Larian Studios - New Malaysian Studio & BG3 Complexity

screeg said:

I can't speak to the quality of the combat in those games but I think we all remember how Arcanum tried to "give you choice" and ended up with a crap hybrid system.

My best argument against RTWP is that to achieve mediocrity is really the holy grail. For every RTWP game in the past fifteen years (that I know of), "adequate" is the highest praise that could be mustered for combat. Those games may shine in other areas, enough to satisfy people with other priorities, but RTWP combat is never excellent, groundbreaking, or even engaging.

Click to expand...

I'd say NWN 2 and DA:O were excellent in their execution, But I suppose that would be in the eye of the beholder.

I would prefer RTwP. It allows you to have minor fights that don't get artificially bogged down by a turn based system while also allowing for large, complex encounters when warranted. I wouldn't object to turn based, exactly, but it wouldn't be my preference. BG2 has some of the best combat in CRPG history and being RTwP didn't exactly hold it back.

Mortmal said:

Why are you guys still discussing TB or rtpw ? There's absolutely nothing leading to that, fact is its a huge budget AAA game with google stadia partnership.One thing is for sure it's designed for a controller. Think of a rpg like dragon's dogma instead or witcher 3 with companions , that's the only reason one would have to tweak the dice rolls.

Click to expand...

It's like you have no idea what Larian does or is.

Mortmal said:

Why are you guys still discussing TB or rtpw ? There's absolutely nothing leading to that, fact is its a huge budget AAA game with google stadia partnership.One thing is for sure it's designed for a controller. Think of a rpg like dragon's dogma instead or witcher 3 with companions , that's the only reason one would have to tweak the dice rolls.

Click to expand...

Yep. I'm hoping it's a huge open world Faerun with combat like Final Fantasy 15. That would be ideal for me.

Mortmal said:

Think of a rpg like dragon's dogma instead or witcher 3 with companions ,

Click to expand...

Actually, the trend for this kind of projects is to use the game engine to make trailers (even if enhanced)
BG3's trailer does not look out of a game engine.

that's the only reason one would have to tweak the dice rolls.

Click to expand...

No. Beside, it is not about tweaking the dice rolls. It is about acknowledging the issue going with probability based UgoIgo and how it works detrimentally.

Usually, in those products, what is called tactics is usually mere buffing of probabilities, players'line of decision is determined by maximing quantified chances.

When, as a result of players' decision, the chances are upped to 98pc and the outcome is failed, it is an issue, especially considering that players are going to succeed a lot of 75 ish pc outcomes.

It is not that easy to make a good UgoIgo game.

ChienAboyeur said:

Usually, in those products, what is called tactics is usually mere buffing of probabilities, players'line of decision is determined by maximing quantified chances.



When, as a result of players' decision, the chances are upped to 98pc and the outcome is failed, it is an issue, especially considering that players are going to succeed a lot of 75 ish pc outcomes.



It is not that easy to make a good UgoIgo game.

Click to expand...

I believe it could be made acceptable to fail with high probability actions if the randomness felt more like the players own fault (simulating a dice roll maybe?). I personally enjoy if there is always a tiny risk of both failure and success.

And isn't life in a way buffing probabilities of survival /success?

My current buffs are: "Slept well! +10 to mood and concentration"; "Enjoyed work this week! +10 to mood and work behavior the coming week"

SveNitoR said:

I believe it could be made acceptable to fail with high probability actions if the randomness felt more like the players own fault (simulating a dice roll maybe?).

Click to expand...

Rolling dice is different from anything computer related.

Rolling dice is personal, engaging and involves. Players use their own body to produce randomness, they cause their own good luck and bad luck.Their moves might be influenced by the importance of the roll. A capital roll, players shake their dice in their hands, blow on them, throw them with strength, nerves, whatever.

Indeed, when the roll is bad, it is perceived as a result of them throwing poorly.

It can not be done with cRPG stuff. Pressing a button is way less personal and involving than the motion of throwing dice.
The addition of animation makes it even less personal. The generation of the random number is somewhat embedded in the animation.
It appears as if players press a button to trigger and then during that animation, the generation of the number is made (even though it is not the case)

The connection between a player and the random number does not exist as it exists with rolled dice.

Dice rolling: players provoke their own luck. cRPGs, well...

TheRealFluent said:

Yep. I'm hoping it's a huge open world Faerun with combat like Final Fantasy 15. That would be ideal for me.

Click to expand...

That's very likely yes, 200 people 5 studios, its not to make some isometric rpg and cater to a few grognards . They are working on 3D models for a world the scope of a final fantasy game.

Malaysia is certainly a new one to me to hear about as a base for games development, heh. Anyway, I just want to see more of the BG3 game and it seems they are being too cagey about it so far, so I'd rather just not hear about it until they actually start releasing solid information about the game.

They just better not ruin BG3! Sometimes I think Larian can do things a bit too experimentally and haphazardly, without really thinking it through, and on this game perhaps they should consider sticking with tradition more.

Mortmal said:

That's very likely yes, 200 people 5 studios, its not to make some isometric rpg and cater to a few grognards . They are working on 3D models for a world the scope of a final fantasy game.

Click to expand...

Few products are isometric. Most studios work with 3D engines and tilt the camera angle to give that top down point of view.

If ever, this kind of endeavour is going to be associated with an appropriate marketing effort. The BG franchise popularity is not enough to carry by itself sales.

This studio is first known by their customers. Among them, players able to play something else than UgoIgo, players who are not.

Mortmal said:

That's very likely yes, 200 people 5 studios, its not to make some isometric rpg and cater to a few grognards . They are working on 3D models for a world the scope of a final fantasy game.

Click to expand...

Lets take trademark that is interesting only to few grognards and lets make something completely different from it.

That way we can push away old fans who will not be interested because of new approach they didnt ask for and we can also push away new customers, who will asociate game with old series with outdated game mechanics. Business model of the century. Sounds like something Obsidian would do ...

ChienAboyeur said:

Few products are isometric. Most studios work with 3D engines and tilt the camera angle to give that top down point of view.

Click to expand...

Isometric graphics have little to do with the actual engine used to produce the projection. Unless you really want to nitpick and go by the definition used for technical/engineering drawings.

Isometric video game graphics are graphics employed in video games and pixel art which angle the viewpoint to reveal facets of the environment that would not be visible from a top-down perspective or side view, thereby producing a three-dimensional effect. Despite the name, isometric computer graphics are not necessarily truly isometric—i.e., the x, y, and z axes are not necessarily oriented 120° to each other. Instead, a variety of angles occur; some form of parallel projection, such as dimetric projection with a 2:1 pixel ratio, is the most common. The terms "3/4 perspective", "2.5D", and "pseudo-3D" are also sometimes used, although these terms can possess slightly different meanings in other contexts.

Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isometric_video_game_graphics

No nitpicking. The article states the same. The big difference is that it indulges in that true real, realer than truer approach that has grown common after two centuries plus of institutionalized double standards. Property is theft after all.

Working on 3D models is not enough to declare they are not working on one of those truly untruly realer than real so called isometric products.

Abstract poetry never really appealed to me.

Andrew23 said:

Lets take trademark that is interesting only to few grognards and lets make something completely different from it.

That way we can push away old fans who will not be interested because of new approach they didnt ask for and we can also push away new customers, who will asociate game with old series with outdated game mechanics. Business model of the century. Sounds like something Obsidian would do …

Click to expand...

Actually no, it sounds like something Bethesda would do, and they certainly pulled it off in regards to how well the games have done financially. (Even if I personally thought it was a huge step in the wrong direction).

FO was toxic and unsustainable. They had to change.

BG, nothing like that.