Original title: This is not BG3 but DOS3

Hi,

I loved DoS1 and DoS2 and BG2 is best game I have ever played.

Simply put, this "BG3" is actually not a BG game, it is a reskin or updated version of DoS, and it should actually be called DoS3.

I know this might sound harsh or cruel to the devs that put so much effort in this game, but this is the sad truth.

If you really wanted to create an entirely new BG game, then using DoS2 as a template that will be tweaked and modified to be similair to BG, was a completely wrong move IMO.

However, probably the funding was low so this is the best we can get. I hope Larian will eventually move on from their DoS template and create a new original game.

All the best.


Edited to change title of merged thread to encompass several different viewpoints without making a statement in itself. -v

Nah, it's not. You should look at those cloned games produced with infinity engines.

I get it and maybe not even too late, just call up WotC, talk about it, find something else that's hot in their world and rename it. I don't think dollars are at risk, pride perhaps, but the word is out and will continue to be out there is a new high quality DnD game out true to the core table top game, made by Larain those things alone would have all it needs going for it, for success. They have the best engine for this, but just leave the name and RtwP crowd alone.

I am impressed by what I've seen, but agree that it doesn't feel like BG, so I'd like to ask Larian what, apart from the setting (we've seen dozens of Forgotten Realms games) do they feel makes a BG game and why they think their effort counts as one.

I'd like to stress again, that I'm not hating, I'm just asking how they think this is BG3 rather than a new (and maybe incredible) FR game?

This is like taking a game like Dark Souls 3 by a new dev studio, tweaking the existing game mechanics, and then calling the "new" game Elder Scrolls 6, even thought actually the game should be called DS4.

This is similar to Bethesda taking Fallout franchise and building Fallout 3 and 4 on the existing Elders Scrolls 4 mechanics. The difference is that this BG3 will not work as intended because BG2 fans are very specific about what they like and why they like BG and BG2 so much.

A better fit would be is Wotc hired Obsidian because PoE is much more like BG then DoS.

My gut feeling is that Wotc simply didnt want to spend a lot of money on development of a new BG3, so they just said to Larian hey can you make BG3 from DoS2, and what would be the price.

The game has not really been in development a very long time, which means they are trying to make a some money by not investing a whole lot.

Hope for all the best for Larian, but this was a cheap move in my book.

The feeling that BG3 looks more like a DOS3 than a real D&D Baldur's Gate game seems to spread a lot on the web.
It is also mine.

I find that the artistic direction is quite good and the game looks really beautiful. From this point of view, this BG3 looks very good. Well done Larian!
Now, the way battles are represented and managed, movement, highlighted objects, interactions with objects and even the interface ... it all looks too much like DOS.
The character creation screen is even almost identical to that of DOS!

DOS made success for Larian. OK, that's very good.
Now, I think players expect something else from BG3. More like Baldur's Gate and less like DOS.

This is the feedback I suspect they are hearing and can rectify in the final product.

This "BG3" definitely does not resemble a Baldur's Gate game but looks like D:OS 2.5. It doesn't look like they even tried one little bit to be anything other than the next D:OS game.

Just chiming in. The looks and feel is exact DOS3. it's truly biggest letdown. It's quite obvious Larian doesn't seem to be the right developer to take on this franchise. Don't get me wrong. DOS2 was really great. I enjoyed alot on it. But I'm not expecting to play DOS3 with just a BG me tacked on it. Larian has completely ruined the franchise for me. I have no doubt on Larian capability to make fun and quality games but they failed to capture the feel and settings of baldurs gate. Keep throwing around the word D&D and table top couldn't cover the exact DOS clone. The UI, aesthetics, even the dancing animation were exact clone.

Baldurs Gate 3 no doubt will be a fun quality DOS3 but it's no baldurs gate. Maybe their art team is so accustomed to DOS that they couldnt capture the feel of forgotten realms. Maybe they should just hire a different art team.

I understand the sentiment of its not BG3, but i think there are some important things to note such as what BG1-2 ment to people. For me its the lore and setting and it being D&D. Not RTwP, infinity engine, and a tone/story we havent even gotten to see a ton of in BG3.

as for DOS3, i understand not wanting it to be BG3 but its not in ANY respect DOS3. DOS2 uses way different rule sets, different leveling, classes, combat etc. the main similarity they have is TB (which is the tabletop system) and its the same engine which of course it is. at best its a skin but its not DOS3. If you reskinned MTG to look like hearthstone it doesnt mean that its hearthstone now and if you told MTG fans it was they would be rightfully upset.

As i see it its Forgotten Realms: Baldurs Gate not DOS3

Wow, have you ever even played BG1 and 2?

Have you played DOS 1 and 2?

You are honestly saying that you do not see that BG3 is just a re-skin of DOS2?

It took me about 1 minute into the gameplay demo to see what this is all about. I think even Sven Vincke was kind of nervous because he knew he was actually trying to sell DOS3 as BG3, and thats kind of akward if you are trying to be an honest guy.

If Larian wants to be an honest studio they should just say - "listen guys, yea this is DOS3, but to make more money we are calling it BG3 because we got the franchise". If they did that I would respect them more then now, because currently they are just insulting my intelligence.

All BG and BG2 players are grown up people so you cant sell snake oil to us like we are some 15 year fan boy kids. It kind of rude of Larian and Wotc that they are actually trying to sell snake oil.

Best.

https://twitter.com/LarAtLarian/status/1233431915274870784

Max party size confirmed to be 4. What's wrong with more? Is it an engine limitation?

eek... another disappointing decision.

At this point I don't really care how many characters anymore. It's really on fact just a DOS reskin with Baldurs Gate theme and D&D ruleset.

Aside from this, 4 characters in turn based is already very slow. Adding more will even make it worst.

this is just getting more and more ridiculous.

the game is so obviously DOS3 that I'm embarrased for Larian.

I'm starting to think Beamdog are a company with integrity. There were plans for DLC that would have taken place in the second game but got scrapped. Some(!) parts of SoD weren't half-bad.

Hopefully you weren't expecting a party size of six from a D:OS 2 clone.

Part of me was expecting something akin to this: https://www.facebook.com/BaldursGateReloaded
I guess IWD-in-EET is the closest thing I'll ever get to a third game.

I grew up with BG1 and 2. they were my way of playing D&D because i didnt have many friends and only sometimes got to play with my brother in little solo games. BG3 is not a reskin of DOS2 its a D&D game wearing the skin of DOS2. This is a super important difference because while i may look like DOS2 its core, the rule set, systems, lore, world, etc are NOT DOS2. Thats what my point is. Just because you recolor a game to look like another game doesnt mean its that other game. A game is a GAME the rule set, systems, and all the things that effect gameplay are part of it. DOS3 would not all of a sudden get rid of AP pool, open class system and its whole lore and setting. Thats why it doesnt make sense to call it just DOS3

Do we really know if we can call it a D&D game? Not yet.
There will inevitably be D & D5 rules that will be interpreted, rearranged or even ignored.
I also look forward to being told exactly what it will be to comply with D & D5 rules for class, races, skills, attributes, feats, spells, abilities, fights and many other things. .

On the other hand, the general appearance of this BG3 is undeniably very (too!) close to DOS.
In any case, I think that many players - especially those who knew the first BGs - expect something else from the Baldur's Gate license and from a truly D&D game.

And I also think Larian should take this very seriously.

This seems to be a FAQ so I hope we'll get a official answer on the matter.

My two cents? Its simply easier to balance the game with less variables. But I agree with the sentiment, the larger the party size the better.

Everything we have seen screams D&D, there are been very few things ive seen that are not D&D and that mostly comes down to certain things being Bonus actions over standard actions something not in DOS2

As i said the look of its fairly divinity, im not disputing that. Im disputing that graphics, style and UI are what make a game DOS2. I think there are a lot of players who are fans of BG1/2 who expected something different but D&D fans seem pretty happy about this over all. Maybe not expect it though because they havent gotten a TB D&D game offically supported since TOEE if im correct. I can confidently say every D&D fan i know who plays video games is excited for this

Well, not sure but as far as i know WotC is only the licensors and not a sponsor. WotC gave the license to be able to use the Forgotten Realms and make corresponding specifications (e.g. implementation of the 5th edition of D&D).

My 5 cent:
It was a somewhat unfortunate decision to name this game "Baldur´s Gate III". It was totally clear what all the Baldur´s Gate Fans expect when they are reading PART 3. I think the problems are not
-using the Divine-Engine instead a similar Infinity-Engine (like in games: Pillars of Eternity, Black Geyser: Couriers of Darkness or Realms Beyond: Ashes of the Fallen)
-the similar gameplay to Divine Original Sin
-turn based fights with regard to the 5 edition of D&D
BUT the only common ground to the predecessors is the setting in the Forgotten Realms in and around the city of Baldur´s Gate. Unfortunaly nothing from the predecessors will be continued but what the title "III" implies. In reality Baldur´s Gate III is "just" a new campaign. The big outcry of many fans could have been avoided if the game had been called "Baldur´s Gate: NamedItWhateverYouLike" but not Baldur´s Gate III.

It is no accident that WotC released a new campaign for the Dungeons & Dragons tabletop game: Baldur's Gate: Descent in Avernus last year when Baldur´s Gate III was announced. It tells what's happened since Baldur's Gate II and plays 100 years after Baldur´s Gate II. The problem is that the story of the tabletop game must fit into Baldur´s Gate III. It was certainly a mandatory requirement for BG 3 from WotC.


For me personally, my character in BG3 will be the son of my character from BG1, SoD + BG2 and Jaheira.

The UI (Which let’s face it is probably the main reason people’re calling this a OS clone) is borrowing the D:OS2 skin because it’s pre alpha. The environments and lighting are also borrowed because it’s pre alpha. The combat ruleset, setting, lore, characters, story, non-combat scenarios won’t be anything like D:OS2

Pre-alpha means that the majority of assets are placeholder. Some companies even use assets from other games that they don’t even own during the pre alpha phase to serve as placeholders so they know where to put stuff later. The game will look drastically different upon release. A few lighting, UI and model tweaks and it’ll be Baldur’s Gate with combat that’s actually faithful to the source material and doesn’t suck.

Perfect comment
I always imagined BG3 similar to Obsidian games

This stuff just boggles my mind.
Why on earth would you want BG3 to be made by obsidian?

If you want RTWP then maybe go with owlcat.
but obsidian has shown qutie well that they are incapeable of making good games and they are out of touch with the CRPG audience.
Laud them as much as you want for beeing conservative in mechanics, their writing isnt winning any awards with the fan base.

and cheap? you realy think this is cheap? Do you even understand how much the larian team has expanded for this?

Why am i even typing this. This is bait.

