What Are You Playing: 9 Years since the Last Dragon Age

[Errorname]

1) The hardest part of the conversion has already been done. Every monster in BG1 and BG2 has been converted to 5e already, or has a close enough equivalent. Recreating the encounters would not be much work, and the ones that couldn't be for whatever reason could be easily replaced.

3) Some of the most expensive parts of the development, like voice acting, modeling, and cutscenes, already exist. At most they could be touched up with AI.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Yes, you could conceivably remake the older Baldur's Gate games as New Vegas style same-engine sequels. This would still be a massive amount of work to recreate all that stuff in the new engine, and you probably would be recreating this stuff. Spitting out a sloppy remake with bad algorithmic upscaling of old assets would be massively unpopular and burn all of the good will Larian worked so hard to cultivate.

Good rule of thumb, everything in gamedev is harder and more complex than you think it is

[ArmyOfOptimists]

Yeah, all that was a weird take. Encounter design is one of the easiest parts of the game dev process; or at least the fastest.

And they can't just import ****ty bitcrunched 90s audio and run it through an upscaler lmao, it will sound like garbage.

And recreating the encounters would still be a massive undertaking.

You can't just take the encounters designed to run in a RTWP system on 2e rules and translate them 1:1 to turn-based 5e combat. Even if it wasn't wildly imbalanced, it'd still feel horrible. Look at the Pathfinder games as an example. I love those games (way more than any of Larian's, in fact), but playing Kingmaker or Wrath of the Righteous in full turn-based is often a slog because many areas have mobs of enemies to get through. They're still primarily designed for RWTP where killing 20 goblins can be accomplished in a handful of seconds versus 15 minutes in turn-based. BG1+2 are much the same way with lots of dense encounters you're expected to let your fighters chop through thoughtlessly.

That's not to mention the changes moving from Infinity-engine mechanics to Larian's Divinity-style mechanics would bring. Encounters would need revision to take into account shoving, jumping, barrel-mancy, and other things expected from a Larian game. Whole areas would need to be redesigned to better flow with a party that can jump or fly around obstacles.

The idea that you could just import BG1+2 into the BG3 engine with minimal effort is crazy naive.

[halfeye]

The idea that you could just import BG1+2 into the BG3 engine with minimal effort is crazy naive.

It's only programming, any fool can do that in seconds.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Frederick-B...6688886&sr=8-3

[Anonymouswizard]

Well train an AI on remaking the Gold Box games, by the 2040s we should be able to let it remake the entire series using 8e rules! At least if we first remake the games in the Gold Box engine...

But yeah, the engine switch would mean remaking them from the ground up, then you have to rebalance due to monster stats being different in 5e, and then you have to rerecord the audio and add a lot more if you want to do BG3 style conversations. And that's just looking at the bits obvious to idiots like myself.

[LibraryOgre]

I'd also note that, even if you could conceivably just import everything from BG1 & 2, you're still facing the fact that a lot of what you need isn't present. In '98, it was acceptable to have a ton of written text, maybe introduced by a few spoken lines. A quarter century later, you cannot have that wall of unspoken text; it just wouldn't fly for those without the nostalgia drive.

Now, if someone, either an enthusiastic fan or a small studio, wanted to take Larian's engine and convert BG1 and 2 to it? Sure, that's a fun project that might see some returns. But it would still be a massive project, with a huge outlay.

Consider, for a moment, does BG3 have kobolds? Kobolds were a huge part of BG1, and while you could probably take goblin models and paint them blue for xvarts (who are not as plot-relevant), you don't really have the kobold models you would need. Do you have gibberlings? What about all the other models you will need to build to include them?

[Errorname]

I'm getting annoyed about Planet Zoo again. Maybe the best example of the importance of scenario design in a video game, they have a fantastic set of building tools and just do not know how to design scenarios that actually get you to play the game in the way that makes it fun.

Consider, for a moment, does BG3 have kobolds? Kobolds were a huge part of BG1, and while you could probably take goblin models and paint them blue for xvarts (who are not as plot-relevant), you don't really have the kobold models you would need. Do you have gibberlings? What about all the other models you will need to build to include them?

It does have Kobolds, they're just easily missed. No Gibberlings though.

[Form]

I'm getting annoyed about Planet Zoo again. Maybe the best example of the importance of scenario design in a video game, they have a fantastic set of building tools and just do not know how to design scenarios that actually get you to play the game in the way that makes it fun.

