I am interested to see what they do, as they’ve said before the BG3 engine sorta breaks down after level 12 so they might not go any higher. Presumably that means it’s another ‘start at level 1’ type campaign.
Was it the engine or the ruleset? It’s widely accepted that D&D 5E is sorta hot garbage at higher levels so I was assuming that’s what Larian was referring to.
The traditional answer to this is to just not let players cast spells that would be costly to implement, in the same way that we can’t currently cast Reincarnate or Magic Jar. There are still high level combat spells to look forward to, like Meteor Swarm.
I’ve heard that high level D&D sucks ever since I got into D&D back in 2e, so I don’t know if 5e truly sucks, or it’s just continued player sentiment toward something that’s always been, IMO, misunderstood.
Personally, I fucking love epic level shit. Starting at 20 and using the epic level book to go further is awesome. The problem I see, though, is DMs quite often don’t think epic enough. They think too small scale and it sucks for everyone because
There’s a lot to keep track of on a single character. So many spells and abilities at that point, and if you’ve never really played a lot of high level stuff, you can get choice paralysis or just not know how some of your stuff really works.
Strength. What’s a challenge? Quite often when I see what others are using in their high level campaigns, they are just poorly balanced large scale battles or a single big monster and not really thought out. If your party has close to God like powers, they should be fighting actual gods.
Usually it is the vast variance in magic items from one DM to the next that makes it very hard the rules set. Then of course the DM must work out what to do about the magic items they gave out. And of course the variance in skill and style of the players...
Min/Max players are crap at higher level. Role Players are great at any level. DMing at low level is fairly easy. DMing at high level is a bitch at best.
5e at high level sucks because WOTC didn't bother to actually test any of it. They admitted they didn't test past level 10 and their inclusion of magic items is so bad that the recommendations for how many to include show the devs are terrified of them; you get so very few by official recommendations.
Save or Suck spells make higher level 5e (and 5e in general) a huge PITA to plan encounters for when players can just get lucky and end things outright. Magic items don't have a power level listing, just a rarity doing double duty that is wildly inaccurate. Class balance is shit: martials are boring. All they do is swing the weapon most of the time and very few class abilities really alleviate that. Spellcasters are so vastly more powerful and fun that multiclassing is way more popular than it should be.
Monsters in 5e are boring. Most of them are just bags of hit points that swing. Very few have bonus actions or reactions and the ones that do are often just "parry: increase AC once". They came out with gem dragons 2yr ago and they gave them all the SAME bonus actions: shapeshift and misty step. It's like they don't even bother to try, which is evident in recent releases.
/rant. But seriously, I love high level D&D. You can really raise the stakes. I'm DMing a level 12 5e campaign now and my primary way to make encounters interesting is two-fold: firstly is 3rd party content to get monsters that are actually interesting. Secondly I create objectives that aren't just "murder monster". I just had a bunch of literal street children hit my party with a net trap and arrow that makes them drop their items that said children tried to steal and run away with. 2 got away but they were able to find the hideout and defeat the boss. Actual stakes besides just getting killed.
Epic narratives have their place, but if you follow the 5E rules they don’t work well mechanically.
Fighting actual Gods in D&D should be fairly comfortable for a party of level 20 characters, which is part of the problem. The way the scaling of character power compared to enemy power works, fighting a group of goblins on the dirt road as a level 1 party is magnitudes more challenging than fighting an actual God as a level 20 party.
Is that not the point? To go from struggling against the lowest foes to being equal to the toughest? Sometimes I wonder if the disconnect is between the game and the narrative. I’m in the, seemingly, minority camp of favoring the game side. The narrative is merely the vessel allows the game to flow and not the other way around. I construct sandboxes rather than linear stories. The stories come from the players and how they want to interact with the world, the consequences of their actions, and so on. As a DM, I provide the world at large, what’s currently happening in that world, and the moderation of the rules to facilitate the players telling their own stories, instead of having one I am merely telling them. I personally think this brings more life to the game. Players can become immersed more easily when they are thinking about what they are trying to do, and the dynamics of multiple players pulling the story this way and that just makes for a more compelling narrative.