I agree. For D:OS fans, they consider the D:OS-style graphics and artwork to be beautiful, and as such are happy to see that replicated in this game. For me, one of the main reasons I hated the D:OS games was precisely because I found their style of graphics and artwork to be horribly ugly and even amateurish. So obviously for me, I hate that they have imported that style into this game.

No it is because the game is made to be played multiplayer. That's what it has been designed for from the ground up, as a multiplayer tabletop simulator. Of course someone can play it single player if they want, but that's not what the game is designed for. All the game design choices, party size, combat system, dialog system, very little control over what characters you can play and how your companions can develop, are all clearly design choices favoring a multiplayer TT sim model for the game.

Good.
Multiplayer is a better expirience.
How is this an argument against the game?

>graphics
see, theres the part that reeks of lies.
I admit, the game looks a lot like OS2.
But youre gonna tell me the characters do? The equipment does?
That stuff looks exactly like the art from the Players Handbook and the Monster manual, especialy the goblins

But sure, Photoshop airburshed pictures of stock art models are fine art arent they?
Dont kid yourself, thats what over half of the portraits in BG1 and 2 were

I've been browsing the many reviews that have been written by the gaming news media since the reveal and they ALL say the exact same thing, that this game looks and feels like the Divinity games. Of course for these reviewers, given that they are all Larian sycophants, this is a very good thing and is how it should be. I suppose they would probably even go so far as to say every RPG that is ever made in the future should look and feel like the Divinity games. So it's not just us critics on this forum but even the so-called pro reviewers who are saying the game looks and feels exactly like the Divinity games but with a Forgotten Realms 'skin' on it.

ive been asking this in another thread too.
give me a direct screenshot comparison.

Two simmilar locations from what weve seen in BG3.
Show me the differences, show me a screenshot from BG1 or 2, or hell, dark alliance if youre that bored, and tell me where the "Baldurs gate" essenece is, and then show me where it lacks in BG3.

I genuinly want to know.
Because yeah , it looks and feels like OS2, because its the same engine and the combat certainly looks simmilar.
but from the character models?
The enemies? realy? i certainly didnt see any teleporting crocodiles..

Exactly, we all knew it was going to look like DOS but facts dont change their using 5th edition DnD rules and now it's becoming childish that some people dont even want to acknowledge that this is a DnD game because they feel their losing an argument. Also if they omit a rule.or 2 it doesn't mean it's not a DnD game either. I'm sure most of the game will be faithfull to 5th edition rules.

It's sad to see so much anger and frustration generated by the fans and antifans of the next
installment of one of my favourite games of all time (SoA)

Let me start saying: Take a second to look at this situation and realize that both sides of this coin are right in their own way (The mature people who tries to be civil and talk about things at least)

Fans of Larian and D&D are very happy,and why wouldn't they? This game is perfect for them.

Fans of BG are mad,some because of the combat system,a bit extreme in my book,but hey,they are right,changing the combat system is a big deal on a franchise.

But maybe more moderated people who has been playing all kind of games and systems through the years for hours to no end are just complaining because whenever you look at this new BG game there is NOTHING that vaguely resembles the name it carries. Is that so crazy? No. Is that something to go and insult us for being rational and expecting some BG in a BG game? No

Why don't you try to stop being childish and stop fighting for what is best or what is worst? BG2 sold almost 2 million copies only on PC on a time where players where just ''freaks'' repudiated by society most of the time. You can say whatever you want but BG has been an inspiration for more than 20 years to a lot of developers and a lot of games has been made thanks to BG's influence.

The fact is this: When you look at this game,you recognize it as an impoved version of DOS2 with 5e ruleset or at the very least another Larian game based on DOS2. You would never,in all your life think ''Hey!,is this a new Baldur's Gate?'' AND THIS is where all the problems really come from,and let me tell you one think,they where aware of that and it was a fear inside the studio,I'll look for the interview later and edit this to provide a source.

I know Swen Vincke has a VERY particular vision of how this game should be and I know he wants this game to be the closer you can get on a videogame to the paper D&D and let me tell you,that sounds fantastic but,have you hear me mention BG? No,because their concern is more about D&D than paying homage to the saga and you can argue that BG is a D&D based game so its fine BUT you're using the name of a beloved franchise,a jewel lost in time so you can at least have some amount of respect for that and try to show that this game is indeed Baldur's Gate 3.

Sven Vincke's vision of this game is TOTALLY compatible with making the game more Baldur's Gate,I'm of course not saying change the system,change the game engine,change the graphics etc, but there's A LOT of things they can do to make BG3 appealing to ''almost'' everyone. Colors,effects,assets like cursors for looting,voiced spellcasting,animations,illumination,music,etc. Granted,I know it's apha (a REAL alpha) and a lot of thing are bound to change,a lot of what we've seen could be placeholders,some other things are really easy to tweak and change,but the reality of the situation is that we can only judge what we've seen and that is why so much people is angry (some more than others)

Both sides of this coin,please,I implore you,not for me of for Larian or WotC but for the sake of the BG franchise,see reason, accept that for good or ill,games are bound to change,specially under different developers.

Larian and D&D fans,I ask of you to try to understand the pain and frustracion the original BG fans feel at this moment after 20 years of waiting for the next installment of one of the best crpg's ever made.

And you,Larian and Swen Vincke,if any of you read this someday,I know what you want to do with the game,I know you're hyped and I know you have a very specific vision for this game but please, acknowledge the fact that you can reach that goal without hurting other avid gamers in the process. The game as it is now is going to appeal to D&D and DOS2 fans alike,so please work to appeal to BG fans too and prove that you're not only using Baldur's Gate as a cheap way to get more fans and money.

I understand and respect all parts of this conflict and the only thing I want is to look and this new game while proudly thinking ''This is Baldur's Gate 3''

Thank you all for reading.

English is not my first language so if you have any doubt or something doesn't make sense feel free to let me know.

EDIT: Link to he interview but if you don't want to look for the actual phrase :

"We were afraid that people would say that it was just Divinity: Original Sin 2 with a skin on top of it. We want no one to think that when they see it,"

https://www.usgamer.net/articles/baldurs-gate-3-preview

Thanks, great post - I agree...

EDIT: To clarify, I believe this will be an amazing game, I just don't think it will be BG3 except in name alone...

Wow. They were conscious of it, and yet that's precisely what happened and everybody is saying it looks like a D:OS2 clone because it really does. Larian's "BG3" even uses the D:OS2 mouse cursors, text font, and goofyish movement animation style, so it looks and feels all the more like playing D:OS2. It really doesn't give an impression that it's a different game.

"We were afraid that people would say that it was just Divinity: Original Sin 2 with a skin on top of it. We want no one to think that when they see it,"
FAIL!

Look "Solasta: Crown of the magister" and you will see a game which is not called Baldur's Gate but which is much closer to it than Larian's Baldur's Gate 3. I would even add that the D&D spirit seems to me to be much more respected with Solasta than with BG3.

If Larian persists in this path, I fear that the name Baldur's Gate will end up turning against him and his game; when I can be convinced that if Larian had called it: DOS3, it would have been a real success.

Likewise, if players find that the name Baldur's Gate was only used to boost sales, it will clearly tarnish Larian's image.

Larian must be aware of where he is setting foot with the Baldur's Gate license.
Baldur's Gate has become the property of the players; with their nostalgia, their wonder, their epic battles, their discoveries, their stories, their pain and their thousands of hours spent. All of this went far beyond the borders of Bioware, TSR (before WotC) and Black Isles Studios.

And so, it is the players who will now decide what is and what is not Baldur's Gate.
This power has not been in the hands of a video game development studio for a long time. Nor is it in the hands of WotC.

There is a much greater chance that Larian will crash rather than succeed in this crazy bet.
A little selfishly, however, I wish them success. Because that will mean that I will have found the feeling of having returned home and reliving emotions like those that I experienced on the greatest cRPGs of all time, that are Baldur's Gate and Planescape Torment.
Fans of Baldur's Gate expect nothing less than that...

Those could be placeholders but I haven't yet seen any interview addressing this stuff so...that's what worries me,if they knew,and it happened,why didn't they explained they're just placeholders and we'll se much improvment in the future? It's not a hard thing to say to avoid all this ruckus.




Like I said,they already sold the game to Larian fans and D&D fans xD

I know Solasta Melkyor95,looks pretty good. I got the same feeling with P:K and the sequel is looking even better.
As of right now,yes I agree that the BG3 name is hurting them more than is helping them. If they would have named it Return from Avernus or whatever fits the story no one would have complained.
When they announced BG3 everyone thought the game would remind them about the other games in the franchise but alas,that's far from happening so people is obviously mad about it. I knew it was going to have a very Larian flavor but this is not flavor,it's a whole cake xD and not even the icing is BG

Simplify it even more... no one is changing anyone's mind. I have no problem as-is other than it looks like DOS, big mistake demoing that, someone out of 250 should have said, wait you can't do that! So they have this predicament, I would seriously consider renaming the game. It isn't DOS3 because it uses DnD rules. It is still DnD, they should sit down with WotC and come up with what is should be called. Perhaps it even gets delayed over this. Perhaps do two games, the second being RtwP BG3.

I think a lot of what people are seeing when they say that it looks like D:OS is precisely that. It LOOKS like D:OS. The UI specifically. This was the first time we saw it though, and I expect it will look much different by release.

I get the feeling that Swen and the team wanted to make a D&D game, and that WOTC wanted to cash in on the BG name. I'm a fan of all D&D, D:OS, and BG series. I feel bad for the die hard BG fans. But personally... I think BG3 will be iconic in it's own right. Change is always bad until you start enjoying it. If you haven't tried D:OS series, I think it is on sale pretty heavily on Steam right now. Get the vitriol out now. Enjoy the game when it comes out.

I think changing the name now is basically imposible,I highly doubt Hasbro or WoTC would allow it. And iI don't think Larian would do it either.
I really think the best way to deal with this is to make it more BG like I said at the opening, I don't think it will be too hard considering the state of the game and the time they have until they finish production.



Swen has purposedly avoided to name Baldur's Gate without the 3 on it like a plague on the interviews xD (or at least is what I feel) He really really wants to make a D&D game,previous installments are kind of inconsequential to him (again,that's what I feel after 10 or so interviews)
It was Swen himsef who aproached WoTC after the first DOS and they rejected his proposal. They called him later when he was making DOS2 and he accepted the deal.

Your first sentence is basically one the points of this post,if they change the UI and a lot of ''litlle'' things into a more BG franchise relatable vibe the only people against it will be the hardcore RTwP supporters.

Yes I've played both,thanks for the suggestion

I wonder if that means that they planed to implement changes to make it look more like bg3 but perhaps that didn't have the time, thus the worry. Or if what we saw was mostly the extent of how they envision bg3 to look.

