly that - make enemies act just like your PC and not "cheat" (in addition to making the game harder).
#10
Posté 13 juin 2011 - 03:28
Windfoot
-
- Members
- 71 messages
I may have worded it wring.
But, all those effects are in the game and you can use them. The boss may have combinations you don't or have an unlimited supply. But, they aren't NEW effects (there may be a couple of extra ones that I don't know about). But the point is for the most part the effects are consistant in the game universe.
I agree that it is better to have enemys play with exactly the same rules. I haven't played with the SCSII mod but if it does that then it sounds like a good mod.
But, all those effects are in the game and you can use them. The boss may have combinations you don't or have an unlimited supply. But, they aren't NEW effects (there may be a couple of extra ones that I don't know about). But the point is for the most part the effects are consistant in the game universe.
I agree that it is better to have enemys play with exactly the same rules. I haven't played with the SCSII mod but if it does that then it sounds like a good mod.
#11
Posté 13 juin 2011 - 05:08
Dante2377
-
- Members
- 252 messages
I'm actually more ok with strange new enemies having strange new powers than I am a plain-old, middle-of-the-road wizard being able to cast spells in a manner that my PC mages can't.
#12
Posté 13 juin 2011 - 11:52
Incantatar
-
- Members
- 170 messages
In Vanilla this is just a manner of tweaking the subpar AI. Even SCSII does it (SI Triggers, Fiend summoning, AoE targeting). I don't think this is a big problem though, because these things are moderate and you have nearly limitless ways of defending any encounter in the game.Dante2377 wrote...
I'm actually more ok with strange new enemies having strange new powers than I am a plain-old, middle-of-the-road wizard being able to cast spells in a manner that my PC mages can't.
Baldurs Gate is "the" CRPG in my eyes because it blends exhaustive strategy possibilities, atmosphere and an excellent story (i might add a hugely dedicated community). I love many RPGs but they always fall short in one of these categories.
Knights of the Chalice and ToEE are great strategic RPGs - with no story or atmosphere. Aurora engine games or Gothic/Witcher like games might have great atmosphere and storytelling but the strategy part does not compare with their ego shooter like camera and generally dumbed down mechanics which are normal in todays mainstream game markets.
#13
Posté 14 juin 2011 - 02:14
Ishad Nha
-
- Members
- 321 messages
TEE uses a module for its story line. You know that there is a Temple there someplace because you know about the module.
Story is mostly confined to side-quests. I don't know if the original module handled the story aspect of the main game any better.
Story is mostly confined to side-quests. I don't know if the original module handled the story aspect of the main game any better.
#14
Posté 12 juillet 2011 - 11:22
hannibal555
-
- Members
- 98 messages
I really like the board game appeal of an isometric game.
While a lot of people like the direct action approach, there are enough who favor the more simulation like top down or isometric view (like me ^^).
Imho, such an engine with modern graphics would be really great.
instead of sprites in the style of Diablo2/BG2 one could use 3D models, for example with the Cell Shade technology, but others would probably work, too.
I currently like the approach of Diablo 3 by Blizzard.
This Engine with the gameplay of BG is what I imagine.
And the popularity/hype about D3 proves that such games are still feasable in our modern times!
While a lot of people like the direct action approach, there are enough who favor the more simulation like top down or isometric view (like me ^^).
Imho, such an engine with modern graphics would be really great.
instead of sprites in the style of Diablo2/BG2 one could use 3D models, for example with the Cell Shade technology, but others would probably work, too.
I currently like the approach of Diablo 3 by Blizzard.
This Engine with the gameplay of BG is what I imagine
.And the popularity/hype about D3 proves that such games are still feasable in our modern times!
#15
Posté 18 juillet 2011 - 03:18
wait what
-
- Members
- 15 messages
Good thread so far. I like points made about combat depth.
In regards to the enemies you face in a game, I currently have a few ideas on my mind.
Enemy levels and scaling: I like enemy auto-scaling in theory, but it shouldnt apply to every single area/enemy. It should be intelligently applied, not across the board.
I like in some RPGs Ive played how Ive been able to go to an area Im obviously much too low level for, but try various methods to slay the enemies there and sometimes succeed - enemy level-scaling removes this fun part of RPGs.
Both enemy level-scaling/auto-scaling, and fixed enemy levels should be utilised to provide a depth of combat challenges.
Enemy abilities/level progression: Higher level enemies should have access to more abilities and actually use them. In a game where the enemies scale to your level, then if Im level 50 the enemy should also have a large range of abilities to throw at me.
Enemy uniqueness: The character build system should be deep enough to provide a range of viable specialisations, and this potentially allows some enemies to be generated freshly each time with minor or major variations within their base class/skill set.
