The General Videogame Thread

[Sild]

Not a counter point, but just to clarify: you can still make a custom character, just like DOS2. The origin characters are just if you want to experience a more personalized story. I'm not sure which I'll go with, honestly. I want to make my current D&D 5e character from a tabletop campaign I play with friends (a white Dragonborn Warlock), so I'll probably do that, but we'll see what the other origin characters look and feel like.

I like the existence of the Origin characters if for no other reason than they can join you as companions if you don't play as them personally. And there are more to come, so your pool of potential party members should be quite large, hopefully on par with the older BG games (or at least as close as you can get with full mocap and voice acting for each).



I disagree with you here. It wasn't balancing that got him killed, it was bad luck. He lost multiple 90% and 75% rolls on his first try, and even critically missed one of the 90%s. If he'd landed all or most of those, the fight would have been ridiculously easy. He also misclicked a couple times and didn't move his party members to a safe location when he should have. Basic D&D 101, and even basic Divinity OS 101.

Also, I'm totally against removing RNG. Dice rolls are core to the experience of DND for me, and games of this nature.

Also important to understand that, in DND 5E, both you AND your enemies have very little health early on. You can get KO'd (not necessarily killed, it's pretty easy to avoid dying in 5E) in a few hits because you only have 10-15 HP (which is about what the PCs had in this demo). However, the enemies also only have around that much HP. One of the brain creatures died from a single 15 damage hit, and that was probably overkill and not exact damage.

Well, I mean, some enjoy the possibility of getting party wiped every combat encounter due to "luck" but I certainly don't and I've played plenty dnd inspired games that featured dice rolls whithout going overboard on the bad luck consequences. Plus, you know, he kinda did say it himself..

 

[Restlessdingo32]

At the end of the video I wondered if the initial defeat in the first encounter wasn't there by design. As in, it ended in defeat on purpose. Perhaps to showcase wandering about aimlessly early into the game, when the player characters are most vulnerable, is a good way to get curb stomped. Also to showcase the options available to improvise to get out of a bad situation. As an example, weaponizing your footware .

His second approach was far more cautious and considered the available information more completely. Even if it was arguably a bit meta-gamey. The end result was the starting conditions of the encounter were far more optimal and it ended up as a resounding success.

I'm not saying the rolls were rigged. Even though it's certainly a possibility. I'm saying it looked like the difference between the first and second attempt was more to do with the approach. I don't think this was an accident.

 

[Sild]

I don't think it was. Certainly wasn't his intent for this run, no. Especially since he was under the clock to show all he wanted and defeat meant restarting from the beginning. It was as live and as raw as can be.

His firs run into the mindbugs things was to showcase the throwing and ledge dropping mechanics. But dying there certainly wasn't the plan

 

[Snowflakez]

Well, I mean, some enjoy the possibility of getting party wiped every combat encounter due to "luck" but I certainly don't and I've played plenty dnd inspired games that featured dice rolls whithout going overboard on the bad luck consequences. Plus, you know, he kinda did say it himself..

Well, we just have different ideas of what makes a DND-inspired RPG good, I suppose. Nothing to be done about that except hope they cater to both of our tastes.

I'd happily play the game in its current "difficulty" state, and I hope escalating difficulty doesn't just give the enemies higher health pools and turn them into sword/arrow sponges.

For me, the game in its current state seems to perfectly (or almost perfectly) emulate my tabletop D&D sessions. If I wanted something easier or more forgiving, I'd just turn the difficulty down. But in an actual session, sometimes the dice just do not go in your favor. You'll fail rolls that you really wish you'd succeeded on, and that just creates a new and more interesting story. If someone dies, they die, and you move on.

And, by the way, Divinity Original Sin 2 had some pretty hardcore RNG at times as well. I played a 2H character who constantly missed 85% chance swings.

 

[Suhiira]

I like it, but right now it's basically a "Divinity 3".

It is?
Watch this.

 

[Sild]

It is?
Watch this.

Is the raw footage available anywhere (whithout the RPS.. Edit/commentary)?

 

[Suhiira]

Is the raw footage available anywhere (whithout the RPS.. Edit/commentary)?

No clue, just stumbled across this.

 

[Mybrokenenglish]

Is the raw footage available anywhere (whithout the RPS.. Edit/commentary)?

 

[Sild]

It's not the same footage. The RPS one has things Sven didn't get to show during the live gameplay.

 

[Snowflakez]

It is?
Watch this.

Thanks, Su! This definitely alleviated some of my fears.

I think they could stave off a lot of "Divinity Original Sin 3" complaints by just changing the icons and UI to be more Baldurs Gate-y.

 

[Restlessdingo32]

I think they could stave off a lot of "Divinity Original Sin 3" complaints by just changing the icons and UI to be more Baldurs Gate-y.

No offense but what do the icons and UI have to do with whether it's Baldur's Gate-y enough? I'd think it's called Baldur's Gate III because it has something to do with Baldur's Gate. Calling it Divinity Original Sin 3 would be like saying Planescape Torment, Icewind Dale and Baldur's Gate are different games in the same series (add Pool of Radiance in there somewhere too maybe). I think we can agree these games had substantial differences despite using similar UI's and presentations.

 

[Snowflakez]

No offense but what do the icons and UI have to do with whether it's Baldur's Gate-y enough? I'd think it's called Baldur's Gate III because it has something to do with Baldur's Gate. Calling it Divinity Original Sin 3 would be like saying Planescape Torment, Icewind Dale and Baldur's Gate are different games in the same series (add Pool of Radiance in there somewhere too maybe). I think we can agree these games had substantial differences despite using similar UI's and presentations.

I completely agree with you for the most part.