I wonder that too,but the lack of answers on this matter after the demo is what makes me worry about it.
If people is worried about it and you know you're gonna change it you can easily say it without any fears.

--- So much this ^^^ (the sound effects?? selecting, aiming, shooting, animation... this is DOS3)...

In my mind is just impossible to keep those for a new game of another IP even for a real DOS3 game would be super cheap really. I hope we hear some news soon about the direccion the game is going with all this stuff.

Baldurs gate was NEVER ...

1. Goofy representation of movement
a. Jumping with weird sound effects and animation as though every action is magical
b. Landing with the impact of a meteor strike ??
2. Weird sound effects
a. Select the character and point at an enemy (magical sound)
b. fire a standard arrow (magical sound)
c. over the top sound effects
3. Lack of spell verbal casting
4. BG was never DOS (and DOS is never BG).


I can still go for Turn-based or RTwP and be ok, but the game should be more like the original. Not more as in playing the same or even the mechanics, but the essense. What I mean is paying tribute to the high fantasy and deep-rooted core of its D&D history. Bioware knew they were making a digital representation of a D&D world and worked hard to make the game serious in tone and presentation (even with some humor thrown in).

DOS is not and has never been that type of game. It has always been a little goofy and less serious. The only thing that seemed serious in tone in BG was the cinematics. The actual gameplay, movement, sound effects, and animations not so much. If I were not told this was BG, I would not guess it was BG, I would guess DOS3

The funny think is that if you play D&D wich is what they aim for, the game there has ''real pyshics'' like in the real world so all those stupid jumps and shoves and effects for a dash acction are not just weird for BG they're weird for D&D too in my opinion.

I know it's a fantasy game but it's also pretty realistic with some things,you can't shove a dragon for obvious reasons.

To the OP@Algaroth

No matter how hard you try, there not going to budge because those people are stubborn and want to win in their arguments at all costs. They know this is not about DnD, i's about the fact that they were wrong and their expectations betrayed them. If they really followed all the interviews from Sven and Larian studios with by the way Wizards of the Coast before the game play demo, they would not have these ludicrous expectations. How can you somehow think that BG3 was going to look like BG2 and 1? Especially, when DOS was a huge success .

Now they even want to convince us that BG3 is not a DnD game, they actually want to still play BG on their 25 year old computers. Because that is exactly what they thought they were going to get in the year 2021? It' ridiculus.

So again, this is about winning an argument, they don't offer anything constructive.

I could consider myself one of the people you speak about,I don't see any BG franchise vibe on this game and I'm saying why and offering what I think are pretty reasonable solutions keeping in mind the dev's take on the game,I've seen (I think) every interview with Vincke and Mearls and what you say is kind of true,and I expected as much. I knew Larian,I knew what they wanted to do with the game,but sincerily,I expected to see something that reminded me that this game is BG3,the next installment of the bg saga/franchise (that's how they sell it,if you have seen their presentation and interviews you should know)

I've said it already you can use de DOS engine and still make it look more BG

Of course there's pople who is going to complain for ever no matter what you do,but this is not the case and my point stands,it does not matter that BG is based on D&D because the moment they started to add numbers to Baldur's Gate it became a franchise,and every game of a franchise has to be recognizable,that's a fact.
That's the reason they didn't add Dark Alliance to the mix and created it's own franchise. Baldur's Gate descent into Avernus has the name BG because the city is relevant but it does not have a number because is not part of the franchise.

I hope you understand my point here.

That is one big strawman. And I wouldn't call it constructive.

This will never be a baldurs gate 3 larian...just look what you've made and how angry a lot of the old baldurs gate players are.

Just a bunch of entitled manchildren throwing a fit when things aren't going exactly how they would in their own personal perfect world.

While I agree... I think people need to remember that they just announced that they were working on it 8 months ago. Most of this stuff is probably just placeholders. It takes a lot of time and work to make a game and all of this is, essentially, just finishing touches. The community was losing their mind over not having any substantial updates - so they put something basic together.

That may be the case but it may be not too. We can only speak about what we've seen and what we know. We also don't know how they'll look if they change them.

I personally REALLY hated it the first time I saw it, but as first and foremost a D&D player of 20 years... It has really really grown on me. The ability to turn it to turn based encounters whenever I want but still keep my other party members out of it if they aren't in that same zone. Awesome.

The turn based nature of the combat itself will be more tactical and easier to think about for sure, which I quite like... There is a sense of urgency with the BG1 and 2 real time combat with pause that you won't get here, but overall, I think I'm on board to give it a real shot.

The bottom line is I would hate to have a game that I have been waiting on for so long, be ruined by my pre-determined bias and not having have tried it yet. Larian know more about games than I do, so I'm inclined to trust their decision until I've played it for myself

I think points can be made without personal insults. Even if you think it is accurate, or is actually accurate, the argument will be missed as the insult is responded to.

I am an old BG player and I'm not mad. Reading other sources of feedback I come to the conclusion that "old BG players who are mad" is a loud but quite small minority.

Do I like BG3 so far? Yes... probably... not sure yet. But my first perception was positive. I didn't like D:OS I and II too much so there's still a chance BG3 takes a route I might not appreciate too much.
Do I have to behave like a Rumpelstiltskin in order to voice my disapproval? Certainly not.

Not saying that every criticism falls into that category of course, but some of it has hilarious 5-year-old-ranting vibes.

General feedback on Twitter and other more "non-focused" sources as well as press are pretty good by the way.

I perfectly understand what you say,for a D&D aproach on a game there's not much to complain mechanic wise,I would tone down shove and jump and I'm curios about how enemies works since the Intellect devourers didn't use their multiatack and they didn't have any resistances,I hope they dont auto adjust the monster cr to your lvl or something like that. But yes,overall any D&D is bound to be happy with the game and I'm glad for it,that's what Larian is aimin for.

I wouldn't call it a bias,not for me at least,I just cannot see BG when they played it or the 4 or 5 times I've seen it after to dissect it xD.

as much as this pisses me off.
i certainly dont wanna be on the side that calls peopl eentitled manchildren.

theres a bad precedent to that.
Everyone is entitled to his opinion, even if it happns to be wrong

the intellectdevourers have obviously been nerfed.

this is not a monster usually fought at level 1, they exist thee because the narrative requires them to be there.
Now this is a point of contention for many DnD players because... eh, i dsay its more of an internal debate.

Some people think that monsters statblocks shouldnt be changed for world consistency. Other people are willing to change monsters statblocks because of narrative reasons.
Having played 4e, im not miffed by this because 4e regulary had multple difficulty levels of the same enemy, ofthen representing yougn / injured versions

I do not understand the sentiment "it doesn't look like a BG game"

BG came out 20+ years ago, graphics has gone so far beyond it we now have almost real-life levels of graphic fidelity. To me the important part of it being a BG game should be on the story, the characters, the world building, everything that makes it a DnD game.

I would imagine the UI elements that we saw in the demos that came from DOS2 will be changed, I mean, it pre-alpha, there is so much to be hopeful for.

Exactly. What do people expect after such a short time. Obviously a lot of resources got poured into the awesome cinematics.

I understand where you're coming from but I feel like it takes away the fear or fighting something when you know it's going to be downscaled,you know what I mean?

Well...the ''young'' ''weak'' name makes more sense. BG 1 had the Diseased Gibberling,and maybe Young wyrms iirc?

my kneejerk reaction in DnD is that the DM does waht the DM does.
Mostly because i see the alternative as rules lawyering by hte players.

but i do agree that such a thing would probably be a good idea for consistencys sake

I agree the DM word is rule,but it's weird to fight a downscaled enemy and then fight the real deal and they have the same name whith the later being stronger,but I guess they'll do something to prevent that,it wouldn't make much sense otherwise.

And feedback is metagame-y in nature I think xD

Until we see what rules they actually implemented or not this decision cant be made. And it's not whether this is a bg game. The question is whether it's a dnd game. When baldurs gate came out people were pissed that it was turn based then they go to love the real time pause. Personally I always wanted baldurs gate to use toe system.

Swen just Tweeted "Our goal is to capture the spirit of 5e just like BG1/2 tried to capture the spirit of 2e. We're not looking to recreate the previous games. Different times, different methods."

I get the need for change and until is see more of what they have planned I cant make a real judgement.
But if they are going with this design perspective I guess we need to ask, will their vision of 5e even look like BG? Or more so, do they even want it to look/feel like BG?

Tweet Link:
https://twitter.com/LarAtLarian/status/1233988288794550277?s=20

That sound to me that he does not give 2 fucks about his game being part of a franchise so...bad news for me I guess...I understand people is asking for a lot of crazy thing but if this is how they're going to manage feedback...aaarg I don't like it one bit xD

If it's DnD and the campaign takes place in or around Balder's Gate, and it's called BG3, then it's BG3.
Everything else is totally trivial to the game being BG3 or not.
There's really nothing else to be said about it.

Will it be a DND game, yes it appears they want it to be, is it a BG game in more then name... unclear.

at least, based on this tweet from swen



Tweet Link: https://twitter.com/LarAtLarian/status/1233988288794550277?s=20

Truth. The Bhaalspawn saga has ended anyway; so there isn't even a story connection. It is simply a new grand crpg featuring BG.

Like I told you on the steam forums,then Baldur's Gate:Dark Alliance 1 should have been BG3 but it's not for a reason,it's a diferent game with a diferent story with a diferent genre as any other game taking place ''in or around'' Baldur's Gate so I don't agree in the slightest.

What's most important when it comes to what this game is called is that WotC calls it Baldur's Gate III and specifically advised Larian to make a Baldur's Gate III.

The community is only divided because of the name of this game.

Fan's of BG don't want this awesome game to be Baldur's Gate 3.
Fan's of Larian are so hyped by their new game.
Fan's of D&D are one or the other.

Just forget about the name of the game and everyone would talk about "the new great larian RPG" instead of talking only about "What is/should be Baldur's Gate".

It tend to appears that nearly 35% of players interrested in Baldur's Gate 3 on vcertain community are angry... and it's only about the name.

Of course,WoTC can make a hello kitty game with a sarevok helmet and call it BG4 but that is a dishonest cashgrab and not a proper ''next installment of the franchise'' (Even if for all term and purposes i canon BG4)

I don't want them to change the name,I want the new game of the bg franchise to have some resemblance to their predecesors wich is pretty reasonable in mi opinion.

That's also what I want.
But if you delete the core of a game, you only keep what was not a specific part of the video game.

Lore, universe, rules, you don't have to be BG3 to only keep that. They were lots of "BG-like" before and BG should not become DoS-like
Nearly no one cares about the specific city of Baldur's Gate. SoA wasn't at Baldur's Gate.

