The General Videogame Thread

[Snowflakez]

Right yes im late to the party here, but wtf did they do with the game, started witcher series because it became free and found myself quite liking gwent (in w3), downloaded the standalone, thoroughly disappointed, it wasn't even gwent its like they took it and thought they'd try to make it "more" but made it more complicated and time wasting, sure the w3 version was "small" but it was easy to get to grips with and was fun, this new thing they made way more of a ballache just to play having to completely relearn the game was annoying, safe to say it got uninstalled promptly

What game are you talking about?

 

[Sild]

I don't see the problem if a UI looking like DOS2 fits with the rest of the art direction.

Yes, except BG3 art direction should be different from DoS2.

DoS is thematically distinct from the BG series. It's more tongue in cheek in terms of dialogues, characters, presentation.. the lot. It doesn't take itself seriously. And that's fine, it's part of its own charm.

A DoS 2 art direction would be a bad approach to BG3 and the U.I. is very much part of that as well. Unless, of course, the experience is intended to be similar as well, in which case we'd be having a different conversation and my "apparently disjointed U.I." critique would be void, but i'm not sure if that would be for the best. It's also why i'm voicing these concerns over something as "conceptually trivial" as the U.I. appearance. BG as a setting is darker, more serious and the art direction toghether with the U.I./U.X. should reflect that.

 

[SigilFey]

I wouldn't disagree with the notion perception of the game might shift if it deviates from the thematic look and feel of the user interface elements found in the original two BG games. I would say it doesn't make sense to view a game negatively because of it. Provided it works. It happens but it... shouldn't.

It's possible it's just the way I view it personally. A "user interface" to me is there to let the user interface with the game, as the name implies. Good vs bad there boils down to whether it performs this task efficiently and effectively or not. If the user interface in a previous title does a good job here there isn't a huge reason to change it.

What makes it Baldur's gate to me is the setting, characters, system of rules, narrative, etc. This type of stuff is independent of the UI. Of course, it's been a while since the series really had a "new" title. Spin-offs and refreshes notwithstanding anyway. Expecting it to look anything like BG2, for instance, is unrealistic. Whether those other areas deliver or not is up in the air. Based on the videos I can't say I'm impressed by those areas so far. Well, the dialogue writing in particular.

I don't think it would be all that difficult to fix, and the gains would be great. In general, it's not just about the UI design, it's a whole slew of different things.

• UI is quite clean and crisp. BG's UI was universally worn and rustic. Dull bronze, instead of gold. Worn stone, instead of clean lines.
• The effects of magic could produce quite a light show, but it felt harsh and/or violent. What's there now feels more like it's "pretty". Things like the hyper-exaggerated screen-shake and impact noise of a regular combat attack are a bit cartoonish. I'd like to see some actual weapons' play, since the game will handle it in turn-based mode. It's an opportunity to make interactions look a little more realistic.
• Areas in BG were incredibly unique, as they were all hand-drawn maps. The environment of that temple felt a little modular and forgettable.
• Characters, (especially) in BG1, were quirky and exaggerated, but always qualified and sympathetic.
• The narrative, dialogue, and character interaction needs to be on-point if it's going to stand up to the originals. Black Isle was largely comprised of people that would later evolve into KotOR 1 and 2, Dragon Age, and Mass Effect 1-3. By contrast, Pillars of Eternity shows that -- even if the design, tone, and gameplay is nicely polished -- the lack of a gripping and urgent narrative leaves things feeling a bit flat. (I liked Pillars, but it was never the emotional carnival ride that BG1&2 were. Nothing like Jaheira losing her @#$% in that one scene. Spoilers. To me, the overall tone set by the demo could not achieve this. It would be forced.)

Still, I'm not concerned about them nailing it down; it's early. These are simply the elements that I think will make or break the game if it's Baldur's Gate [Anything]. Similar to the "Fallout" 4 situation, sometimes, if the approach deviates too strongly from the source material, the game may have done better standing on its own merits.

