| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This might interest you if you like small indie games.
Otherwise, we got Gallowspire Survivor (Basically Vampire Survivors in Golarion) in early access, and Abomination Vaults, a Diablo-style ARPG coming up.
That's pretty much everything that's happening right now, unless I'm forgetting something.
Actually you forgot to mention Dawnsberry Days(for all of $5 on Steam in less 2 weeks) while it doesn't have all the bells and whistles of other products out it at least works at following PF2e rules a great deal more than anything that was mentioned. Bear in mind this a single developer doing the work on and it's follow up to his from his free proof of concept game "Quest for Golden Candlelabra".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't mention it because I directly linked to its steam page :)
But yes, mentioning the name would have been a good idea in hindsight.
It's also supposed to be a 10% off on launch, so you can save a bit if you grab it early.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hasbro is worth something like 8 billion US dollars. They've got a lot more money to throw at a notable videogame studio - and infinitely more name recognition to cash in on, for now - and that's something that folks wanting "a BG3 for other TTRPGs" often miss out on.
Hasbro is worth something like 8 billion US dollars. They've got a lot more money to throw at a notable videogame studio - and infinitely more name recognition to cash in on, for now - and that's something that folks wanting "a BG3 for other TTRPGs" often miss out on.
While this is true, I don't think it's known whether they actually paid for any part of BG3. In fact, Larian might have paid Hasbro for the rights to use the license.
But yeah, DnD has a huge brand recognition. Even if a big studio like Larian wanted to make a AAA game based on PF2, doing so without a big name like DnD attached could potentially be disastrous.
And quite frankly, something more akin to Solasta would be more fitting for PF2. Larian's very freeform approach to what you can do in their games would likely clash with PF2's comparatively strict ruleset.
So the ultimate dream would probably be a game with Solasta's adherence to rules and BG3's AAA production values. But alas, it will likely remain just a dream.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder how much work it would be to make a PF2 mod for BG3. Like, compared to making a new game from scratch.
I wonder how much work it would be to make a PF2 mod for BG3. Like, compared to making a new game from scratch.
Larian is already improving its mod support. I don't doubt that someday some modders would change and adapt the inner game mechanics to works based in PF2 ruleset.
It won't be easier and won't be 100% equal to PF2 ruleset but it's perfectly possible to change the game to work in a 3 action system (basically the current action is managed by the class subsystem so it's not so hard to remove the bonus action or limit it to work like a quickened action when quickened).
The most hard part is to make changes in the success/failure system to work in a 10+ diference and to adjust every monster to use their activities correctly. Yet I don't doubt that someone in the community can reach these things.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The system is in GREAT shape to make for a good video game but for it to work as software at least a good 50% of the system would need to be polished, tweaked, and overhauled to tighten the belt on mechanics and eliminate vagueness and GM fiat which would be a big task since the majority of Traits are "guidelines" and don't often actually spell out exactly how they should be applied, especially when it comes to creature types but MOST of that could probably be handled well enough by the developers since they'd need to make each area, encounter, and creature from the ground up to use in the game anyhow. I've long griped that the system could have been soo much better if they only hired some CS programmers as consultants to find, provide feedback, and insert solutions for the numerous holes created by the reliance on rule 0 which, in my opinion, was a mistake and was a cop-out to avoid having to force more consistency across the rules and reduce crunchiness.
In addition to that the devs would need to fix the problem relating to the "Action, Actions, action, actions" as well as the "Attack, Attacks, attack, attacks" phrasing and probably differentiate each of their meanings with brand new phrasing as well as make a ton of decisions based on what each rule that uses those terms mean for the actual game, these are all things that have been left unfixed and up to table variation but that cannot exist in a video game.
They'd need to cook up a whole new and greatly expanded set of Skill functions, Feats, and Abilities that correct the feels-bad-man friction relating to just how underwhelming and forced those systems currently are, again, largely due to just how much the game leans into "ask your GM" to help lubricate improvising checks to make sense for the context your characters find themselves in.
Lastly, they'd need to do something about the Medicine Skill uses and feats related to it because if converted into a game it would essentially necessitate that the first thing ANY combination of party members would have is someone who spent their early Skill Training and Feats into that for easy and reliable out of combat healing that consumes no resources. I'd personally suggest that those few options should just be made baseline functions of the Medicine Skill at Trained and offer Expert or higher level Feats that help improve them for those who wish to specialize in it as that goes most of the way toward killing that necessary feeling Feat Tax.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Considering Owlcat managed all of that with their two fairly successful Pathfinder CRPGs based off of PF1e and Larian managed it with a D&D 5e CRPG, I think someone new could handle it with PF2e considering it's much more tightly tuned than either PF1e or 5e. The math is tighter than in PF1e and the system is far less reliant on GM fiat than 5e.
