[Mentalist]

cerveza_fiesta, on 20 March 2012 - 02:23 PM, said:

Quote

"We're doing everything we can maintain the magic and legacy..."

I read this as "we are going to keep the core concept and story of the game but I'm saying in the vaguest terms possible that everything else is going to be completely different". Reinforced by the comment above that they are way more than "just remakes".

This is probably bad news for Primateus...though I don't share his dire predictions of completely ruined gameplay and all that. I found the 3e rules in NWN to be perfectly playable and much more easily understood than the 2e rules of Baldurs. Not that I'm comparing the two games (I played both and know they're totally different), but in terms of the general underlying statistics engine, I don't really care if you call it THACO or armor points; a talent point or a perk. Also, games of today have to be fucking mega blockbusters to make money, meaning you need to design to current standards to a certain extent or people are just turned off. There's obviously no money in retro gaming or everybody would be doing it. Game dev studios just won't go for niche markets anymore...and if they're setting up for BG3 to be their "massive release", then the remakes will probably be a beta version of that ultimate ideal.

Another thing I didn't consider was the possibility of BG and BGII on consoles. It would be tough to implement that port in the games' original form, so I wonder if the overhaul will address that possibility. I hate to think how that might change the gameplay, but if they can successfully cross that bridge without totally ruining the game, they're working with a 1000x bigger pool of possible customers and BG3 will be a massive hit.

games have to be blockbusters. or they have to be indie games.

Since these guys want to run a Kickstarter for supposed BG3, they are clearly thinking indie.

considering we've had 2 projects last month that netted over 4 million from people who WANT a niche market game and are willing to pay advance money for it, I don't think they are wrong from trying.
personally, I was an RTS junkie in the 90's-early/mid millenials, so I missed out on BG and have no strong feelings one way or the other.

but I wish them all the luck in the world, because variety is good, and the more games we have that don't fit the "this si what a game needs to be to make money. Our huge publisher says so" model, the better off we'll be in the end.

[Morgoth]

I don't understand your obsession, Primateus, with the game being exactly the same as the old version just with polished graphics.

I own BG1 and BG2. If I want to play BG1 or BG2 I can simply run it. I have no need of a new production that is excatly the same, just a little prettier. Why would I spend money on that?

[Primateus]

I wouldn't call it an obsession. It's just that the Baldur's Gate games are the best RPGs I have ever played. The most satisfying and fulfilling games in my repertoire and I would hate for them to be unneccessarily ruined. And to be certain, the difference between D&D 2.0 and 4.0 is very big to the point they cannot reasonably be called the same game.

I would accept a ruleset update to 3.5 because that is the best D&D version. This is, of course, my personal opinion. I don't even mind the addition of new content. Hell, bring it on, just make sure it's up to the same standard as the original content.

But what I don't want is for them to ruin an already great game out of some misplaced ideal of "improvement"


And just to be completely clear, I don't like Thac0, I never did. I'm one of those guys who, whenever it's brought up, immediately thinks "What the hell were Gygax & Co thinking when they invented that rule?"

But it works for Baldur's Gate and a ruleset update, whilst 3.5 would be entirely acceptable, is unneccessary!



Oh right, and yeah, I do know that I have the option of not buying it, just so you know

This post has been edited by Primateus: 21 March 2012 - 10:52 AM

[Morgoth]

Primateus, on 21 March 2012 - 10:44 AM, said:

I wouldn't call it an obsession. It's just that the Baldur's Gate games are the best RPGs I have ever played. The most satisfying and fulfilling games in my repertoire and I would hate for them to be unneccessarily ruined. And to be certain, the difference between D&D 2.0 and 4.0 is very big to the point they cannot reasonably be called the same game.

I would accept a ruleset update to 3.5 because that is the best D&D version. This is, of course, my personal opinion. I don't even mind the addition of new content. Hell, bring it on, just make sure it's up to the same standard as the original content.

But what I don't want is for them to ruin an already great game out of some misplaced ideal of "improvement"


And just to be completely clear, I don't like Thac0, I never did. I'm one of those guys who, whenever it's brought up, immediately thinks "What the hell were Gygax & Co thinking when they invented that rule?"

But it works for Baldur's Gate and a ruleset update, whilst 3.5 would be entirely acceptable, is unneccessary!

Yeah, obsession is taking it too far. My appologies.

Look, I loved those games too, and sunk way too many hours into the two. I'm worried that they'll get it wrong.

However, I accept that they have to make changes to justify selling it anew. Simply polishing the graphics is not enough to make a strong selling, even for a game as popular as the Baldur's Gate series.