I tried Planet Zoo myself at some point, but after a few hours I grew bored and gave up on it. I think it's a good game for people who really enjoy customizing their zoo and animal habitats, because the game allows for a lot of it, but I just wanted to quickly plop down a few habitats and maybe customize them a little bit. You can do a lot with the building tools Planet Zoo offers you, but I just didn't want to engage with that level of detail.

[Erloas]

Well I think FF7 is proof enough that you can completely remake a game in every aspect and have it well received by old and new fans.
Whether that's a good option in this case is another story.
I think what we're more likely to see is a BG4, then modders taking assets from 3&4 to retell the original stories. Since they don't need it to be a 1:1 copy, if you have 4 tougher goblins instead of 15 that's not anything people will care about. If the big creature threatening a village is an owlbear instead of a troll (as random examples, not knowing the first games) you would just use things you have assets for.

I also think that the popularity of modded content and Indy games also proves you don't have to have slick cut scenes or everything voice acted. You just have to price and market it accordingly. What people expect out of a $60 and a $20 game are not the same.

[GloatingSwine]

It does have Kobolds, they're just easily missed. No Gibberlings though.

It does, but it has the wrong Kobolds.

BG3 has modern lizard kobolds, BG1 had dog kobolds.

[Anonymouswizard]

Honestly if they remade Baldur's Gate 1 maybe they'd stop expecting me to wear shoes as a bloody hobbit.

I'm very salty about that, NG3 showers you in magic shoes early on compared to other slots. And yet when you play a halfling the racial dialogue options are very hobbit themed, and they're even a bit fatter than the other races. I need to be walking around with the stones of the earth beneath my feet!

[Ignimortis]

Finished Cyberpunk 2077's DLC. Well, when I say finished, I mean "got to the final choices, took the option that seemed the only appropriate one by then, saw the outcome, tried the other option just in case, then closed the game and uninstalled it in disgust". This is some of the worst writing I have ever witnessed in high-profile videogames. Despite the excellent 2.0 overhaul, the DLC has soured me on CP2077 enough that I simply don't want to play anymore.

Spoiler: Spoilers, obviously

Show

So you get two choices at the end, ostensibly also dependent upon a previous quest, but the other branch is even worse. Therefore, the choices I have been presented with are as such:
1) Kill Reed, get Songbird to the moon, basically rendering all you've done in the DLC null and void, with you back to step 0 of "ok I'm dying and nobody can fix that", all that for a person who did nothing but manipulate you into doing stuff she needed to survive, and who will likely forget about you and stabbing you in the back in a few months. The game treats this as the morally correct choice, but it's also completely meaningless, because you're back on track to storming Arasaka Tower as the only solution to your troubles, having spent a few weeks of your already highly limited life doing nothing even remotely worthwhile.

2) Hand Songbird over to Reed, and then the game pointedly lambasts you for it, because apparently you've done something very bad (i.e. let the consequences of Songbird's actions actually catch up with her for once) and are, somehow, a dirty traitor who has done a terrible thing and should feel very guilty about it. Then to reinforce just how poor of a choice it is (according to the game), you're given an ending where V is actually cured, but can no longer use any chrome (in a world defined by augmentations being ubiquitous), and most if not all of their acquaintances have moved on or just don't want to interact with them again.

There are no good choices, and I don't mean "morally good", there is literally nothing you can choose that was worth even half the effort expended on this path. It is wildly unsatisfying in every way. It feels like a meme-tier cyberpunk TTRPG campaign with a GM who is wholly persuaded that PCs achieving anything goes against the rules and the setting. If this is gonna be the mainstream take on cyberpunk for the foreseeable future (seeing as Edgerunners was pretty much of the same persuasion), I'm not there for it.

Time to fire up Elden Ring again. Somehow it's far less depressing.

[Form]

Finished my second playthrough Disco Elysium with considerable metagaming to explore quests I didn't complete the first time around. I was not expecting to actually finish this playthrough when I started it, but apparently I got sucked into it. Good times, but perhaps I should play a less sad game now? There's a lot of downright heartrending tragedy in Disco Elysium and I don't just mean the main character's problems. There's the stories of the pale driver lady, the perpetrator, the rundown fishing village, the situation of Revachol as a whole... There's a lot of despair in that setting, so something happier would probably be to my benefit now.

[Eldan]

Phantom Liberty has at least four endings, actually. Not saying they aren't problematic, though.