I was speaking objectively. The reason a lot of people are saying its OS3 and not Baldur's Gate 3 is the UI, whether that's a fair assessment or not. Thus, if they don't want those comparisons to be drawn, they should change the UI. There are several icons and elements that have been directly lifted from OS2, probably for placeholder reasons, but either way, it's an issue for people.

I think they should change the UI because I want something fresh and not just Divinity UI 2.0 (we should expect more from our games, especially games with this budget, these days), but I don't feel that alone makes it Divinity 3.

 

[SigilFey]

No offense but what do the icons and UI have to do with whether it's Baldur's Gate-y enough?

A huge amount, I'd argue. It's a massive part of the entire aesthetic. It's all opinion and preference in the end, but the major issue is drastically changing the motif of a franchise to something that does not compliment what the franschise was in the past. Especially for something as hugely significant as a comprehensive, visual design, having the new game fail to properly echo the past games can create a massive disconnect in return audiences. Everything will feel so foreign and...not...Baldur's Gate-y that it creates a subconscious feeling of playing something totally different, with the BG logo slapped on as an afterthought.

BG1&2 were not only meticulously designed, but they were trend- and standard-setting games. Tough act to follow: audiences will want to be transported back to that same experience -- but they're also expecting things to feel new and exciting -- and they're also expecting the game to be as innovative and impactful as BG1&2. Very tough act to follow.

For people that never played the originals, the consideration is moot. The challenge is with the literally millions of players that did play the originals and loved them. If certain pieces are not in place, it can create a landslide of "meh" to "negative" reactions -- even if the game itself is fantastic on its own merits. If they were intending to create something with a visual approach as "smirky" as what we were shown in the demo, it would probably have been better for them to make that type of game and NOT put the BG logo on it.

But, all of that being said, I would imagine there's still a long way to go across the board with the entire title. Visual, sound, mechanics, etc. Given how great D:OS 1 and 2 were, I'd say they probably know what they're doing.

 

[Restlessdingo32]

I completely agree with you for the most part.

I figured as much. Perhaps my wording could have been better .

I think they should change the UI because I want something fresh and not just Divinity UI 2.0 (we should expect more from our games, especially games with this budget, these days), but I don't feel that alone makes it Divinity 3.

Hmm, I guess I could agree there. The UI does look like operating it would bring you back to the early 2000's. I'm not sure how exactly the theme of UI's applied to isometric RPG's could be improved upon though. The earlier listed games didn't exactly innovate over each other much in this department. I'm not sure if the more advanced releases of similar games did either. Although, I haven't played most of the newer titles.

A huge amount, I'd argue. It's a massive part of the entire aesthetic. It's all opinion and preference in the end, but the major issue is drastically changing the motif of a franchise to something that does not compliment what the franschise was in the past. Especially for something as hugely significant as a comprehensive, visual design, having the new game fail to properly echo the past games can create a massive disconnect in return audiences. Everything will feel so foreign and...not...Baldur's Gate-y that it creates a subconscious feeling in the player of playing something totally different with the BG logo slapped on as an afterthought.

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.

 

[Suhiira]

It's still in development using a modified version of the same engine they used to create Div2, give them time to get the game mechanics implemented and working properly THEN worry about the UI. Yes, the UI is important, but it's one of the last things you finalize when creating a game.

 

[Snowflakez]

It's still in development using a modified version of the same engine they used to create Div2, give them time to get the game mechanics implemented and working properly THEN worry about the UI. Yes, the UI is important, but it's one of the last things you finalize when creating a game.

Yeah, I won't let it bother me too much for now. If we're a month from release and its the same then I'll worry.

 

[thewarsend]

It's still in development using a modified version of the same engine they used to create Div2, give them time to get the game mechanics implemented and working properly THEN worry about the UI. Yes, the UI is important, but it's one of the last things you finalize when creating a game.

I couldn't agree more.

As long as a game is functional and fun, any issues with UI wont be a deal breaker. In my opinion, a UI is something they can fix later on, but most other thing need to be done correctly from the ground up.

 

[Sild]

A "user interface" to me is there to let the user interface with the game, as the name implies.

It is that, and much more than that. It does much more to a game than simply facilitating its use. It's very much part of the experience. For example I absolutely loved Oblivion's U. I.. It wasn't the cleanest or easiest to use, but it was full of character.

There are two thing to be considered in this case. The first is that it's not reminiscent of the older games. But that's somewhat to be expected since they're decades old. The second, which is accentuated by the first is that it's more or less DOS2 U.I. v1.2. Which is a different game not only in name but in tone and character.

However, as Su pointed out above, U. I. 's are often subjected to change and usually right up to release.

 

[Restlessdingo32]

It is that, and much more than that. It does much more to a game than simply facilitating its use. It's very much part of the experience. For example I absolutely loved Oblivion's U. I.. It wasn't the cleanest or easiest to use, but it was full of character.

I'm not saying the aesthetics of a UI are irrelevant. The fact remains a user interface is called a user interface for a reason. The appearance is secondary to function. If the UI doesn't function well it's appearance isn't going to go very far. Criticizing it because it doesn't fit the rest of the game appearance is fine. Criticizing it because it's a bad UI is fine too. Criticizing it because it doesn't remind you of a game from 20 years ago seems silly. The UI's found in BG1 and BG2 wouldn't make sense for BG3. For a long list of reasons.

The above shouldn't be confused with saying the UI should look like DOS2. Nor should it be confused with saying the UI looking like DOS2 would be bad. I don't see the problem if a UI looking like DOS2 fits with the rest of the art direction. Perhaps it shouldn't be a carbon copy of it because that would be lazy design. Making it look like DOS2 while ironing out the form and function is another matter.

 

[Jack_Owen88]

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