[Primateus]

Oh, I agree, simply polishing the graphics and fixing various bugs, whilst awesome enough as is, wouldn't be enough to justify the expense in todays market. And certainly, the addition of new content is no mean thing. Whilst the games already have plenty of content, more is not bad. Unless, of course, that new content is just horrible, but that's for another discussion entirely.

And I suppose I'll be happy, as long as they don't "update" the rules to 4.0, because that really would ruin Baldur's Gate!

So my complaint, my case, my "grief" revolves entirely around the possibility that it might become a 4.0 game. That would simply, to me, be unacceptable.

[Lucifer's Heaven]

Morgoth, on 21 March 2012 - 10:53 AM, said:

Primateus, on 21 March 2012 - 10:44 AM, said:

I wouldn't call it an obsession. It's just that the Baldur's Gate games are the best RPGs I have ever played. The most satisfying and fulfilling games in my repertoire and I would hate for them to be unneccessarily ruined. And to be certain, the difference between D&D 2.0 and 4.0 is very big to the point they cannot reasonably be called the same game.

I would accept a ruleset update to 3.5 because that is the best D&D version. This is, of course, my personal opinion. I don't even mind the addition of new content. Hell, bring it on, just make sure it's up to the same standard as the original content.

But what I don't want is for them to ruin an already great game out of some misplaced ideal of "improvement"


And just to be completely clear, I don't like Thac0, I never did. I'm one of those guys who, whenever it's brought up, immediately thinks "What the hell were Gygax & Co thinking when they invented that rule?"

But it works for Baldur's Gate and a ruleset update, whilst 3.5 would be entirely acceptable, is unneccessary!

Yeah, obsession is taking it too far. My appologies.

Look, I loved those games too, and sunk way too many hours into the two. I'm worried that they'll get it wrong.

However, I accept that they have to make changes to justify selling it anew. Simply polishing the graphics is not enough to make a strong selling, even for a game as popular as the Baldur's Gate series.

I agree with Morgoth.

And also, the ruleset was probably the least important part of the game. It was merely a tool they used to deliver their story and experience. I'm not the biggest fan of 4e, I feel they sacrificed too much. But could they fuck with the 4e rules and still deliver a good BG game, hell yes they could.
Though I say again, what version WotC are currently at means sweet fuck all when it comes to this project. I doubt they'll go with 4e, but I trust that if they do it's because they have good plans in mind for how to use it.

[Gothos]

TBH, 2.0 ruleset is the main reason why I don't revisit BG games anymore. I just can't be arsed with all the numbers and the double-negative counter-intuitiveness of them.

[cerveza_fiesta]

Mentalist, on 21 March 2012 - 04:09 AM, said:

cerveza_fiesta, on 20 March 2012 - 02:23 PM, said:

...games of today have to be fucking mega blockbusters to make money...

games have to be blockbusters. or they have to be indie games.

Since these guys want to run a Kickstarter for supposed BG3, they are clearly thinking indie.

I should have been a bit clearer on that point. I meant the kind of money that a big publisher/developer wants to make, and that such a publisher would conform to current standards to appeal to as many people as possible.

I kinda skimmed over the kickstarter bit, so you're right. The studios involved are not massive and I can see where they'd be satisfied with profits an indie game might reap.


RE rules, BG wasn't fun because of the way the dice were rolled in the background. It was fun cause I got a good story with dialogue options (nothing to do with DnD rules) and a fun tactical system that allowed me to meticulously plan my attacks (also nothing to do with DnD rules).

No matter what rule version they use, or if they just plain invent their own thing, cloth armor will always be weaker than plate and wizards will still have lower health than warriors. You will get experience and get better skills as the game progresses. You can't get away from that in a fantasy RPG. I just don't see what specifically about the different rulesets will "ruin" the game play.

This post has been edited by cerveza_fiesta: 21 March 2012 - 03:06 PM

[Primateus]

It's because 4.0 is not just different, it's radically diffent from 2.0. Sure, 3.5 is very different too, but at least it's good different.

[cerveza_fiesta]

I'm not trying to dispute that.

I'm disputing what aspects of the rule changes would creep into Baldur's Gate and poison the experience completely. Does Version 4 abandon the idea of classes, armor, weapons, inventory, experience and role playing entirely?

[Primateus]

Well, I suppose you have a point. Perhaps my point goes more towards the pen and paper version than the computergame version.

[Macros]

I'm with cf.
In bg it was the characters and storyline that drove it.
Sure the gameplay was great too, but I really didntunderstand what the hell most of the stuff meant. Better armour and better weapons did more damage.
And better magikers got better more awesome spells.