Kind of like ordering a roast beef sandwich and getting a sloppy joe instead. Might be the best sloppy joe I've ever had...but I ordered a roast beef sandwich. I wasn't in the mood for a sloppy joe. The only big issue is that they called it roast beef.

 

[Restlessdingo32]

Yes, except BG3 art direction should be different from DoS2.

DoS is thematically distinct from the BG series. It's more tongue in cheek in terms of dialogues, characters, presentation.. the lot. It doesn't take itself seriously. And that's fine, it's part of its own charm.

A DoS 2 art direction would be a bad approach to BG3 and the U.I. is very much part of that as well. Unless, of course, the experience is intended to be similar as well, in which case we'd be having a different conversation and my "apparently disjointed U.I." critique would be void, but i'm not sure if that would be for the best. It's also why i'm voicing these concerns over something as "conceptually trivial" as the U.I. appearance. BG as a setting is darker, more serious and the art direction toghether with the U.I./U.X. should reflect that.

Again, I wasn't disagreeing with any of the above. Apparently, the aesthetics of a UI aren't as trivial for everyone. This is why I stressed it was my opinion function is far more important compared to appearance. The UI could look like BG, DOS2 or it's own thing. If it's a bad UI it's of little importance to me. I've played games in recent memory where this was the case. The appearance thematically fit with the rest of the game. The UI itself, in terms of function, was hot garbage.

We're basically talking about an isometric RPG here. Even if you can change the camera angle to something besides isometric it looks like an old school isometric RPG. UI's in this type of game basically consist of various buttons and whatnot to perform applicable actions. Hopefully with robust key binding options. It seems like such a minor thing to fret over compared to the rest of the game. Especially since, as noted, it's likely subject to change.

I don't think it would be all that difficult to fix, and the gains would be great. In general, it's not just about the UI design, it's a whole slew of different things.

• UI is quite clean and crisp. BG's UI was universally worn and rustic. Dull bronze, instead of gold. Worn stone, instead of clean lines.
• The effects of magic could produce quite a light show, but it felt harsh and/or violent. What's there now feels more like it's "pretty". Things like the hyper-exaggerated screen-shake and impact noise of a regular combat attack are a bit cartoonish. I'd like to see some actual weapons' play, since the game will handle it in turn-based mode. It's an opportunity to make interactions look a little more realistic.
• Areas in BG were incredibly unique, as they were all hand-drawn maps. The environment of that temple felt a little modular and forgettable.
• Characters, (especially) in BG1, were quirky and exaggerated, but always qualified and sympathetic.
• The narrative, dialogue, and character interaction needs to be on-point if it's going to stand up to the originals. Black Isle was largely comprised of people that would later evolve into KotOR 1 and 2, Dragon Age, and Mass Effect 1-3. By contrast, Pillars of Eternity shows that -- even if the design, tone, and gameplay is nicely polished -- the lack of a gripping and urgent narrative leaves things feeling a bit flat. (I liked Pillars, but it was never the emotional carnival ride that BG1&2 were. Nothing like Jaheira losing her @#$% in that one scene. Spoilers. To me, the overall tone set by the demo could not achieve this. It would be forced.)

Still, I'm not concerned about them nailing it down; it's early. These are simply the elements that I think will make or break the game if it's Baldur's Gate [Anything]. Similar to the "Fallout" 4 situation, sometimes, if the approach deviates too strongly from the source material, the game may have done better standing on its own merits.

Kind of like ordering a roast beef sandwich and getting a sloppy joe instead. Might be the best sloppy joe I've ever had...but I ordered a roast beef sandwich. I wasn't in the mood for a sloppy joe. The only big issue is that they called it roast beef.

I don't have any disagreements here either. My frame of reference for Baldur's Gate is BG 1 and 2. It's almost impossible to capture the artistic appearance there given the age of those two games. Even if the game manages to thematically fit those old titles it's unreasonable to expect it to "look" like BG 1 and 2. Getting it to fit with the general vibe those worlds created? Sure, that isn't particularly hard to pull off. I'd expect it to do this.