Appearance: I think an 'enemy generation' system that randomises the look of each enemy to some degree (even with army uniforms there should be different body size and stuff).
Loot: You should be able to loot every single thing that enemy was wearing. If they are wearing plate armor, you should be able to loot the entire set. If its damaged or whatever u should be able to loot a damaged piece or scraps. If they can potentially drink 5 potions during a fight, if u kill them early they should drop all the potions they didnt use.
Enemy interaction: There should be some 'pacifist' options for the player. Enemies should be able to surrender, be captured/imprisoned instead of killed all the time, maybe persuaded to submit because you've captured their allies. Something like an 'Attempt Dialogue' option during the fight.
In regards to the enemies you face in a game, I currently have a few ideas on my mind.
Enemy levels and scaling: I like enemy auto-scaling in theory, but it shouldnt apply to every single area/enemy. It should be intelligently applied, not across the board.
I like in some RPGs Ive played how Ive been able to go to an area Im obviously much too low level for, but try various methods to slay the enemies there and sometimes succeed - enemy level-scaling removes this fun part of RPGs.
Both enemy level-scaling/auto-scaling, and fixed enemy levels should be utilised to provide a depth of combat challenges.
Enemy abilities/level progression: Higher level enemies should have access to more abilities and actually use them. In a game where the enemies scale to your level, then if Im level 50 the enemy should also have a large range of abilities to throw at me.
Enemy uniqueness: The character build system should be deep enough to provide a range of viable specialisations, and this potentially allows some enemies to be generated freshly each time with minor or major variations within their base class/skill set.
Appearance: I think an 'enemy generation' system that randomises the look of each enemy to some degree (even with army uniforms there should be different body size and stuff).
Loot: You should be able to loot every single thing that enemy was wearing. If they are wearing plate armor, you should be able to loot the entire set. If its damaged or whatever u should be able to loot a damaged piece or scraps. If they can potentially drink 5 potions during a fight, if u kill them early they should drop all the potions they didnt use.
Enemy interaction: There should be some 'pacifist' options for the player. Enemies should be able to surrender, be captured/imprisoned instead of killed all the time, maybe persuaded to submit because you've captured their allies. Something like an 'Attempt Dialogue' option during the fight.
#16
Posté 24 juillet 2011 - 10:57
tangalin
-
- Members
- 286 messages
Personally, I only want a few things.
1. Awesome back and forth spell combat, like having to use a combination of defensive, defense breaching, and offensive spells, not just all cannon all the time.
2. Strategic party based combat. Here is where NWN and NWN2 really fell flat for me. I mean they're okay and all, but if your craving an infinity style game, they just don't cut it.
3. Awesome story. I mean seriously, even the Icewind Dale series (arguably a hack and slash affair) had a pretty good story to back them up. How come the ability to make an engaging story (both main and side quests) seems to have completely disappeared.
1. Awesome back and forth spell combat, like having to use a combination of defensive, defense breaching, and offensive spells, not just all cannon all the time.
2. Strategic party based combat. Here is where NWN and NWN2 really fell flat for me. I mean they're okay and all, but if your craving an infinity style game, they just don't cut it.
3. Awesome story. I mean seriously, even the Icewind Dale series (arguably a hack and slash affair) had a pretty good story to back them up. How come the ability to make an engaging story (both main and side quests) seems to have completely disappeared.
#17
Posté 03 août 2011 - 02:27
Gecon
-
- Members
- 794 messages
Err ... Baldurs Gate is DEFINITELY NOT a triology.
There are :
Baldur's Gate
Baldur's Gate: Tales of the Sword Coast (Addon to BG)
Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn
Baldur's Gate II: Throne of Bhaal (Addon to BG2: SoA)
Either its two games - or four (if you consider the addons separate games, even if they cant be used standalone). But its never three.
BG was originally planned to be a triology, with BG1 going from level 1 to about 7, BG2 going from 7 to 14, and BG3 going from 14 to 20 and possibly higher - but these plans have been ditched and the series ended with BG2.
And: many games came come close to BG.
Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic definitely gave me the feeling back, even if the combat system was extremely simple in comparison, it was still fun, and the story was great.
Another candidate is Neverwinter Nights 2. The NWN2 addons have been great, too. Technically it offers more variance how to play your character, than BG. In practice though the fights arent as interesting as in BG. I think people often state NWN1 addons as great games as well. I have them but I never really ended up playing them. The OC certainly wasnt that impressive.
Another candidate is Vampire: The Maquerade: Bloodlines. Albeit this was a single character game and an action roleplaying title, the heavy roleplaying of the first 3/4 of the game definitely gave me the good old BG2 feeling back.