It sounds like 5e is also just not balanced on the game side. Which was my problem with 4e, too and why I haven’t really tried 5.
I still haven’t played 5e on paper. Just BG3. I am a 3.5/Pathfinder lover. I know those rules and lore way more since I’ve played it for years. Feels weird to stop now.
If you're a 3.5/pf1e player, I'm sure you can imagine how high level spells can get really complicated to program in a game engine. And more importantly, how impossible to balance for them it can be. BG3 does a decent job of adapting spells to not be annoying or broken to use in a video game, but some high level 5e spells are way more ridiculous and open ended.
Don’t even need to be a specific rule player to know that. The actual PnP games are limitless. You literally can do anything you can imagine. You can easily make a new rule to handle stuff the books don’t cover. Video games can’t. Not with the same fluidity, anyway. I would expect the simple mathematics to be handled, along with spells and abilities that work in a CRPG. It’s amazing they even have Speak to Animals. I mean, it’s a simple concept, but you have to then also write dialogue for every animal you place in the game. Otherwise, the spell becomes worthless. That’s a lot of work I don’t usually expect from video games, despite it being something I love to see.
As you get further from spells and abilities which have a limited and defined effect on the world (I hit him with a sword, this spell sets that on fire) and towards reality-bending superpowers (wish spells, divine intervention) the 5e ruleset becomes increasingly difficult to deliver within a CRPG framework.
In that respect I get it. I wouldn’t even expect Wish it many other spells to be in a CRPG or if it was, it would be way more limited (as they would obviously only program so many actions you could even make). The rules always break down in a CRPG when the PnP game has next to no limits with imagination. A computer game has to be thought about in advance, with limited ability to flex on things that might make sense in the moment that can be ruled on the fly. Not to mention different interpretations of vaguer/not well written rules.
That is just the point where the exponential effects of leveling and introduction of 5e spells that require more DM adjudication are introduced. Together they make coding encounters extremely difficult in tabletop and a complete nightmare to code.
I have no interest in going over level 10 on tabletop as a DM, and can't imagine even trying to write code logic for it.
I'd be perfectly happy to see content at the same levels as BG3 campaign. Ideally a new campaign entirely, but if it's just DLC then an extra Act or a side campaign with new characters as a prequel or sequel or something would be neat.
It’s almost impossible to implement high level magic. Just the interactions between spells is insane. Basic interactions like Force Cage+any AoE (Sickening Radiance) to build the microwave of death… would be so hard to implement. They’d honestly have to veer off 5e and implement their own spells instead, tailored to the video game medium.
I do think the framework of the game would be a great place to start for additional campaigns. They could take this game and put a Candlekeep Mysteries style sequential dungeon crawl add-on and people would love it just to play multiplayer short campaigns.
It’s not impossible cause any thing that has specific rules laid out can be implemented. And table top rule are turn based(no time sensitive action, ie, physics simulation), fixed permutations/outcomes(dice rolls for everything), programming is just “rules” for moving numbers, even for deep learning networks.
The harder to implement are the conversations, cause there are pretty much infinite way depending on who initiate the conversation(background/race/stats/class/proficiency/+whatever player thinks that’s possible and DM assign a check value), with potential plots lines, the writer has to limit what can be chosen and remove other options even though it’s legit on table top.
I mean, spells like Wish are going to be basically impossible outside of going the AI route (which is an entire can of worms).
Wish can duplicate any other spell, or it can have your own effect (with a chance of it being monkey-pawed plus you never being able to cast Wish ever again).
Also bear in mind that it's not "just" rules for moving numbers. You have to have particles, animations, etc. You can't just have conversations, you have to also have SFX from impacts, camera shake, UI elements, etc. When you start to get into the world of "anything is possible" you kind of have to go back to basics, text-based adventures.