Because Baldur's Gate with a number atached to it is the name of the franchise,not the city anymore in terms of games,that's why SoA is not in that city but is still a Baldur's Gate game of the same franchise.
If you don't want a game that takes places on the city of Baldur's Gate be related to the BG franchise you name it with another name (not with the number) like Baldur's Gate:Dark Alliance or Baldur's:Gate Descent to Avernus.

Do remember that the ship crashed 200 miles East of Baldur's Gate...also I fully expect them to take the first Act/Chapter as an introduction for people new to the Baldur's Gate series and gradually introduce them to things and make them care about the world and then fully expect a mindflayer or possibly even gith invasion come Act 2 or so which will change things more to what BG fans are thinking they want.

Remember the original trailer they revealed for the game Swen confirmed that the city we saw in the opening cinematic was not BG which means the events of the opening cinematic have not yet occurred...if it's representative of what's coming.

Do not forget that one of the only reasons BG1 and BG2 looked like it was darker is because of the black tile which was a result of poor lighting in the Infinity Engine. I imagine if the game were created these days the developers would have done everything they could have to make it feel like the DnD of the time. In the present that's 5th edition not 2nd edition DnD and the turn based style works for it.

Something people have also noted there are some place holders in the demo and there's even a chance aesthetically things haven't changed a whole lot yet. It's in pre-alpha meaning not even functional yet and not with everything in it that will eventually be in the game.

If you honestly expect Larian of all companies to completely show their hand when they had two-three additione Acts and tons of stuff in the first act of DOS2 omitted from the Early Access game all the way til release then I don't know what to say. This is a beginning chapter in a new tale and we have 200 miles to go before reaching Baldur's Gate.

You don't have to like what you've seen so far or even what's eventually in early access but don't be blind to the possibility it could still be an excellent Baldur's Gate game with a little time. If you are only a RtwP fan sorry for your loss perhaps a mod will be made?

Small correction: You mean that the Baldur's Gate referred to with "Baldur's Gate 3" is the name of the series, not the franchise. The franchise is everything under the parent umbrella that the Baldur's Gate series is a part of, and includes Dark Alliance and Descent Into Avernus.



It's noteworthy that Larian's "Baldur's Gate 3" not only has nothing in common or relation either in narrative, characters, gameplay, or visuals to the Baldur's Gate series, but it literally is officially the sequel to Descent Into Avernus. Larian's "Baldur's Gate 3" is officially not a sequel to Baldur's Gate 2, but to Descent Into Avernus.

And it shows that there is not even the faintest relation or familiarity between Larian's "Baldur's Gate 3" and anything that Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 represent. So, why is Larian calling their game "Baldur's Gate 3"? They are literally lying by doing so. It is false marketing. And since the only purpose for it can be to capitalize on Baldur's Gate series fans' hopes and excitement at getting another Baldur's Gate game (which they are not getting with "Baldur's Gate 3"), the dishonest use of the Baldur's Gate series name by Larian is literally a cash-grab. It is actual fraud because every single sale that occurs directly as a result of the game being called "Baldur's Gate 3" is money that Larian tricked somebody into given them with a lie.

There is no connection to the Baldur's Gate series in "Baldur's Gate 3". That means it isn't a Baldur's Gate series game. Larian's upcoming game is a D&D RPG using the D:OS2 looks and formula which Larian are copy and pasting into a Forgotten Realms setting... but it isn't a Baldur's Gate. Not technically, not narratively, visually, certainly not gameplay-wise... nothing, absolutely nothing about it is associable with the Baldur's Gate series and what the series' name represents.

So, calling it "Baldur's Gate 3" is truly a lie and fraud. The name must be changed. Larian could not change it, just like a person could rob someone and not refuse to acknowledge any wrongdoing on their part. But, where ethics matter, the name of Larian's game must be changed.

this is the biggest naritive i have a problem with. There are a lot of people no true scottmaning the fandom. If you like it you are a Larian/DOS2 fan, If not you are a real BG fan. Ive even seen claims on other forums that if you are a real D&D fan you would hate this. i really would enjoy more constructive criticism regarding this not just people trying to foster an us vs them

Dark Alliance is called dark alliance because its a different genre.
its not a CRPG, its not the same kind of storytelling

its an Action RPG where you play a single character, its a spinoff.
This isnt.

Dark Alliance has its own series name because it is a separate series - just like Larian's upcoming game is a separate series from Baldur's Gate. There is not a single shared style between Baldur's Gate and Larian's upcoming game. And Larian's upcoming game is officially the sequel to Descent Into Avernus, which means it is literally a different series than Baldur's Gate.

You may not like to face the fact that your favourite developer is selling-out and doing a cash-grab, but that's exactly what Larian are doing by calling this non Baldur's Gate series game "Baldur's Gate 3". It's being called that exclusively to hype up the fanbase of the Baldur's Gate series and to exploit those fans for sales, while not delivering anything that is known to be Baldur's Gate.

D:OS2 fans are happy because Larian is mostly cut-and-pasting D:OS2 with minor changes into the Forgotten Realms setting, effectively creating D&D D:OS2. But people who actually care about the Baldur's Gate series and want to play a new game from that series are betrayed by Larian's cash-grab sell-out move.

Shadow of Amn in called "Baldur's Gate 2 : Shadow of Amn".
He is the 2 and he take everything of the core of the Baldur's Gate franchise, that's why no one discuss about you're not playing in the city.

Baldur's Gate : Dark Alliance is another type of game using the name of the franchise.
That's also why no one discuss about you're not playing in the city, AND you're not playing a RTwP RPG game.

That's exactly what they should have done to respect fans... Call it whatever they want except using the 3

The 3 is the only reason why many many old fans complain.
No one has to judge our reasons are good or not, this is just what lots of us think.

Like Adgaroth, you mean to say series, not franchise. The franchise that the Baldur's Gate series is a part of would probably include all the video games under the D&D or Forgotten Realms brands.

Those franchises contain many series, of which Baldur's Gate is one.


In the PC RPG RTwP Baldur's Gate series:

Baldur's Gate
Baldur's Gate: Tales of the Sword
Baldur's Gate 2: Shadows of Amn
Baldur's Gate 2: Throne of Bhaal


In the console ARPG / hack-n-slash Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance series:

Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance
Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance 2


In the Descent Into Avernus series:

Baldur's Gate: Descent Into Avernus
Larian's D&D D:OS2 clone, which is currently inappropriately titled "Baldur's Gate 3"

That's the way I see it too. The Final Fantasy franchise changes a lot from game to game. Not just in setting, but in playstyle, mechanics etc.

Forgive me but it is a simplistic reasoning and certainly not an argument.

For a company, there is nothing innocent in the fact of releasing a cRPG bearing the name Baldur's Gate. Above all, it means wanting to take advantage of the fame of previous games that have had the same name and have become legends in the history of video games.

The name of a game, the rules it uses and where it takes place are far from sufficient to make it seem legitimate in the eyes of many players to associate it with a license.

As I said in a previous comment on this topic, the name Baldur's Gate has, in a way, become the property of the players; and it is the players who will decide if this BG3 really deserves its name.
This name doesn't stop where it happens and the rules. It signifies an atmosphere, a history, strong emotions and an indescribable magic which made games which carried this name of the legends.

The only thing WotC and Larian can do is not just trying to make a good game with beautiful graphics, D&D rules and that it happens around Baldur's Gate. Because clearly, it will not be enough and they will be demolished for daring to call it Baldur's Gate.

And if neither WotC nor Larian really understand what the name Baldur's Gate now means in the minds and hearts of the players, as you yourself seem to be unable to do, then the use of this name will be felt as a betrayal and a vulgar marketing and commercial calculation.

To tell you the truth, it's not even the clean new setting or lack of RTwP that has people worked up but big companies pretending that the fans who have played, reviewed, made mods for and spread the word about this glorious series over the past two decades are wholly irrelevant and should not even be addressed explicitly. Sure, we don't speak for everyone but it doesn't seem like the people in charge of development even want to know who's in favor or opposed to the current vision. Sucks to be us I guess.

I honestly don't get why you are still complaining the game is going to be out next year and it will more or less be what we have seen. Larian doesn't care what the old-school fans want because they are an insignificant minority DOS2 success showed them that A game which old-school fans hated but everyone else called it the best RPG ever and yet it sold better than all the Pathfinder, POE, Underrails combined.

First thought:
As many have mentioned, it was a somewhat unfortunate decision to call this game "Baldur's Gate III". At the end of BG2, it is mentioned that this adventure is over, but others will follow, so it would have been possible to continue somehow. The Maincharacter is having a romance, a child is born, bla bla bla. The story could have been continued considering Baldur's Gate: Descent in Avernus.
The only common ground to the predecessors is the setting in the Forgotten Realms in and around the city of Baldur´s Gate. Unfortunaly nothing from the predecessors will be continued but what the title "III" implies.
Since the outcry was predictable, I wonder why it was done anyway. Maybe Swen/Larian Studios had no choice. It is no accident that WotC released a new campaign for the Dungeons & Dragons tabletop game: Baldur's Gate: Descent in Avernus last year when Baldur´s Gate III was announced. It tells what's happened since Baldur's Gate II and plays 100 years after Baldur´s Gate II. It could be that the title "Baldurs Gate 3" was certainly a mandatory requirement for the game from WotC. No Baldur´s Gate 3, no licence. In this case Swen had no chance to name the game "Baldur´s Gate: NamedItWhateverYouLike". Maybe it was just a strategic sales decision. We don´t know and maybe will never find out due to contractual regulations.

Second thought:
But to be honest, we know almost nothing about the story except the outer frame. How often history has changed in BG1, SoD or BG2 and pushed us in another direction. How many times have we been surprised? Swen is definitely not going to reveal what the whole story looks like. All information is currently based on a few interviews, a demo and a bit of gameplay. The information available is also interpreted differently.
We know almost nothing at all and therefore nobody can not really judge at this point whether Baldur's Gate 3 deserves the name or not.

I personally believe that Baldur´s Gate III will not be a D:OS clone and that a lot of the presentation was just placeholders, borrwed by D:OS. I think we will see and hear a completely different and independent Baldurs Gate UI, spells and sounds. Larian Studios will definitely create an own Baldur's Gate atmosphere.

I think Swen is well aware that the Damocles sword hovers over him and Larian Stuidos.

Finally, it should also be noted that we can make our own story with our imagination, like in a pen&paper game. My character will be a half elf because it is the son of my main character from BG1 + 2 and Jaheira. For me, the story continues anyway...

I don't know how this can be fixed, since BG is deeply associated with the 2D Infinity engine, thus no new game will ever really LOOK like Baldurs Gate.

About the only thing I can think off is using BG2 style UI design and icons.