My larger concern remains other areas. Like dialogue quality. Quite frankly, modern games generally don't deliver in these areas like older titles. It'd be great to pretend this is because of the level of complexity in modern titles. In my opinion, this isn't it. The people responsible for creating those older titles probably aren't working on the modern titles. And, no offense to modern developers, they're not those people (still waiting for an RPG to deliver quite like PS:T did in this regard).

The disagreements on the UI elements are based on the perspective of where the crux of the game falls. To me it's the dialogue, characters, narrative, actual game play, etc. These are the elements responsible for "capturing" Baldur's Gate. UI design is secondary. It can look like a different game series and be fine if it functionally works. Provided these other areas are done well enough and fit the old titles. I cannot say the opposite would be true. That is, the UI looks like BG but the rest of the game behaves nothing like it.

The easiest way to summarize this is to say the game can be called Baldur's Gate and artistically look like it. If it doesn't behave like it in game play it's not Baldur's Gate. It's just another isometric RPG masquerading as BG. This might be okay if the game is good. A little annoying or disappointing maybe. It would be.... acceptable. A different look is something I can get past. A bad game isn't.

 

[SigilFey]

I don't have any disagreements here either. My frame of reference for Baldur's Gate is BG 1 and 2. It's almost impossible to capture the artistic appearance there given the age of those two games. Even if the game manages to thematically fit those old titles it's unreasonable to expect it to "look" like BG 1 and 2. Getting it to fit with the general vibe those worlds created? Sure, that isn't particularly hard to pull off. I'd expect it to do this.

My larger concern remains other areas. Like dialogue quality. Quite frankly, modern games generally don't deliver in these areas like older titles. It'd be great to pretend this is because of the level of complexity in modern titles. In my opinion, this isn't it. The people responsible for creating those older titles probably aren't working on the modern titles. And, no offense to modern developers, they're not those people (still waiting for an RPG to deliver quite like PS:T did in this regard).

The disagreements on the UI elements are based on the perspective of where the crux of the game falls. To me it's the dialogue, characters, narrative, actual game play, etc. These are the elements responsible for "capturing" Baldur's Gate. UI design is secondary. It can look like a different game series and be fine if it functionally works. Provided these other areas are done well enough and fit the old titles. I cannot say the opposite would be true. That is, the UI looks like BG but the rest of the game behaves nothing like it.

The easiest way to summarize this is to say the game can be called Baldur's Gate and artistically look like it. If it doesn't behave like it in game play it's not Baldur's Gate. It's just another isometric RPG masquerading as BG. This might be okay if the game is good. A little annoying or disappointing maybe. It would be.... acceptable. A different look is something I can get past. A bad game isn't.

Oh, I don't mean to make it sound as if these are black-and-white issues. I don't believe that there is any, one thing that could be done or not done that would guarantee success or failure for any game. And I'm a strong believer in many games being more than the sum of their parts. That's the ultimate magic, in my estimation: when a game is simply enthralling, even though you may have played things like that a hundred times before.

The issue is simply choosing to take up the mantle of an existing IP, then not really capturing the "heart and soul" of the IP. If a studio intends to dig up the foundations...why use the old IP? They should just do their own thing. That's not to say that they shouldn't be looking for ways to modernize, improve of old mechanics, add new and features, and definitely -- definitely -- find ways to surprise the player. But not at the expense of the game feeling completely disconnected from the original IP in very significant ways.

I have hopes that Larian will evolve their story a bit. I actually found D:OS' story to be quite engaging. It was certainly...shall we say..."compartmentalized" story-telling, but I don't think it was "bad" at all. Disjointed in places, and perhaps failing to take into account that players would not have the depth of context with the world that the devs obviously did. It did feel very obtuse at times, but I think that was a side-effect of trying to make it as open-ended as possible. (Ironically, I think the original Divine Divinity did a better job with its story. I was engaged, laughing out loud, and driven in equal measure.)