With AI stuff, maybe some of that can be done - but AI is just so incredibly slow in its current form. It won't stay that way forever, mind - I think the best comparison is graphics in the 1990s. Graphics were incredibly basic because anything complex would take ages to render and couldn't be used in games. Over the next decade, things were built to specifically speed up that process, and now modern GPUs can easily keep up with the highest-quality CGI without much fuss (there's a reason why Disney has the Volume, which is essentially just running CGI in the Unreal Engine alongside the actors in real-time).
But until that, we're going to be pretty limited. It's going to be impossible for any kind of free-form rules to be implemented, unless options were restricted to such a point that it's basically a completely different spell.
Even low level magic is sometimes too flexible for a computer based game. BG3 basically ignores Magic Mouth as implemented in 5e because arbitrary “trigger conditions” is just something that cannot be handled in a truly open ended way. Nevermind trying to implement Contingency properly – a spell that forms the core of high level magical shenanigans.
it used to be the case that when you weren’t able to enforce DRM on a piece of software anymore, you would offer it as a free download so people who bought it wouldn’t lose it
they don’t have to keep supporting, just not make it unavailable the best case would be if they made it open source, in that case other people could keep maintaining it, but would be against their profit incentives
Reworded: Think of all the resources spent on making sure people don’t steal the software you paid to make.
I’m all for open source software. But if a company spends money paying employees, they need to not go out of business.
Now, do I think they overcharge? Yes. Do I think their subscription model is offensive? Yes. Are there other alternatives: Affinity Photo, you pay once for the version. Yours forever.
They the. Said nothing for half a decade. Now starfield is coming out and is shipped from their perspective so he’s on to his next sale. Simple as that. See you in another 5+ years
Skyrim with actually good melee combat, much greater magic variety, companions who are smarter and not suicidal, horses who can move around with logical sense, more biome variety as much as I love what's already there, factions that don't end in you ruling all of them at once...
Turns out Skyrim gets a lot right but there are tons of things that could be much better.
I just wanted Skyrim where I could invite a few friends to come along for dungeons. Then they made Elder Scrolls Online as though that was at all the same thing.
That would indeed be pretty cool, I'd love to see if they go that route for TES 6. Clearly the FO76/ESO routes are not what that same customer base wants, for different reasons.
ESO is a fine MMO, but it's absolutely an MMO and not a multiplayer TES game. FO76 is a skeleton of a Bethesda RPG but isn't formatted at all how what the average Bethesda fan would want to play. It's strange they went both of these routes before attempting what people have been asking for and even trying to make themselves for so long.
It's a bit of a shame Starfield won't include multiplayer either, but it's hard for me to complain since I don't have friends anyway.
Tell me you played 30 minutes of 76 on launch and never touched it again without telling me you played 30 minutes of 76 on launch and never touched it again
Yeah 76 is pretty rad and based now. There was an actual dialog I had with an NPC who wanted me to go find gold and I was telling them this unquenchable lust for money caused the whole damn apocalypse in the first place.
I actually have not even played it, but I've heard it's been much improved, correct me if I'm wrong though it's still different from literally Fallout 4 with other players. For example, are there multiple long faction storylines, large populated cities with many side quests, a few radio stations, caravans, morality or faction reputation, bobbleheads, basically every major and minor feature in a standard Bethesda Fallout.
If it's been updated enough times and in the right directions to include all that stuff, then awesome. I was by no means saying it was a bad game, I just want to know if it's seamlessly a Bethesda title through and through with other players or if it's still Fallout in a different direction.
Are you able to enjoy the world privately with only players you choose without any DLC or microtransactions based restrictions on construction or storage, mod support so long as each player maintain the same modlist, etc.?