Everyone arguing about turn-based mode as if it were the biggest problem in this game.
The biggest problem for me is that this game is a Divinity recycling
Divinity colorful graphics, Divinity combat, Divinity animations, Divinity interactive objects etc...
This game doesn't even have classic elements from the original game (Spellcasting Sounds is an example)
Looks nothing like Baldur's Gate

As an avid D&D player (3.5e though) and a huge fan of the classic BG games (and also think D:OS is one of my GOATs) my impression is this:

Baldurs Gate 3 is Baldurs Gate in name only. People are absolutly correct when they say it looks identical to D:OS2 and if you didnt know there was D&D 5.0e rules behind the scenes you would think this is Divinity: Original Sin 3. And that is my main problem.

1) Overhaul of the UI is essential. You have to make it feel like a Baldurs Gate game. These are simple things to fix if you alot resources to it.
2) Grandious and flashy animations for simple actions like stabbing a guy. (note: hyperbole). Baldurs Gate is high fantasy with plenty of magic, but if something is deemed not a magic effect then why does it display as if it were magic? Counter-arguement to this is that melee combat looks boring without it. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one, I guess it boils to preference. Why am I "casting a spell" when I activate Dash? I thought that was a physical ability.
3) Fog of War. Now this is one of those things that breaks immersion. You learn to live with it but it makes the game incredibly gamey.
4) WIll my full plate 8 DEX dwarf be able to leap like a tiger 2 meters above him, or are there restrictions to the Jump skill? Another thing that breaks immersion. Counter-arguement: "Omg you care about realism in a game about mindflayers!". It depends. If the rules of the world is that anyone can leap like a olympian regardless of encumberance or ability then I guess its fine. Its stupid, but fine. The jumps showcased in the preview is something I assume high dex characters with light armor could pull off. So to be fair, this IS a question because Sven used a rogue to jump with.

Quoted for truth

This is a so limited way to understand the situation.
Old fans of the Baldur's gate series are fans and customers of video games for about 20 years. Check FB, Youtube, Reddit, Steam forums, this forums and every video game sites where players can talk about the game...
This is NOT a minority, this is about 1 players on 3 interrested in this new game at the time... And in those that are happy, the huge majority just don't care about the name of the game.
I'm pretty sure it could be possible to have hundreds of signature on a petition asking them just to forget the 3...

Some of those complaining loved D:OS, some don't. Personnal preferences.

This is not a reason to be angry with many of them just about a "3" or to divide the new community appearing around the new Larian game.

Of course a game with modern mecanics have today more fans than a gameplay that has (nearly) not evolved since 1998...
This is not an argument, this is obvious.

That's an important point for me personally. 20+ years is a long time in gaming and the late '90s was a bit of a personal nadir for me. Conversely, my formative years comprised the 8-bit era of the early '80s which I still remember fondly and tend to be very nostalgic about... but would I want to play them now? I put that to the test and bought a reconditioned but otherwise vintage early '80s home micro with a virtual HDD pre-loaded with lots of stuff, and beyond some initial curiosity I never played anything.

I'm not saying it's quite that extreme but from my point of view I like to see actual innovation that's in keeping with the times. That doesn't mean that I think what made a game great should be torn up and thrown away, just that things evolve. I don't always like the outcome but in general I feel happier with new taken on things than I would be if time somehow stood still.

As for the specific "is this Divinity or BG?" concern, I would like to think that any Divinity-isms are just a case of placeholders being used until everything is done. Though my background is Divinity and I've never played any BG game, what I want to see is BG, not Divinity with a BG flavour.

People can have different takes on stuff though. Several parallels have been drawn with "The New Fallouts". As someone who'd just immersed themselves in Oblivion, FO3 being "Oblivion with guns" was actually quite a positive thing at the time... and as descriptions go it was certainly a contentious one, but it had some merits, which was a positive and a negative. I'm not sure I'd want to repeat the experience again though. But my observation is that it showed just how fickle the fanbase can be when the virtually identical New Vegas was praised to the heavens while FO3 remained the worst indiscretion gaming has ever seen, which just left me thinking, hmm. Whatever point was being made must've gone right over my head. I don't care, I enjoyed Morrowind, Oblivion, FO3 and FNV pretty much equally.

With that in mind, I hope I enjoy BG3 in whatever form it takes. It will be more satisfying for me if it's proper Baldur's Gate, but that's the gnarly question: who will be the arbiter of what counts as "proper BG"?

Well, remember this is pre-alpha...
I think there are two ways they'll change their route to be more appealing to BG fans. Three actually:
1. They are aware of the criticism and just wanted to show the combat and some mechanics, but world look is not final and they were going to make it look more like BG from the start.
2. They'll respond to fan feedback, as they did with DOS.
3. WotC, their employers, will demand that they make changes.


This refers to the world ambience, not combat. I imagine them making the option to play RTwP, but their focus will be TB.

As you said, you don't want to play an old gameplay in 2020.
This is not the problem. TB game had evolved thanks to Larian, but the core gameplay of Baldur's Gate nearly didn't except a few try.

This said, I also hope I'll enjoy BG3 because I really like Larian, I really like TB games and I really like D&D and The Forgotten Realms... But I'll never forget that the only Baldur's Gate 3 that will exist for all times and we're waiting for about 20 years (with hopes, deceptions,...) has nothing in common with the Baldur's Gate series.

Bioware created the original games but if this name is still alive in video games after 20 years, it's only because of us (players, modders, public of the EE, dreamers,...).
We pay tribute to this name for about 20 years. I really think Larian and WoTC should have done the same or at least consider us in return wathever the direction they took for this new game.

You should definitely forget the 3.

Right!

Claims that somehow TB represents "evolution" and RTwP is something 20 years old is nonsense. TB existed 20 years ago too. In fact, it predates RTwP combat. Those of us who want RTwP are not saying we want RTwP exactly like it was in the original games. So the "it's been 20 years" line is a total strawman.

As for the point that this is just D:OS made to look like D&D, yes that is ultimately the main strike against this game. Even the professional reviewers, virtually every single one of them, are saying the same thing, that the game looks and feels and plays like D:OS2. But of course for them, because they are very pro D:OS, this is a good thing and they think they are complimenting the game by saying that it looks and feels and plays like D:OS2. Many fans however disagree that this is a good thing. And saying that the game uses D&D rules so this cannot be true is (maybe deliberately) missing the point. The underlying rules maybe D&D, but how a game looks on your screen and how it feels to play it are what really matter. Nobody is questioning that the rules are D&D, so that's yet another strawman.

Again more strawmen. How does "not looking like a game from 20 years ago" equal "must look like D:OS2"? Nobody is saying the game should look like what the original games looked like. The question is why does it look like D:OS?

As for the critics being "silly" or "children," well, lots of Larian sycophants and fanboys here. See how easy it is? Insults can go both ways.

It was good to see a measured, calm opinion in a thread that I thought it was going to be just (another) interminable battle royale between TB and RTwP. Congrats to the OP, @Adgaroth. I mean, methinks that there is a thread labelled "RTwP vs TB" already, how is that you find the same debate in all the other threads?

Thanks for the effort and I have to say I agree with most of your opinions and maybe disagree with some, but at least I definitely respect your opinion for the measured tone of your posts.

A pity the thread derailed into the "Same as always" in the middle, but at least that restored my faith in humanity for a while.

For those people who want to convince you that this isn't BG3, they are literally trying to convince you that 1 + 1 = 3. They want to change the facts because there losing an argument.
That's not constructive, it's Baldur's gate 3 because Wizards of the Coast and Larian studios came to an agreement that they will continue the DnD franchise in the Sword Coast and Baldur's gate. Also, the fact that the game will actually visit Baldur's gate at some point and continues a story line set by WOTC.

Now, if you don't like the current story line and live in the past and want to play BG1-2 all over again because of your nostalgia, go ahead. But just because story lines evolved and computer hardware has evolved and we can play games that are better designed then the baldur's gate 20-25 years ago on a computer that is out of date and visuals that doesn't even compare to BG3, that doesn't mean your right to say this isn't BG3.

Larian studios has acquired the right to call it BG3 with a combination of marketing and staying true to the franchise by it's game play. I personally love the visuals of this game because it has evolved in my opinion to a better representation of DnD races, fantasy setting etc... Oh, and nostalgia shoudn't be your only parameter to judge a game, although it is important and there still room for improvement but many of you just seem to be coming off as oh well I want to go back and playing this ..

https://www.google.com/search?q=baldur%27s+gate+2&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjptdG80vnnAhVPm-AKHW7jCHsQ_AUoAXoECCAQAw&biw=1076&bih=568#imgrc=1Sb0TyYNc2R1AM&imgdii=YhxvbXppFv1g5M

As I said I didn't like D:OS I and II much. The only game from Larian I truly enjoyed was the original Divine Divinity - and that was nearly 18 years ago.

As I didn't call every ciritc silly or childish you shouldn't call all people who don't agree with you "fanboys". Just be reasonable. I recall we already had such a discussion in the Deadfire forums.

As to why it looks a bit like D:OS2: that's fairly obvious, isn't it? What did people expect? A whole new engine after 8 months that somehow captures the nostalgic vibes of the old BGI & II but is very modern and great-looking at the same time? How?

Larian uses its own engine which they also used for D:OS2. It would be an ecnomomically stupid decision to not use the well functioning foundation they have. This saves time and resources which can be put into other stuff like story, nice quests, good characters, companion interaction and whatnot. They don't reinvent the wheel which is a smart decision - also given the success of D:OS I and II.

Besides that I don't think BG3 looks as jolly and goofy like D:OS2 does. Actually BG3 looks very nice for a 8 month old pre alpha. Also I never saw a D&D game with such good cinematic sequences. I think those helped a lot to create some Baldur's-Gate- or at least D&D-vibes.

I'm sure there will be a lot of tweaking and effect juggling until it's ready.

I like that it will go into Early Access. That way there's still plenty of time to give constructive feedback - e.g. if you still think it still looks too much like D:OS.

Because DOS was a success and their building off of that success. But don't insult my intelligence by saying this isn't the DnD 5th edition rules.

Hawke has laid it down pretty much as it is.

You cannot change anything now. The games coming out in early access this year.
No amount of complaining will make them change the name.

note, it was WOTC who specificalyl asked them to do Baldurs Gate 3.
They didnt ask em to make Waterdeep: the game, they asked them to do Baldurs Gate 3.



On the "pay respects to us"
Which implies that "You" are a Homogenous group.
A lot of you people like to act as if there is a Homogenous group of "Baldurs Gate fans", while you can bareley agree on anything.
Half of you thinks it shouldnt be 5e but 2e instead, a quarter somehow thinks baldurs gate was 3.5, and another thinks 5e is hunky dory but should be RTWP.
Then theres a large part thats fine with TB even if they are hardcore fans (which get excluded from the conversaiton real fast)

A lot of you go on about Baldurs Gate specifically beeing about the Bhaalspawn, while others argue that picking up an old plot would do a diservice to it.
tons of people say illithids have nothing to do with Baldurs Gate, then some people remember that oh yeah there was this thing with the Illithids in baldurs gate 2.