Another candidate was The Witcher, albeit this is again a single character game, and you have very little influence over what you want to play at all, but it had really nice graphics (first time a 3D game looked as good as a 2D game), a lot of roleplaying and a lot of story.
Another candidate is of course Planescape: Torment. Again a main character thats not configurable. Otherwise a game full of roleplaying, story and humor.
Another candidate was definitely Dragon Age. Yes the rulesystem is at best average. In fact its less fun than the much simpler rulesystems of Knights of the Old Republic and Bloodlines. Warriors and Rogues have very little variance and Mages are both hopelessly overpowered and much more variable.
But the game that really had the potential to reach and surpass BG was The Temple of Elemental Evil by Troika Games (R.I.P.). The main issue why this game failed, and failed massively, was a complete lack of story. Would they have added such a likewise great story as well, also fixed all the bugs, made the game a bit less rough, that game would have just been the most awesome computer game ever made.
I think a wellmade D&D4 game could be made, and reach or even beat BG. If only there would be anyone bothering to attempt such a game.
There are :
Baldur's Gate
Baldur's Gate: Tales of the Sword Coast (Addon to BG)
Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn
Baldur's Gate II: Throne of Bhaal (Addon to BG2: SoA)
Either its two games - or four (if you consider the addons separate games, even if they cant be used standalone). But its never three.
BG was originally planned to be a triology, with BG1 going from level 1 to about 7, BG2 going from 7 to 14, and BG3 going from 14 to 20 and possibly higher - but these plans have been ditched and the series ended with BG2.
And: many games came come close to BG.
Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic definitely gave me the feeling back, even if the combat system was extremely simple in comparison, it was still fun, and the story was great.
Another candidate is Neverwinter Nights 2. The NWN2 addons have been great, too. Technically it offers more variance how to play your character, than BG. In practice though the fights arent as interesting as in BG. I think people often state NWN1 addons as great games as well. I have them but I never really ended up playing them. The OC certainly wasnt that impressive.
Another candidate is Vampire: The Maquerade: Bloodlines. Albeit this was a single character game and an action roleplaying title, the heavy roleplaying of the first 3/4 of the game definitely gave me the good old BG2 feeling back.
Another candidate was The Witcher, albeit this is again a single character game, and you have very little influence over what you want to play at all, but it had really nice graphics (first time a 3D game looked as good as a 2D game), a lot of roleplaying and a lot of story.
Another candidate is of course Planescape: Torment. Again a main character thats not configurable. Otherwise a game full of roleplaying, story and humor.
Another candidate was definitely Dragon Age. Yes the rulesystem is at best average. In fact its less fun than the much simpler rulesystems of Knights of the Old Republic and Bloodlines. Warriors and Rogues have very little variance and Mages are both hopelessly overpowered and much more variable.
But the game that really had the potential to reach and surpass BG was The Temple of Elemental Evil by Troika Games (R.I.P.). The main issue why this game failed, and failed massively, was a complete lack of story. Would they have added such a likewise great story as well, also fixed all the bugs, made the game a bit less rough, that game would have just been the most awesome computer game ever made.
I think a wellmade D&D4 game could be made, and reach or even beat BG. If only there would be anyone bothering to attempt such a game.
#18
Posté 03 août 2011 - 09:33
tangalin
-
- Members
- 286 messages
I am attempting to make a D&D4 game, although me being a solo dev means you shouldn't get your hopes up. Game programming is hard...
Edit: Also, licensing sucks...
Edit: Also, licensing sucks...
Modifié par tangalin, 04 août 2011 - 10:28 .
#19
Posté 03 août 2011 - 09:42
Kevin Lynch
-
- Members
- 1 874 messages
Gecon wrote...
Err ... Baldurs Gate is DEFINITELY NOT a triology.
There are :
Baldur's Gate
Baldur's Gate: Tales of the Sword Coast (Addon to BG)
Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn
Baldur's Gate II: Throne of Bhaal (Addon to BG2: SoA)
Either its two games - or four (if you consider the addons separate games, even if they cant be used standalone). But its never three.
It's actually more similar to a trilogy than what you make it out to be. TotSC adds in content that occurs fully before the end of BG1. It doesn't expand on the plot of BG1 at all. SoA is the obvious sequel to BG1. ToB, however, is a direct continuation of SoA, with new plot to bring it to a conclusion, even if it also adds new content to SoA, too.
Essentially, there are three separate chunks of main plot to the BG series: BG1, SoA, and ToB. You can leave out TotSC and still have the complete storyline. That's where people derive the idea of the series as a trilogy.
Having said that, I don't think of it as a trilogy, just as two games with expansions. I understand and agree with people thinking of it in terms of a trilogy, though.