I played it recently and it is still a clunky half broken mess with friends. Setting up three camps was a pain and the one quest we tried to do failed to spawn the final objective except for the party leader, and none of the rest of us were able to complete it.
I played around 20 hours of it at launch, and it was bad. Not just in all the hilariously broken things that were memed all over the place back then, but the fundamental concept of the game just didn’t quite work.
Even if a game is protected against piracy on its PC version, the version released on Nintendo Switch can be emulated from day one and played on PC, therefore bypassing the strong protections offered on the PC version,”
Are there that many multi-platform games that have denuvo and a switch version too?
I’d think most games “big enough” for denuvo wouldn’t have a switch port anyway.
That was my thought. Most games that are on both PC and Switch are not big enough to want to pay Denuvo for their services. Any game that is big enough to care probably also can’t afford to take the Denuvo performance hit (that they claim doesn’t exist) on the under-powered Switch.
There are a surprising amount of pc games on switch. I’m not sure if all these titles have denuvo on PC but as an example.
Dragon Quest 11 Doom Eternal Divinity original sin 2 Disco Elysium Most resident Evil games There are a lot of other games that have a switch port, but I’m too tired to think about it further.
Edit: I just remembered that even Windows was externally acquired, so I believe, it would be more correct to say that Microsoft has basically never innovated something themselves.
Yeah, it started its life as “Quick And Dirty Operating System” (don’t know, why they renamed it) and even that was basically a ripoff of CP/M: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/86-DOS
I guess, you can say that they did put in own effort into developing the windowing system. I wouldn’t want to call that “innovating”, since they were late to the party, but I guess, that would be moving the goal posts here…
It absolutely needs backwards compatibility. Throwing away the whole Nintendo Switch library would be a waste, and there are some games that would even benefit from improved performance.
If it’s on a new console who says the performance or world would be bad? With hardware that isn’t 10 years old they could actually have a full world without the game chugging at 15FPS.
Also are you seriously gonna pretend like having the game be 3D is no different from Fire Red or Leaf Green? Lol
I definitely wish there was more negotiation with tech library companies about this. It makes sense for movies - it’s a one-time experience, you only see the supporting studios’ logos one time, and it’s just building anticipation for the opening moments of the movie. But games are things people play twenty times a week. Someone might see the logos more if they play in shorter sessions, and maybe even avoid playing for a night because they’re familiar with the two minutes of setup to get to “actually playing”.
I even wish there was more effort to put gaming menus before the launch. A long time ago, Steam standardized a server picker for their own games, so you could skip “launching the game, hitting Server Browser”, instead just open the server list, double click one, and then that’s your “launching” task taking you to the thing you want to play. Even consoles could do this, even for games using matchmaking. I remember this being something the PS5 promoted in its menus but, not having a PS5, I’m curious if many games followed though.
“Quadruple-A” lmao
Just the other day there was an article with the previous creative director saying that they had to axe the Single-player campaign because they just didn’t have the team to do it
It’s more due to AI and/or the expectation of automation being able to reduce the workforce before that actually gets set up functionally. Also that tech companies are doing it to try and kick back against people demanding their wages increase with cost of living, so game devs are piling onboard with layoffs for the same reason.
It's the same thing that happened in tech. People got used to the near-decade of essentially free money. Interest rates were low for a long time, so easy loans, and demands to endlessly/rapidly grow. Now the free money's gone and none of them know how to exercise discretion, so they "trim the fat" of their rapid growth.
It’s not only that. Companies are getting richer and richer and they could easily afford LOTS of employees. Microsoft reached the trillion-dollar market cap and a few days later fired 1900 people
Right, but they’re doing it because they believe they can make up the lost manpower through automation that won’t be integrated enough to do so for another couple years. So they’re going to overload their current employees even further than they likely already are and the product/s will continue to suffer and fall off.
This isn’t happening in a vacuum, it’s happening currently because they believe AI is far enough along to pick up the slack.
videogameschronicle.com
Ważne