As Sven said, you cannot placate everyone. There is no homogenous block of "baldurs gate fans" versus the evil divinity fans.
the only thing you are actually united in is your dislike of this game.
And that dislike mostly comes from the fact that nothing could ever live up to your expectations.

Larian is capable of making a game that is not a Divinity clone, right?

So, we must hope because we want a Baldur's Gate game.

It's not a clone, it's DnD 5th edition rule set. And it is Baldur's gate 3 in many aspects lore wise except visually it looks like DOS. But visual and nostalgia alone is not game breaking to me, because most people when they talk about nostalgia their refering to the old baldur's gate (1-2) graphic style (out of date). Also, I love the character portraits I saw at the demo and the whole cinematic game play looks immersive to me. I don't understand how anyone can criticize the visuals of this game it looks phenomenal.

I would actually be very happy if this was the D&D 5e rules - instead, there are no real reactions apart from an automatic AoO and almost all of the bonus actions present are actually disguised actions. I was expecting some deviation from the ruleset to make it better for the videogame format but with this they better come out with an entire ruleset/handbook to the game so you at least know what you can and can't do - even if 3/4 of it is copied from the PHB, that last 1/4 being different is quite a lot.

Actually, the game is in pre-alpha and supposed to come INTO Early access this year.

It's too easy to evacuate any critic as old nostalgic sour.

Many choice of gameplay, ambience and story is a Divinity Style and not a Baldur Style:

- One map for one location to visit with a big world map and the possibility of returning from former areas. The system of ONE BIG Map for one Act in Divinity isn't BG friendly and it's an immersion breacker.

- Incantations for wizard spell!!!!!! Not just click and KABOOM FIRE EFFECT!

- Of course the UI is too close of Divinity. We want an UI with wood and stone, a little more gloomy and traditional.

- "Ahh, the Child of Bhaal has awoken."

A VERY VERY BADASS MAIN VILAIN! Sarevok and Irenicus was deep and very iconic, like Hitchcock said "A good story is a story with a good vilain". I hope Illithid Master isn't the real final boss. I have big hope with Cult of the Dead Three (a very good connexion with the Bhaal Legacy and the new context of DD5).

- A LOT of charismatic NPC Companions and not just 5 or 6 Origin Divinity' style NPC.... And please true ROMANCES and a lot of PARTY BANTERS.

- A very good and long adventure with local issues and not just ultra epic and cosmic issue, it's an other immersion breacker imo. Less epic for epicness and more coherent and realistic background. Less High Fantasy for Millenials and more MEDIEVAL fantasy with historic soul and deep conflicts.

In summary, a good glass of old-fashioned wiskhy in front of a crackling fireplace, an old library and a hunting trophy. Not a smooth and clean atmosphere like the design of the latest iphone.

- Custom portrait and real character sheet.

- A little less colorfull ambience, BG universe is more realistic and less shiny and high fantasy than Divinity.

- Less WTF moments and jokes than Divinity, BG universe is serious and deep with subtle touches of humor like Jan Jansen and Minsc quotes.

An attack of shoes is fun but it's also useless and not the spirit of the licence.

- Please, a true group of 6 adventurers ( During the demo I have seen only 4 slots of characters...).

- Of course, a lot of easter eggs with the BG series (Viconia, Sarevok, events, locations, ...).

- BG Music' style or remix! Even today the first notes of the main theme of BG1 or BG2 still very iconic.

While I may agree with about half of your points, there are certain points I FULLY disagree with:

Minsc for example was the party idiot that had so many stupid lines you can hardly consider his quotes "subtle touches of humor" but are instead full on american TV show comedy acts - something I'm not a big fan of personally but don't mind that much either... someone needs to be the clown I guess (I'm talking about Minsc, please don't see this as an attack on you). On that note, I'd actually say Divinity 2 had far less "silly and wtf moments" compared to BG 1/2

D&D (including AD&D which BG 1 & 2 is based off of) is high fantasy - saying "millenial" here is like you're looking for a fight with "dem kids". No need to antagonize anyone. I'd personally like a "serious" game more as well but I'm one of the minority so I don't really expect it.

I'd be up for wizard(sorcerer/cleric/whatever) incantations if they're willing to make a specific incantation for every single spell - I really didn't like the fact that every spell used the same incantation in BG 1/2. If they won't go the extra mile with that and instead add 3 incantitions in total like there was in the previous BG games it's better if they leave it out in my opinion.

I have a question for you though: why do you specifically want a party size of 6? why not 4 or 5 or 8? Just asking

Final thought: Try not to say "we" and say "I" instead - you're representing yourself, not everyone

Well i definitly want a party of 8
Gimme that

Huge parties are great

Let me do a buddy coop gameplay and still have each of us play 4 characters, now thatd be truly amazing


also yes.
Divinity beeing ridiculou sor a parody is basically a lie that gets repeated so ofthen people state it as fact.
the same with Baldurs Gate beeing "mature" or "Dark".

A lot of things seem mature to you when youre 12

oh man, you pick the tiniest htings and act like its this huge problem.

Oh no, minor actions, stuff that normally flat out dosnt happen!
the game balance is ruined because you can throw a bottle at someone AND stab him

Or throw a dagger at them and stab them... you know, 2 attack actions? as in standard actions? meh, lets just disagree with this and go on

Hi friend,

There is a saying that goes like this: "DON'T FIX WHAT ISN'T BROKEN"

BG1 and BG2 were not broken games.

What every fan of BG was expecting from BG3 was to take the very successful BG formula and IMPROVE on that to make BG3.

NOBODY was expecting that Larian would make a CHEAP move and just use its DOS template and call it BG.

Do you remember what happened with the Diablo franchise maybe? After legendary D1 and D2 games, a new dev team comes to "reinvent" things, and then makes D3, a complete cartoony-looking disaster. Now they are making D4 according to the "original" D1 and D2 recipe. Why, because it worked.

The same thing will happen with this "BG3" i.e. "DOS3" - they also made BG3 look like a cartoon.

What Larian has done (marketing DOS3 named as BG3) - in my book, resembles FALSE ADVERTISING.

They just hyped a lot of old BG fans up with false advertising. Larian, do you really think people are that stupid?

So what if they expanded their team and have a bigger budget? It is still a cheap move.

Larian, be honest and stop calling this game BG3!!!

I'm sorry, but this doesn't make a great deal of sense. Power says what 'Truth' is, and the power here is WOTC, who own the IP 'Baldur's Gate'.

I don't think anyone can argue that WoTC is the one that says what is what, same as if they decide to make a hello kitty game with sarevok's helmet and call it BG4 but that's not the point here.

Larian have stated that they have control to choose what their D&D RPG game is, and that they chose the TB combat system because they were afraid of taking risks after the success of D:OS2 (hence why they've basically just copy-and-pasted D:OS2 into D&D and made minor changes, while greatly over-exaggerating the significance of the minor changes and additions):

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2020-02-27-baldurs-gate-3-interview


So, Larian is really just using the "Baldur's Gate" name as a husk to fill with a D&D D:OS2 clone, exclusively for the purpose of sales (that's what the "it's a big risk" remark refers to). It's a cash-grab.

BTW, TB games have on average been performing worse than RTwP games. And Larian's D:OS2 didn't come close to the amount of sales RTwP legend Dragon Age: Origins did. So, really, there is only a single big hit TB game while RTwP games are on average performing better.

Wasteland Remastered and Torment: Numenera tanked in sales and are unpopular. More people own Pillars of Eternity on Steam than own Wasteland 2 on Steam. When PoE 2 had TB added to it, its sales didn't improve at all and its Steam user rating didn't increase by even a single percentage-point. Pathfinder: Kingmaker is currently more popular than any TB game outside of Divinity: Original Sin 2. And Dragon Age: Origins (3.2 million copies sold in 3 months) greatly outsold Divinity: Original Sin 2 (1 million copies sold in 2.5 months).

So, TB games are not particularly popular and they have a higher failure-rate than RTwP games. It is only D:OS2 which has been a big hit in the TB genre.

Larian have become superstitious slaves in the wake of the success of D:OS2 and traded their integrity for the comfort and sales of an echo chamber of D:OS2 fans. So, there is literally no justification to using the "Baldur's Gate" name, when Larian's upcoming D&D RPG has as much in common with the Baldur's Gate series as


The definition of a Hack:



Larian's "Baldur's Gate 3" has not even the faintest tiniest shred of relation to the Baldur's Gate series in character, experience, or gameplay and yet they're exploiting the name with a D:OS2 clone set in D&D for the purpose of the money doing so can make them. Larian have sold-out and literally become a hack developer for the sake of monetary gain.

So, Larian is really just using the "Baldur's Gate" name as a husk to fill with a D&D D:OS2 clone, exclusively for the purpose of sales (that's what the "it's a big risk" remark refers to). It's a cash-grab. [/quote]

Your leap of logic astounds me... because they know they're good at TB and will do that and not RTwP they're cash-grabbing and somehow betraying Baldur's Gate brand? What?!

I think there is time to make some minor tweaks that will make the game stand alone. Perhaps the early release is going to be used to help make it the direction where most fans provide constructive feedback. With that said, I have rarely seen an alpha game implement major changes from what is in play by the time they release the alpha.

Not sure you understand what a leap of logic is... because you didn't quote one.

Yes, sacrificing integrity and honesty for the purpose of making money is a cash-grab. Yes, making a game that has not even a 1% association in any of its components or designs to the series it is labelled under, but labelling it as a part of that series exclusively for the purpose of exploiting the series' fans and making money from the marketing hype of that series name is literally betraying the series and is literally a cash-grab.

Is there any other very basic understanding that you wish to have confirmed?

Your leap of logic astounds me... because they know they're good at TB and will do that and not RTwP they're cash-grabbing and somehow betraying Baldur's Gate brand? What?![/quote]

Even if you put aside the TB vs RTwP thing the point still stands.

Which point?
[/quote]

That the game does not look at all like a game of the series and they're just using the name to make more money.

Ah, yes. I got what you were saying after I made that post, so I deleted it before this next post of yours showed up. My bad.

Yes please, explain to me how RTwP is such a big part of the story and lore that it is the sole quality by which you claim something is or is not a BG game. They have experience with TB combat and would like to do that instead, to make sure fans are not disappointed by a half-assed combat system - I think that's a good thing

Would you like Larian to straight up show the entire story of BG 3 (as in, spoilers for the entire game, making it totally pointless to play through) to ease your mind it is somehow linked into the story of Bhaal? Maybe it should say at the start of BG 1 that you are one of the sons of Bhaal and that you will be fighting Sarevok at the end of the game, that is also a son of Bhaal and therefore making it pointless to call the game "Baldur's Gate" but should be called "The Bhaalspawn" instead?