[Zombimode]

Hm, yeah I suspect in what direction the new ending might go. I'm not there yet, but close.
Getting an easy way out, no strings attached would be a real downer - but we will see. It would be a shame to end the game on a sour note because so far I find the writing amazingly good!

[Anonymouswizard]

Phantom Liberty has at least four endings, actually. Not saying they aren't problematic, though.

Unfortunately four bad endings are worth less than one good one. As anybody who's played Mass Effect 3 understands.

Part of me wishes game creators would stop adding in additional endings, particular CRPG creators. Modular epilogues and the like I'm fine with, but I'd rather have one well crafted ending. Even if I realise that for BG3 it would result in

Spoiler

Show

the Dark Urge becoming an Illithid being the sole ending, because I suspect it's canon anyway.

[Ignimortis]

Phantom Liberty has at least four endings, actually. Not saying they aren't problematic, though.

Yeah, one of my friends got the other "set" of two endings. They're even more miserable, if anything.

Spoiler

Show

Apparently the other set is:
1) Kill Songbird after siding with Reed/NUSA in Firestarter, you have basically ruined everything at no gain for yourself.
2) Let NUSA have Songbird after doing the same, you get the cure, it still ruins your life the same way.

It's hilarious how the most optimistic ending is still "rush Arasaka Tower solo, let Johnny have your body". Because at the very least, it achieves something that wasn't expected to happen from the end of act 1.

[Eldan]

It's a shame, really. The writing in the base game was so good.

That said... letting someone else win because you don't deserve it, or trying your best and not getting anything at all out of it... it could fit the tone of the game if done right.

[WritersBlock]

Found out the unofficial patch for vampire the masquerade is still being updated so reinstalled and tried the latest version. Added a mode where you can play through several of the areas from the game as a hunter which is kind of cool.

And I managed to find the stop sign the Malkavian can get into an argument with. I just wish I knew a console command that could do something about that nauseating, motion sickness inducing screen jerk/shake that happens if you get hit with a melee attack. (Not as bad as it is in Elder scrolls oblivion at least.)

Spoiler: Also found out how to get the new ending the Plus patch adds

Show

Sabbat ending, that you get by asking to join the Sabbat during your first encounter with Andre the Tzimisce, which opens up the chance to get the new sabbat ending later.

[ArmyOfOptimists]

Spoiler: Spoilers, obviously

Show

There are no good choices, and I don't mean "morally good", there is literally nothing you can choose that was worth even half the effort expended on this path. It is wildly unsatisfying in every way. It feels like a meme-tier cyberpunk TTRPG campaign with a GM who is wholly persuaded that PCs achieving anything goes against the rules and the setting. If this is gonna be the mainstream take on cyberpunk for the foreseeable future (seeing as Edgerunners was pretty much of the same persuasion), I'm not there for it.

Agreed on all counts. It feels like with Cyberpunk 2077's tone and popularity, it's convinced a lot of people who aren't familiar with other cyberpunk settings that they're all as grimdark as the Warhammer 40k universe. Nothing good ever happens and the idea of accomplishing anything with a positive impact is sacrilegious. "Don't bother fighting back because it can't end well for anyone." is anathema to the punk side of the genre.

Also, I think I mentioned it in the previous thread, but the tone of the new ending reminds me of the Mass Effect 3 added ending where you shoot the Catalyst instead of accepting its choices. It feels vengeful and cruel as if the writers hate you for picking it.

[Errorname]

I don't know if Phantom Liberty being designed to still lead most players into the vanilla ending is a massive problem. Expansions that fit into the middle of the story and don't overwrite the original game ending are pretty typical even in games that aren't about coming to terms with your own imminent death. The idea of the expansion plotline revealing that the cure you've been chasing will damn you makes sense enough to me, although I can't speak to the specific execution.

Spoiler: Also found out how to get the new ending the Plus patch adds

Show

Sabbat ending, that you get by asking to join the Sabbat during your first encounter with Andre the Tzimisce, which opens up the chance to get the new sabbat ending later.

From what I've seen most of the plus patch original writing is hilariously bad, and their new ending is probably the funniest. Maybe they've changed that though

[WritersBlock]

Also forgot to mention to get that ending your humanity needs to be at 4 or below. (I would say 4 is good so there is less of a chance of frenzy)

I usually go for the Loner, or strauss ending but I have not seen this new one yet so..