Don't care if they change to 700 sided dice tbh

[cerveza_fiesta]

After some reading about the changes in 4e and why people don't like it, I can see where primateus is coming from to a certain extent. For every bad review I saw however, I saw a good review saying the 4e rules streamlined things and made the game easier to play at a casual level.

I dunno...in TT rpgs, the rules and mechanics matter soooo much to the experience and I appreciate the strong feelings RE the ruleset used. in Computer rpgs, the rules are almost completely in the background, so details cease to matter and the player only sees the major differences.

for example:

Many of the complaints I saw had to do with the way classes and their uses were pigeonholed similar to the way it's done in WoW. On a TT Rpg where things are more imaginative and situations are more varied to begin with, I can see where that restriction would piss people off...limiting wizards to *pew pew* and warriors to tanking, etc...When a TT game takes hours to decide a single battle, it sucks having to roll the same move over and over and over. Within CRPG environments, especially in BG, the rounds move very quickly, and I always felt my party's classes were pigeonholed anyway, so a change in that respect ain't a big deal.

If they were to change leveling system to, say, Bethesda's leveling system, or Mass Effect 2's ridiculously oversimplified level system, it would seriously ruin an important aspect of the game...or if they made all party members autolevel, or if they changed the party composition from 6 underpowered adventurers to 2 overpowered adventurers. It's the major sweeping changes that have the potential to worsen the experience.

Whatever though. I'm sure that the studios taking on this project understand that most of their eventual sales are actually going to be re-sales to the existing community...and are keenly aware that *any* negative PR upon release will spread virally in the BG community like wildfire, sinking the project before it even gets going. They know they have to do it right and piss off the least amount of people in doing so. I would not be surprised since they're crowdsourcing funds for this first attempt, if development of BG2 and then BG3 involves a lot of consumer input and refinement.

[Morgoth]

You should really just use the GURPS rules anyways.

[Tapper]

Morgoth, on 22 March 2012 - 12:35 PM, said:

You should really just use the GURPS rules anyways.

L5R or 7th Sea are imho better. They are also very niche.

[Primateus]

Morgoth, on 22 March 2012 - 12:35 PM, said:

You should really just use the GURPS rules anyways.

I have GURPS, I want to play GURPS, but noone wants to play it with me

[Lucifer's Heaven]

GURPS is awesomely versatile, and I love it for the fact that I can build the character I want with it, regardless of what that character is. So sad I never got to play a proper game with Saneca, such a great character.
I've heard good things about L5R and have all the stuff on my computer. One of my friends thinks I'd really enjoy it, but I have no-one to play it with (and I'm already learning two new systems at the moment ). Yeah, VERY niche.

And yeah, Cerveza, I've spent a fair bit of time playing versions 3, 3.5 and 4. There are some great things they did with 4, but as I said in an earlier post, they sacrificed far too much for those great things, and even many of those things they overdid. They're already working on the next version because 4 has become fairly unpopular.
Having said that, as you mentioned, much of what is wrong with 4e is from a roleplaying perspecting, which is not a problem in a computer game (no, not the same roleplaying the R in RPG stands for). Quite a few of the changes would actually work quite well for a computer game, though they'd want to tone some of it down a bit (change the skill system back to more of a 3.5 type, and make the powers system make more sense by removing things like fighter daily powers).
Which is what I meant when I said they could fuck with the 4e rules to make a great game.

[Primateus]

A friend of mine said something interesting about this today. That the engine, the coding and whatnot from Neverwinter Nights 2 were already in place, so technically it should be possible to use that for the enhanced edition of Baldurs Gate. A shame though, that it's not the same company.

[Morgoth]

Primateus, on 22 March 2012 - 04:05 PM, said:

A friend of mine said something interesting about this today. That the engine, the coding and whatnot from Neverwinter Nights 2 were already in place, so technically it should be possible to use that for the enhanced edition of Baldurs Gate. A shame though, that it's not the same company.

Remembering the overall quality of Neverwinter Nights 2, I'm not sure I agree.

[Eltar]

Morgoth, on 23 March 2012 - 07:14 AM, said:

Primateus, on 22 March 2012 - 04:05 PM, said:

A friend of mine said something interesting about this today. That the engine, the coding and whatnot from Neverwinter Nights 2 were already in place, so technically it should be possible to use that for the enhanced edition of Baldurs Gate. A shame though, that it's not the same company.

Remembering the overall quality of Neverwinter Nights 2, I'm not sure I agree.

I agree. The quality of NWN 2 was... lackluster. It did not live up to NWN. And if they really wanted to use an existing engine, DA's engine would be perfect. Origins was explicitly stated to be BG's spiritual successor so it would make sense to use it. It would be capable of the meticulous planning required for BG, it would have updated graphics, and it would allow them to draw upon an existing fanbase.