Oh, of course, how could I forget, RTwP is the only way this can be a BG game. Yes please, do give more "very basic understanding" that is obviously missed by a whole truckload of people. I'm looking forward to hearing this.

If you ignore the RTwP thing the point still stands

''Yes, sacrificing integrity and honesty for the purpose of making money is a cash-grab. Yes, making a game that has not even a 1% association in any of its components or designs to the series it is labelled''

I think he's being pretty clear.

Yeah really hope so but actually doubt it.

You're following-up one completely-failed non-argument with another.

Would you also like me to explain to you how RTwP is a big part of the artwork, or how the game options menu is a big part of the narrative, or how which shoes Swen is wearing today is a big part of the fact that Larian's upcoming D&D RPG isn't in any way a Baldur's Gate series game?



You say that because you don't care about the Baldur's Gate series and you just want more D:OS2. So, you're being selfish and not considerate of what Baldur's Gate is and what those who love the series expect from a game with that title. Whether or not Larian have experience with TB doesn't explain why they would call a non Baldur's Gate series game "Baldur's Gate 3". They could make their D&D D:OS2 clone under any name they wish.

And further, I didn't say that RTwP is the defining trait of Baldur's Gate - I specifically stated that Larian's D&D RPG has literally no association with the Baldur's Gate series in any of its components - not its story, not its gameplay, not its narrative, not its characters, not its style and tone, and not is visual look. It is not even a sequel to anything in the Baldur's Gate series but is a sequel to Descent Into Avernus. There is not even a slight semblance of the Baldur's Gate series in Larian's demoed game.

So, why in the world are you pigeonholing a false argument of 'making a TB games doesn't make a studio a sell-out and the game a cash-grab'? What makes a studio a sell-out is taking on a project but abandoning creative integrity and just rehashing their previous work because they're afraid to take a risk and they want more money - if they weren't willing to do the project justice they shouldn't have asked to do it. And what makes a move a cash-grab is doing it exclusively for money while being entirely disregarding of what responsibilities come with the action.

To be clear, Larian has sold-out and is doing a cash-grab move by calling their non Baldur's Gate game part of the Baldur's Gate series. And Larian's selling-out and betrayal of the Baldur's Gate series and its fans is in no way limited to the type of combat system the game has, but extends to every other presented aspect of Larian's D&D D:OS2-clone RPG.


No, it's missed primarily by just you. You have constructed an absurd strawman argument that obviously was made either having not read what I wrote, or out of a raging fanboyism that utterly blocked everything I wrote out from your mind so that you could only react to a figment of your imagination.

My entire post has gone over your head. And this shows that there is no objectivity and integrity behind Larian's sell-out and cash-grab move and that it is only defended by fanboys of D:OS2 who don't even care about Baldur's Gate and don't even know what the series is. Larian also clearly don't care about Baldur's Gate beyond the ability for its name to boost sales of their non Baldur's Gate D&D D:OS2 clone.

Interesting. Apart from ignoring the fact that I did in fact play both BG 1&2, you've went on to claim I'm a fanboy that wants nothing more than a D:OS 2 copy. Ignoring these interesting "facts", please tell me how you know the story has nothing to do with the narrative and/or characters in those 2 games. Oh you don't? OK.

Style and tone wise, BG 1 and 2 were very diverse games (not in between each other but in between each area you were in), meaning you made that entire claim based on approximately 1 hours worth of gameplay in the prologue where your main objective is to get the tadpole out of your head before you die (yes, very light-hearted that).

The ONLY 2 things that are true from your entire rant you've just thrown at me is that the gameplay is different (TB vs RTwP) and it's visual look (thank god for that, I for one don't like counting pixels). If you didn't believe so much in the RTwP style you wouldn't have gone through the trouble of providing irrelevant sales statistics of RTwP vs TB games (in which you're basically showing RTwP is better for sales, which undermines your point of them being cash-grabbers even more)

But please, feel free to cut up my entire super long three-paragraph post some more and counter any points you think you should by personally attacking me and/or anyone else that disagrees with your logic, I'm sure that'll do wonders to vindicate your point of view.

You stuck your foot in your mouth by coming at me with a strawman argument. Now you're trying to obfuscate your mistake by ranting about other things - things which are just as absurd as your previous arguments.


Wrong. We know that Larian's game's story has nothing to do with the story and characters of BG1 and BG2 because Larian have stated so. And because what's known of the story for Larian's "BG3" game is completely unrelated to the Baldur's Gate series. Because WotC marketed Descent Into Avernus (which has nothing to do with the Baldur's Gate series) as the prequel to Larian's "BG3". You speak out of sheer ignorance at every turn.


Instead of heaping on layer upon layer of efforts to hide your multiplying mistakes and fanboy hubris, you should do what you obviously didn't do from the beginning and actually read the post that I made and which you responded to with nothing that is relevant to it:

For me, it's enough for them to remove the '3' from the title and add a subtitle.

If the only connection(s) this game will have to BG1/2 are whatever lingering effects of the time of Bhaalspawn saga (100 years prior to this), or a few non-human NPCs, a name drop or two or what have you....then the game doesn't need (or deserve) the '3'. It only really needs it if it is in some fashion carrying on the narrative of the Bhaalspawn saga (which, far as I understand, it is not). Thematic similarities do not justify it being claimed as a sequel.

The Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance games existed and the world didn't fall down. This is certainly more akin to BG1/2 than those games were, but it's still not part of that story. Using the name works for me, but that '3' is the stone around its neck for many.

Will it stop me from buying it upon final release? No. It's still a D&D 5e based single-player game. Something I'd like to play (since Sword Coast Legends spectacularly failed to deliver that and I've been waiting since Neverwinter Nights 2 for another D&D rules based single player game).

To me, this is not Baldur's Gate 3. This is Baldur's Gate: Something Else.

Not going to quote,text is way to big.

''tell me how you know the story has nothing to do with the narrative and/or characters in those 2 games.'' Game director Swen Vincke has said it multiple times.
''your main objective is to get the tadpole out of your head before you die (yes, very light-hearted that).'' Fort Joy was suposed to be a crude place but it felt like a shiny and colorfull summer camp (only the dungeons felt more obscure but still too colorfull and cartoony for a bg series setting)
You can tell a story of murder and anihilation but the art style has to reflect it to really show it,no matter the engine or the graphics.

Just like you decided to ignore everything out of your favor so shall I. Can I get a source on that please?

Nor is there anything of issue with it.


Literally 0 search engine results for that phrase or anything resembling it.


And yet, Larian's D&D DOS2 clone has all the visual style including light-hearted histrionical animations of DOS2. So...

Don't lie to me and to everybody else here. I have answered and refuted everything you claimed. And you have only heaped absurdity upon absurdity. If I come across that comment being made by Larian again, I will post it. But Larian have confirmed that their D&D DOS2 clone doesn't involve BG1 and 2's story or characters.

It's supposed to be a crude place, yes. I missed some "clutter" and murder in the fort joy camp (there was only 1 straight up murder for no reason, count me disappointed) but apart from the dungeons and the internment camp itself it's not really supposed to be crude and dark. If you don't like the art-style that's one thing, but claiming the game has the incorrect tone based on a sunny beach is like claiming there are no sunny beaches in the world. Besides, if you've ever actually seen a horrible scene IRL, you can appreciate how odd it is to see a pristine forest or a sunny beach after that. The mental shock that disconnect brings is... something special.

Sorry dude but you are just being mean and insulting people.

It is an objective fact that Larian has been marketing DOS3 under the name of BG3.

People have the right to complain, not everybody is a fanboy, some of us have critical minds.

I see, now I'm a liar as well and you're incapable of providing a shred of proof to the last argument you're clinging to. Claiming something is absurd does not make it absurd.
You, sir, have the vocabulary that allows you to make any point you wish in a sentence so short you'd make pretty much anyone impressed - instead you're using it to obfuscate any meaningful points with long words and even longer sentences.
I think I'm done with this debate with you since your modus operandi is personal attacks without actually backing up a single statement.

You are a liar because you lie. That's how words work - for someone who uses them truthfully, anyway, which you don't.

Larian have said that their D&D DOS2 clone doesn't carry on the story of BG2 and doesn't include its characters. And I have pointed out that Larian's D&D DOS2 clone is a sequel to Descent Into Avernus which doesn't relate to the story of BG1 and BG2 and takes place hundreds of years after BG2. And I have said that if I come across Larian mentioning it again, I will post it here.

Your every attempt to cover your ongoing mistakes is to further peddle absurdity, strawman arguments, and disinformation. From the beginning you stuck your foot into your mouth and proceeded to do the same thing over and over, being refuted at every turn. You were done here before you started.

And you still show no signs of having actually read my post that you tripped and fell over:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjnv1nxA-rA
1:30 (Not the one I'm looking for but for now that's it)

"You are a liar because you lie. That's how words work - for someone who uses them truthfully, anyway, which you don't." - strawman argument

"Larian have said that their D&D DOS2 clone doesn't carry on the story of BG2 and doesn't include its characters." - no source

"And I have pointed out that Larian's D&D DOS2 clone is a sequel to Descent Into Avernus which doesn't relate to the story of BG1 and BG2 and takes place hundreds of years after BG2. And I have said that if I come across Larian mentioning it again, I will post it here." - true and does not relate at all to any of my points

"Your every attempt to cover your ongoing mistakes is to further peddle absurdity, strawman arguments, and disinformation. From the beginning you stuck your foot into your mouth and proceeded to do the same thing over and over, being refuted at every turn. You were done here before you started." - strawman argument right there if I ever saw one

"And you still show no signs of having actually read my post that you tripped and fell over:" fell over what, the lack of conciseness or your ever growing failure to actually make a point? Also, I read it, so you know... STRAWMAN ARGUEMENT

"Larian have stated that they have control to choose what their D&D RPG game is, and that they chose the TB combat system because they were afraid of taking risks after the success of D:OS2" - pretty much true, followed by "(hence why they've basically just copy-and-pasted D:OS2 into D&D...)" - either a very malicious "interpretation" or a straight up lie. The following is by definition a strawman arguement

"So, Larian is really just using the "Baldur's Gate" name as a husk to fill with a D&D D:OS2 clone, exclusively for the purpose of sales (that's what the "it's a big risk" remark refers to). It's a cash-grab." - Another strawman where you claim what they're claiming. The "big-risk" is in making a type of game they're not good at making. It is not a cash grab, it is making sure they make as good a game as they can for the fans (both fans of BG games as well as their own fans).

"BTW, TB games have on average been performing worse than RTwP games. And Larian's D:OS2 didn't come close to the amount of sales RTwP legend Dragon Age: Origins did. So, really, there is only a single big hit TB game while RTwP games are on average performing better." - And so you're burying your own point by saying RTwP games sell better... good job?