[Ignimortis]

Agreed on all counts. It feels like with Cyberpunk 2077's tone and popularity, it's convinced a lot of people who aren't familiar with other cyberpunk settings that they're all as grimdark as the Warhammer 40k universe. Nothing good ever happens and the idea of accomplishing anything with a positive impact is sacrilegious. "Don't bother fighting back because it can't end well for anyone." is anathema to the punk side of the genre.

Also, I think I mentioned it in the previous thread, but the tone of the new ending reminds me of the Mass Effect 3 added ending where you shoot the Catalyst instead of accepting its choices. It feels vengeful and cruel as if the writers hate you for picking it.

Precisely. It's no longer cyberpunk if rebellion and going against the grain always ends in failure. Call it cyberdark or something. It's a problem with the genre overall, to be honest, a lot of cyberpunk settings somehow have shifted into the "corporations always win, and you can't do squat about that", because apparently that's what the fans want.

Spoiler

Show

And the new ending being pointlessly cruel just to reinforce the "no happy endings in cyberpunk à la Pondsmith" is the cherry on top. Sadly, CP2077 and the offshoots seem to be the most popular cyberpunk product around, so this view has incentive to spread.

I don't know if Phantom Liberty being designed to still lead most players into the vanilla ending is a massive problem. Expansions that fit into the middle of the story and don't overwrite the original game ending are pretty typical even in games that aren't about coming to terms with your own imminent death. The idea of the expansion plotline revealing that the cure you've been chasing will damn you makes sense enough to me, although I can't speak to the specific execution.

There's an extra ending that overwrites the original ones. And it's...very bad. Indeed, as ArmyofOptimists has noted, it has a tang of ME3 Shoot the Catalyst ending, the bitter "oh you don't like those options? have another one then, see how you like it" from the writers.

[Errorname]

There's an extra ending that overwrites the original ones. And it's...very bad. Indeed, as ArmyofOptimists has noted, it has a tang of ME3 Shoot the Catalyst ending, the bitter "oh you don't like those options? have another one then, see how you like it" from the writers.

I know. I'm saying that's not typical, and that the expansion not adding an alternate ending that's better than the originals isn't a flaw, and having the cure come at a brutal cost does fit thematically with the existing story. Cyberpunk's endings aren't a Mass Effect 3 situation for me, there is at least a clear thematic purpose that the game was built around

Not saying the execution was flawless, and I can definitely see an element of spite to the new ending, but on paper at least it makes sense to me.

[Mx.Silver]

I'm not entirely sure where people have gotten the idea that 'dark endings where the protagonists fail to achieve any meaningful improvement to the situation' aren't compatible with the cyberpunk genre because, well, they are. Like, just as an example that describes a non-zero amount of the short stories in Burning Chrome and I think you'd be hard-pressed to argue to that most of the sprawl trilogy's endings (Neruomancer, Count Zero and Mona Lisa Overdrive) suggest the changes have been much of a net positive for anything besides the AIs. The genre as a whole descends a fair amount for Noir fiction, which is not exactly averse to that kind of downer ending.

Now, if we want to argue whether or not that's "really 'punk' per se" that would be another matter. However:
1) I don't really know if we, a bunch of pasty desk nerds, are in much of a position to dictate what's 'really punk' in the first place
and 2) even if we were, I'm pretty sure that a big budget triple-AAA commercial videogame is going to be disqualified from being 'really punk' by definition, regardless of its content

[Ignimortis]

I'm not entirely sure where people have gotten the idea that 'dark endings where the protagonists fail to achieve any meaningful improvement to the situation' aren't compatible with the cyberpunk genre because, well, they are. Like, just as an example that describes a non-zero amount of the short stories in Burning Chrome and I think you'd be hard-pressed to argue to that most of the sprawl trilogy's endings (Neuromancer, Count Zero and Mona Lisa Overdrive) suggest the changes have been much of a net positive for anything besides the AIs. The genre as a whole descends a fair amount for Noir fiction, which is not exactly averse to that kind of downer ending.

I would argue the reverse for the Sprawl Trilogy, actually. Neuromancer ends on a positive note, even if it is somewhat bittersweet - Case achieves his goals and gets a new lease on life (and, as mentioned in later books, seems to have found some success). Count Zero ends with all the protagonists having improved their lot in life at least somewhat, with the least improved probably being Turner, who still got to zero his opponent/nemesis while not sustaining new losses himself. MLO ends with a one-man corporation being brought down by a few people, who aren't anything extraordinary overall, and, again, they are generally in a better position than they were at the start of their story. Sure, nobody saves the world, nobody ends the corpo rule, but in general, protagonists of those books end up in a better position than where they start - usually both financially and spiritually. If you lived to see the credits, you won. It might not last, but nothing suggests actual failure.