The system is in GREAT shape to make for a good video game but for it to work as software at least a good 50% of the system would need to be polished, tweaked, and overhauled to tighten the belt on mechanics and eliminate vagueness and GM fiat
Certainly.
And what you are describing doesn't seem strange - to me at least. That is simply the difference between writing rules that are meant to be run by people and writing rules that are meant to be run by a computer.
The TTRPG version is going to be more flexible. You as a player can do very nearly anything. It just requires GM Fiat in order to make it happen in the game world.
The Video Game RPG version has to be more structured. You as a player can only do what the computer was programmed to allow before the game ever arrived in your hands.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Larian paid Hasbro to be able to make BG3, they did not come to Larian. It was apparently not a short task to convince them to allow, Larian to make it either.
BG3 is a game that I enjoy inspite of itself, and I don't think all of it's rule changes were for the better (not having delay actions made me pull out my hair).
Thankfully it wasn't too easy for me as I held back on playing until after Honor mode released for my blind playthrough.
The system is in GREAT shape to make for a good video game but for it to work as software at least a good 50% of the system would need to be polished, tweaked, and overhauled to tighten the belt on mechanics and eliminate vagueness and GM fiat which would be a big task since the majority of Traits are "guidelines" and don't often actually spell out exactly how they should be applied, especially when it comes to creature types but MOST of that could probably be handled well enough by the developers since they'd need to make each area, encounter, and creature from the ground up to use in the game anyhow. I've long griped that the system could have been soo much better if they only hired some CS programmers as consultants to find, provide feedback, and insert solutions for the numerous holes created by the reliance on rule 0 which, in my opinion, was a mistake and was a cop-out to avoid having to force more consistency across the rules and reduce crunchiness.
In addition to that the devs would need to fix the problem relating to the "Action, Actions, action, actions" as well as the "Attack, Attacks, attack, attacks" phrasing and probably differentiate each of their meanings with brand new phrasing as well as make a ton of decisions based on what each rule that uses those terms mean for the actual game, these are all things that have been left unfixed and up to table variation but that cannot exist in a video game.
They'd need to cook up a whole new and greatly expanded set of Skill functions, Feats, and Abilities that correct the feels-bad-man friction relating to just how underwhelming and forced those systems currently are, again, largely due to just how much the game leans into "ask your GM" to help lubricate improvising checks to make sense for the context your characters find themselves in.
Lastly, they'd need to do something about the Medicine Skill uses and feats related to it because if converted into a game it would essentially necessitate that the first thing ANY combination of party members...
Yet it still far more easier to do than it was to Larian make BG3 adapting 5e rules. Not even the item prices Larian had any solid reference to use.
We had CRPGs based on AD&D (BG 1 and 2, Icewind Dale), based in 3.0/3.5 (NWN 1 and 2 respectively), based in PF1 (Wrath of Righteous/Kingmaker) and the problems to adapt to a videogame was solved. PF2 prabably will be way more easier than these systems was to game developers to adapt.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know the expectation is generally for a CRPG but I'd really prefer for a PF2 game to be more of a strategy RPG. PF2's grid-based combat system stands on its own and doesn't need the extra nonsense in Baldur's Gate. I would just want to have a video game that makes it easy to play as four characters, more similar to the upcoming Lancer video game.
...and now I'm wondering if it would be possible to build PF3 (or something very close) into a SNES-era tactical RPG in RPGMaker.
...because if so, that's starting to get down to the kind of effort-for-payoff ratios that could make it pretty worthwhile.
...and now I'm wondering if it would be possible to build PF3 (or something very close) into a SNES-era tactical RPG in RPGMaker.
Have you ever played Final Fantasy Tactics?
BG3 is a game that I enjoy inspite of itself, and I don't think all of it's rule changes were for the better (not having delay actions made me pull out my hair).
I agree with you, but that wasn't Larian's change. Last time I played 5e, I was baffled to realize delaying your action didn't exist. You can still ready, but actually delaying isn't in there that I could find (and it wouldn't be surprising if ready actions were taken out of BG3 considering the fluid nature of triggers)
BG3 is a game that I enjoy inspite of itself, and I don't think all of it's rule changes were for the better (not having delay actions made me pull out my hair).I agree with you, but that wasn't Larian's change. Last time I played 5e, I was baffled to realize delaying your action didn't exist. You can still ready, but actually delaying isn't in there that I could find (and it wouldn't be surprising if ready actions were taken out of BG3 considering the fluid nature of triggers)
Yes, the ready action isn't in BG3. And given how often I've seen people who play 5e weekly screw it up, I'm not surprised*.
*I can just imagine all the baffled spellcasters wondering why they stopped concentrating when they readied an action to cast a spell. And readying to move would be an absolute nightmare.
...and now I'm wondering if it would be possible to build PF3 (or something very close) into a SNES-era tactical RPG in RPGMaker.