But nowadays, I think there is plenty of talent out there of people want to utilize it. The writers for The Wicther, obviously. The people who brought us the Bioware games from KotOR through DA: Inquisition. The entirety of the story and delivery of Jedi Fallen Order is simply magnificent. I think the trouble there is that devs tend not to have the funding needed to secure such writers, or they're working on a tight schedule, and things never really get to evolve. (A game can't be all about the story. That would be a movie. )

I will end with agreement, though. If the game simply falls on its face living up to the BG thing, but it's still fun to play, I'll still be able to enjoy it. As much as I feel Fallout 4 absolutely failed as a Fallout title...I still played through twice.

 

[Snowflakez]

It's almost impossible to capture the artistic appearance there given the age of those two games. Even if the game manages to thematically fit those old titles it's unreasonable to expect it to "look" like BG 1 and 2.

I don't want to dogpile (not that anyone here is being hostile), so I'll keep it short and just address one specific thing.

Here, I disagree. It truly would not be very difficult to create a modern UI that harkens back to the days of BG 1 & 2. Heck, even Oblivion's UI felt more similar to Baldur's Gate than this current one.

Add in parchment, stone, worn edges, other things that would make it feel a bit more Baldur's Gate-y, and I'd be happy.

Unlike Sigi, I actually don't have a problem with most of the spell effects themselves, but I do think the "channel" animations are over-the-top (Especially for dash with the flashing)

 

[SigilFey]

Heck, even Oblivion's UI felt more similar to Baldur's Gate than this current one.

That's actually quite true. (I still think they're just using the D:OS interface until they iron out how everything will work.)

Unlike Sigi, I actually don't have a problem with most of the spell effects themselves, but I do think the "channel" animations are over-the-top (Especially for dash with the flashing)

You know what else bugged me? The arrow animations. It's how I imagine archery would look on an episode of The Smurfs. How, precisely, did they manage to make shooting an arrow..."cute"?

(Clamps his lips, and cuts off his muttering...)

 

[Restlessdingo32]

Here, I disagree. It truly would not be very difficult to create a modern UI that harkens back to the days of BG 1 & 2. Heck, even Oblivion's UI felt more similar to Baldur's Gate than this current one.

It's not difficult to create a UI able to fit with Baldurs Gate. It's hard to make a modern game look like one from 20 years ago though. More importantly, why would you want to do so? This isn't what is being discussed here but it's related.

The main reason I challenged the UI appearance commentary is modern games are arguably caught up on this type of stuff too much. All these little things with minimal bearing on the game play itself. They can all be great and fit perfectly. It matters little if the game play itself is lackluster. Game play first, little things second basically. This applies to overall game quality. It applies when evaluating whether a game fits with a certain branding (aka, the name).

Again, none of this means these little things are irrelevant. They should be designed appropriately too. Yet, I'd expect those finer details to be ironed out towards the end of the process.

 

[Snowflakez]

It's not difficult to create a UI able to fit with Baldurs Gate. It's hard to make a modern game look like one from 20 years ago though. More importantly, why would you want to do so?

Of course it shouldn't look like a 20-year-old UI. But it's possible to take an old look, keep its spirit and theme, and update it with modern sensibilities. Compare Oblivion's UI to Baldur's Gate 2's. Similar ideas (but not identical since they're different types of RPG), updated look.

The bottom line is, the current UI -- whether it's a placeholder or not -- has zero Baldur's Gate vibes. Heck, it has zero D&D vibes. I hope that changes, that's all.

I'd expect those finer details to be ironed out towards the end of the process.

Yeah, we will certainly see.

 

[Restlessdingo32]

The bottom line is, the current UI -- whether it's a placeholder or not -- has zero Baldur's Gate vibes. Heck, it has zero D&D vibes. I hope that changes, that's all.

Mind pointing out where you feel this is the case? If memory neither BG 1 or BG 2 had very expressive UI's. They were both rather basic. They were both cumbersome to use too .