Compare and contrast CP2077, where being back to square one (before Konpeki) and having to start over would be a net positive over most if not all endings.

Spoiler

Show

The only ending that does let you "reset" has to slap you with several additional powerful negatives (no contacts, no friends, no chrome) just to make it noticeably "worse" than the default ones.

In fact, the Temperance ending that has you give your body over to Johnny is a positive one mostly because that way, at least one of you gets a second chance at a full life.

I think that CP2077 is a very specific brand of Cyberpunk envisioned by Pondsmith, which focuses very much on the "better to die young and famous than live to see yourself become an old nobody", and doesn't really consider any other alternatives to those two paths. But IMO, that doesn't represent the genre as a whole, and the defeatist attitude 2077 falls into also doesn't have to apply to the genre as a whole.

[Psyren]

I found Shoot The Catalyst/Refuse hilarious, personally.

If what I've been hearing about the CP2077 endings is true however, I agree that

Spoiler

Show

permanently losing your cybernetics (effectively becoming disabled in a setting like Night City?) AND losing all your relationships AND your resources is too dark, however, nor does it logically flow. With your post-RPG-protagonist wealth you should be able to be a champion of sorts for the implantless, as well as have a bit more hope of reconciliation with at least some of your friends and lovers -

I'd view that as a more fitting ending without being saccharine.

[Rynjin]

Cyberpunk has always had a core of "this is a fight you can't win, but there is value in fighting it anyway" to it. That's what makes it "punk" and not "revolutionary". Punk culture always has an element of impotence to it, fighting back against the establishment that doesn't respect you and at least forcing them to ACKNOWLEDGE you instead of fading into the background.

Spoiler: Ending discussion

Show

That, actually, is the issue with the bonus endings as presented, which is essentially...willful capitulation. You aren't beaten down by the system or the man, you don't win the battle but lose the war, hell you don't even lose both but manage to carve out some kind of happiness for yourself, the new endings basically just detail different ways you...give up. You either give up your very SELF, the ability to be who you are...or you give up on finding a cure at all. And more importantly, everyone around you give sup on you as well, whether it makes sense or not.

Punk is biting the boot as it steps on your neck, screaming and fighting to the last breath. Not exhaling and telling the boot to go ahead and finish the job, you're just too tired to fight anymore.

[Anonymouswizard]

I found Shoot The Catalyst/Refuse hilarious, personally.

If what I've been hearing about the CP2077 endings is true however, I agree that

Spoiler

Show

permanently losing your cybernetics (effectively becoming disabled in a setting like Night City?) AND losing all your relationships AND your resources is too dark, however, nor does it logically flow. With your post-RPG-protagonist wealth you should be able to be a champion of sorts for the implantless, as well as have a bit more hope of reconciliation with at least some of your friends and lovers -

I'd view that as a more fitting ending without being saccharine.

I'd argue that it might be worth

Spoiler

Show

having V lose a decent chunk of her funds but not her contacts and end up as a unremarkable mid-tier fixer, becoming a cog in the machine of rebellion the corps have established. I'd peg that a decent 'bad' ending, you have a life and a community, but traded your chance at immortality for it.

If you want a more hopeful variation have V take over Afterlife from Rogue to be a prestigious fixer.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Funny to see the Dragon Age mentions, I've been replaying DA:O in preparation for a full series playthrough. (I previously had gotten a bit into DA2, but couldn't get past a major boss.)

It's a pretty good time now that I've gotten used to the micromanagey combat needed for Normal difficulty. I'm almost done with all the main areas.

Spoiler: Progress so far

Show

Currently in Orzammar, at the final boss fight. Planning on cutting back to the elves after that, and hoping my main character picked up enough Survival to finish the one quest. That should take care of almost everything, although I still need to find the site of power in Denerim for a mage quest.

So far it's fun, the companions are more interesting than I remember. The lore is more... I dunno, something about the execution feels flatter than I would like. The way that culture and religion get talked about, especially in Codex entries, feels more like a history lecture, more intellectualized, rather than real, living practices. There's a level of artificiality to a lot of it, although I think the Qunari stuff is good at avoiding that pitfall.

I seem to remember the second game being better on that point?

[Psyren]

I would *love* if someone remade the DA games as true turn-based isometric using the Divinity engine, complete with AP and recharge magic 💗