...because if so, that's starting to get down to the kind of effort-for-payoff ratios that could make it pretty worthwhile.
I do think something like this is both what PF2 would be best at and also what would be most reasonable to actually be developed with Pathfinder money.
...and now I'm wondering if it would be possible to build PF3 (or something very close) into a SNES-era tactical RPG in RPGMaker.Have you ever played Final Fantasy Tactics?
I have, repeatedly. I've also played a fair amount of Tactics Advance. To be clear on my question, I'm certain that it would be possible to build something like a PF2 tactics RPG from scratch. The curiousity is whether RPGMaker in particular offers the necessary level of flexibility to pull it off.
I do think something like this is both what PF2 would be best at and also what would be most reasonable to actually be developed with Pathfinder money.
Any thoughts on which AP might work well for such a thing? We'd want...
- Generally iconic, to attract interest from existing players
- Possible to make in that format in a way that is fun, that feels satisfying in general, and that feels true to the AP for those who have already run through it in tabletop
- A legitimately good/fun AP itself, so that people who get pulled in by the gateway drug of it all wind up somewhere good
- The AP should also have a nice solid elevator pitch for pulling people into the game. If someone asks "why is this cool?" we should be able to tell them.
- Avoid thematic weaknesses. Like... the way that Blood Lords tempts you to play evil cleric and then be sad about it isn't great. If you put together a party that looks like how the elevator pitch suggests it should look like, you should get generally good results from that.
- You only have one player now, and you can't really customize the story to the individual characters in the same way, so any complicated politics that there might be should mostly be happening on a party level rather than an individual character level.
- Ideally we'd want the noncombat parts to be relatively simple and straightforward to get RPGMaker to spit out, unless we can make the minigame for them actually legit fun and interesting.
Pathfinder Tactics.
Id buy it.
Avoid the bioware style dialog with companions. Its too slow after a first playthrough. Just write scenes into quests to show character interaction and development and do a Suikoden like investigations to give background information on characters you can read if you want to.
I think how Owlcat has put a mix of original characters and iconics is good for a companion roster. If battles are going to be with 4 characters at a time and you have a roster of 8-10 companions then have battles or events that take place in multiple places and force the party to split to handle all of the events. Make it so all characters feel needed for story and events, even if the battle you dont have your pc in is a controlled fight. Those can be taken care of off screen as long as the choices of companions and other resources you sent there have consequence.
and ofcourse it wouldnt be right unless you can make and design the main character.
I still hold out hope for an original version Bioware/Obsidian NWN/NWNII-style approach to PF2. The modability of the Aurora Toolset gave rise to an amazing modding community...
For me, as much as possible I'd like for the game to emulate the actual mechanics of the TT game...these non PF2 IP-spinoffs (Gallowspire Survivors, Owlcat's PF1 games - despite being created when PF1 was still a thing there's no way I'd go back, plus isometric makes me turn into a raging lunatic) do nothing for me.
On further thought, I realize it's been long enough that I got my early gens confused. It's true. A PS1-era tactics game is probably a better fit for what we'd want than a Genesis/SNES-era tactics game.
I still hold out hope for an original version Bioware/Obsidian NWN/NWNII-style approach to PF2. The modability of the Aurora Toolset gave rise to an amazing modding community...
I don't see an NWN-style game coming out of this unless we do something like grow the playerbase by an order of magnitude. That's kind of the opposite direction in terms of pricetag from "I think we could maybe put this thing together in RPGMaker."
I still hold out hope for an original version Bioware/Obsidian NWN/NWNII-style approach to PF2. The modability of the Aurora Toolset gave rise to an amazing modding community...I don't see an NWN-style game coming out of this unless we do something like grow the playerbase by an order of magnitude. That's kind of the opposite direction in terms of pricetag from "I think we could maybe put this thing together in RPGMaker."
Yep, not enough of a player base. Can agree there. But still hope.
Any thoughts on which AP might work well for such a thing?
The easy answer is Abomination Vaults for an AP where you interact with most things by fighting with it. I'm definitely thinking more along the lines of a classic dungeon crawl.
I’d rather it be linear in the sense of: Welcome to the first chapter! Your goal is kill X, retrieve Y, negotiate Z. And how you do that is up to you. Super open in how you get that part of the game done
You do that and then you get to the next chapter of the game with another open ended goal to get done how you want.
Makes it much more replayable and allows player expression.
PF2e ain’t the best for “open-world”.
This was triangle strategy’s approach in a way.
Great game. But i got the sense that only one of the paths actually changed anything. The other 2 main paths ended up confronting the same enemy nation at the end.
...and it's easy enough to include some flexibility in the small things while leaving the larger things be. You can include ways to make choices for minor characters and sidestories and even reference those choices later while leaving the main storyline more or less on rails.