 

[Draconifors]

Right yes im late to the party here, but wtf did they do with the game, started witcher series because it became free and found myself quite liking gwent (in w3), downloaded the standalone, thoroughly disappointed, it wasn't even gwent its like they took it and thought they'd try to make it "more" but made it more complicated and time wasting, sure the w3 version was "small" but it was easy to get to grips with and was fun, this new thing they made way more of a ballache just to play having to completely relearn the game was annoying, safe to say it got uninstalled promptly

The minigame gwent would never work as a multiplayer. It's just spy/decoy/healer spam and there's very little strategy to it.
I've played it against a human opponent, with the physical cards, and the only way it's even remotely interesting is by changing/complicating the rules.

There's a reason GWENT is vastly different; it's a full multiplayer game played against other real people, not a minigame played against (dumb) AI opponents. It takes a lot more time to learn, sure, but if it didn't it would get boring fast.

 

[Snowflakez]

Mind pointing out where you feel this is the case? If memory neither BG 1 or BG 2 had very expressive UI's. They were both rather basic. They were both cumbersome to use too .

That's an odd question. Surely just looking at the UIs side by side would show you what I mean?

By changing textures, icons, and the overall layout of the UI, the entire feel could shift toward something much more fitting for D&D and/or Baldur's Gate.

 

[Restlessdingo32]

They are different but the original BG1 and BG2 UI weren't very expressive. A few basic textures, boxes/squares with buttons in them, minimal color.... The only portion of the UI you would see for most of the game with much in the way of a unique look was the icons and character portraits. Keep in mind, I'm talking about the original games here.

I'm confused on criticism toward the new UI because it implies there was a lot of nuance, detail and uniqueness to the UI found in the original two games.

 

[Sild]

I'm confused on criticism toward the new UI because it implies there was a lot of nuance, detail and uniqueness to the UI found in the original two games

To be fair, whatever nuance and detail there was, it was probably much more noticeable in.. 640x480 native monitors.

But as far as I'm concerned the UI shown in the gameplay has none whatsoever. It dosen't have to be an upscaled BG2 U. I., and I'm pretty sure no one is asking for that. But a departure from DoS and something more.. Creative? Surely it's not unreasonable nor undoable.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

Things are pretty well with the game, if the UI is the most discussed topic.

 

[Restlessdingo32]

But as far as I'm concerned the UI shown in the gameplay has none whatsoever. It dosen't have to be an upscaled BG2 U. I., and I'm pretty sure no one is asking for that. But a departure from DoS and something more.. Creative? Surely it's not unreasonable nor undoable.

It's not unreasonable or undoable. If given a choice between a UI focusing on creating an aesthetic fitting the Baldurs Gate franchise vs delivering relevant information in an intuitive way using a minimal look I'd prefer the latter though. The game doesn't, or shouldn't, need to use a ton of real estate to deliver a UI. It's better off creating a BG vibe by making the game play reminiscent of old titles from the series.

Things are pretty well with the game, if the UI is the most discussed topic.

I suppose.... Although, a bad UI can really hold a game back.

 

[Sild]

If given a choice between a UI focusing on creating an aesthetic fitting the Baldurs Gate franchise vs delivering relevant information in an intuitive way using a minimal look I'd prefer the latter though.

It shouldn't be a choice. It should be both.
I'm sure we can both agree here. Functional AND thematically appropriate.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

Found this on another forum. It’s an interview with Larian’s St.Petersburgh studio.

Интервью с Larian — о Baldurʼs Gate 3, пошаговой боевке, будущем Divinity и реакции фанатов

Во время геймплейной демонстрации Baldurʼs Gate 3 для прессы, которая прошла за неделю до PAX East 2020, мне удалось не только взглянуть на игру...

kanobu.ru

This bit was translated and screenshotted (I don’t speak Russian, so if someone does, he can check out if it matches):

 

[Restlessdingo32]

It shouldn't be a choice. It should be both.
I'm sure we can both agree here. Functional AND thematically appropriate.

Fair enough .

Assuming the info and translation Kofe dropped above is accurate it sounds like Larian is aware of the concerns.

 

[MauricioMM]

Awesome