"Wasteland Remastered and Torment: Numenera tanked in sales and are unpopular. More people own Pillars of Eternity on Steam than own Wasteland 2 on Steam. When PoE 2 had TB added to it, its sales didn't improve at all and its Steam user rating didn't increase by even a single percentage-point. Pathfinder: Kingmaker is currently more popular than any TB game outside of Divinity: Original Sin 2. And Dragon Age: Origins (3.2 million copies sold in 3 months) greatly outsold Divinity: Original Sin 2 (1 million copies sold in 2.5 months)." - More about RTwP games selling better - good job?

"Larian have become superstitious slaves in the wake of the success of D:OS2 and traded their integrity for the comfort and sales of an echo chamber of D:OS2 fans. So, there is literally no justification to using the "Baldur's Gate" name, when Larian's upcoming D&D RPG has as much in common with the Baldur's Gate series as ..." - Some more strawman...

*Insert quote to look smart to myself*

"Larian's "Baldur's Gate 3" has not even the faintest tiniest shred of relation to the Baldur's Gate series in character, experience, or gameplay and yet they're exploiting the name with a D:OS2 clone set in D&D for the purpose of the money doing so can make them. Larian have sold-out and literally become a hack developer for the sake of monetary gain." - It's true because I say so. STRAW FUCKING MAN ARGUMENT AGAIN

And on a final, personal note:

Fuck you

The problem the Larian/D:OS fans are having is that they have drunk the gaming media Kool-Aid that D:OS2 was the greatest RPG ever and EVERYONE loved that game. Therefore, a game that looks and feels and plays like D:OS2 should equally be loved by EVERYONE and it makes sense for Larian to make this game just like D:OS2. Well, here's how things are for me:
I am a diehard fan of D&D, including very much liking 5e
I am a diehard fan of the Forgotten Realms setting
I am a diehard fan of tabletop roleplay gaming
I am a diehard fan of the original BG games and all the IE games
I am a diehard fan of the RPG genre in videogames and almost exclusively play only RPGs
BUT
I hate the D:OS games

Yeah. I know. Shocking, right? Not everybody who is a D&D/RPG fan is a D:OS fan. As much as there are quite a number of D:OS fans, there are also a lot of us gamers who love RPGs but hate D:OS. So when we criticize this game for looking and feeling and playing like D:OS, it is not a nostalgia trip for an old game. It is simply saying "I didn't like the D:OS games, and so I don't want this game that supposedly has nothing to do with the D:OS games to be anything like the D:OS games." Why is this in any way controversial?

NOT making the game anything like the D:OS games won't alienate the D:OS fanbase because this game is supposed to be NOT D:OS.
Making the game like the D:OS games WILL alienate the fanbase that did not like the D:OS games.

One last point. If it is just the case that every person who bought D:OS2 also buys this game, then as a AAA production this game will be a failure. Yes, there will be some people who are not D:OS2 fans who will buy the game because it is D&D, while there will also be some D:OS2 fans who will not buy the game because it is D&D and not D:OS. But ultimately, Larian needs to be able to appeal to those RPG fans who for one reason or another did NOT buy D:OS2 if they are to expand on D:OS2 sales. That's people like me. So why go out of your way to stick a finger in my eye?

Thanks for that - I understand it's not the link you were looking for, so I don't mind waiting for a better one (though I really expected the loud, rude one to put it up).
While I never claimed the game wasn't set 100 years after BG 2 there are strong hints about something to do with the Dead Three, where Bhaal in particular has a strong link with the story of the original BG games - which gives me hope they might tie the game into that story line quite a bit (that story is over but it's aftermath should be felt). I don't know if they will or not (nor do I want to find out through a spoiler) but I'm not going to say it's not just anger myself. That's why I asked for the source in the first place.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ju12JNh8gJs&list=PLoqfr492gtDx61FSXHnIElcC3Y_UmTc-o&index=7
2:15-3:20 (more or less,also not the one I'm looking for) Also around 6:40 he answer to other question saying BG1 and 2 are closed chapters.

"Larian have said that their D&D DOS2 clone doesn't carry on the story of BG2 and doesn't include its characters." - no source @Ugmaro

Wait, did anyone actually hope for the actual story of the Bhaalspawn to continue after the way BG2 ended?

That's not a strawman. So, have you been screwing up your every response because you aren't reading what you're responding to, or because you don't understand what you're reading? Either way, you have lied multiple times, and had hissy fits when it was pointed out.

Just to cover a lot of the following copy-and-pasting in one go: Ugmaro doesn't understand what a strawman argument is and made about a dozen individual claims of strawman arguments from my post, but in not a single one of their accusations was there actually any strawman argument from me. Ugmaro was probably worked into a fit over me saying this, and just wanted to throw the charge of using a strawman argument back at me, despite not understanding what it means:





On to addressing each individual nonsensical accusation Ugmaro made:


Actually, that information is the appropriate response to an extremely ignorant and arrogant comment of:

"please tell me how you know the story has nothing to do with the narrative and/or characters in those 2 games. Oh you don't? OK."


That's not a strawman. You need to look up what the term means so that you don't keep embarrassing yourself by using it incorrectly.


Not a strawman. Look the phrase up.


Not a strawman or a lie, and also literally what Larian said in an interview 3 days ago.


Not a strawman. Look the phrase up.


I haven't said that RTwP games sell better nor does pointing out the fact that RTwP games have, on average, performed better than TB ones contradict any point I've made. What is your level of English comprehension? It obviously is not very high.


And? Your point... doesn't appear to exist.


That's not a strawman. Do yourself a favour and learn what a strawman argument is.


You've failed and done the opposite.


That's literally not a strawman. Do you enjoy humiliating yourself?


Yes, I think that everybody who's bothered to read your absurdities is already well aware by this point that you haven't much intellectual resources to draw upon and are an emotional knee-jerk reactionary. Your forceful confirmation of that was not needed.

Now that I give you the source you wanted you throw another question?
I'm just answering what you wanted. Does this game's story has anything to do with BG1 and 2? Answer: No

Yes, it really doesnt make sense to market a game like BG3 when they are actually selling DOS3. People that play these kind of games are really specific about what they like, so its sad that Larian blew this big oportunity.

"A straw man (or strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent." which is the only thing you've been doing this entire time. Claiming others have said something they haven't (lying) or "misinterpreted" with malicious intent - a very clear straw man in each and every case.

The ONLY case where you stood a chance of refuting it you've decided to cut my comment short. How fitting.

Talk about "much intellectual resources".

You are dishonest and disgraceful to the core. What I and Adgaroth have told you directly refuted your accusation of:



Instead of acknowledging that you stuck your foot in your mouth yet again, for the umpteenth time, you're trying to bluff your way out of it and pretend that the idiocy here wasn't your own.

Also an interesting phrase on taking the name of BG3,enjoy it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGnGOnzlC4s

3:45

So... in other words, none of your accusations of strawman arguments of mine are actually strawman arguments - just like I said. So, you used a phrase you didn't grasp the meaning of and proceeded to repeatedly make absurd non-arguments, due to not having any ground to stand on. And now you're trying to run from that fact by posting the proof that you were wrong all along - which everybody can see, BTW. Will you ever cease acting dishonestly?

Errr... just because it's not a direct continuation of that story does not mean it has nothing to do with that story. I fully expect certain characters from the original BG games to be there (one of the things that were claimed to not be there by mr "much intellectual resources") and I expect the current story to be heavily influenced by events from those games. If you had different expectations then I'm afraid we've had a miscommunication...

I think you have a very different usage of the statement "objective fact" than the vast majority of people would. They're utilizing another game's engine and some of the assets, however, this hardly qualifies the entry as a "DOS" game rather than a "BG" game.

If this game utilizes the Baldur's Gate lore, setting, races, etc., then it's a Baldur's Gate game. The game could quite literally be an FPP entry, but if it's confined within the BG universe, then it's a BG game and if this game builds upon the story and lore of the prior entries in a meaningful way to be considered a sequel, then it's even something that could reasonably be called "BG3".

The "fact" of the matter is that a lot of people are upset that this game is saving time and resources by using the assets of another game, or that this game plays more to the strengths of the developers making the entry, but that has absolutely no baring on whether or not this game would be considered "Baldur's Gate".

I'll say these things:
1.) It makes sense for the developers to use turn-based as a mode for combat because it's both easier to balance for, fits perfectly with the ruleset and it's something they're experienced with and accustomed to. For some that's a turn off and for others it's an improvement, but that's neither here nor there. This situation is a lesser example of Fallout NV which was developed by the original developers.

2.) The game is very early in production. They hinted towards bugs needing fixing, problems with the UI and adjustments that can be made. Ambience from color schemes, saturation, etc., is very easily adjustable as evidenced by user modding of other major games. These adjustments can likely be made to the game still.

3.) I agree that there are some things that share too much of a similarity due to asset sharing. This is both to the benefit and detriment of the game, but with so little of the game shown and with so much left to do in terms of developing the game, it's a bit too early to start pulling out the torches and pitchforks.

Hmm, so basically you're saying that for example, in this very specific case, me not understanding what a strawman is due to not "much intellectual resources" and thus making myself a fool, is being dishonest?

That, by very definition, is the structure of a strawman argument - while I hate taking wikipedia as a quote (as I've done in my previous post since I'm lazy) I feel like I must:

Structure

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

Person 1 asserts proposition X.
Person 2 argues against a superficially similar proposition Y, falsely, as if an argument against Y were an argument against X.

Also, very lovely way of taking the whole *Insert quote to make myself look smart* comment about you completely out of context, thus completely destroying any signs of sarcasm whatsoever (which you've also done with the two cases of sarcasm in my first post).

You've accused me of several things and disregarded all of my arguments as strawman arguments and knee-jerk reactions, while all you've done is decided to interpret everything as whatever you want, claiming what everyone else is actually claiming in every single sentence and presenting THAT as the truth. You're actually right, this isn't a strawman policy in most cases, it's blatant lying and malicious misinterpretation.

Good job, you were right about something! Go you!

Well,the fact is that he said the BG1 AND BG2 story is closed,the game happens 100 years after that,and Descent into Avernus is it's precuel. I said nothing but there'll be characters of the previous installments on the new one. I don't see how that adds so much weight to what you're trying to prove.

Again, claiming I'm saying something I'm not. I very clearly said (and thankfully you didn't edit my post by cutting out half the the sentence this time) that they didn't say it has nothing to do with the narrative and/or characters (i.e., the story), and I never said it is a direct continuation of BG2's story.

YET AGAIN you're lying and saying others are lying. Please stop this madness

I never said that they said the story would be a direct continuation, I said that "please tell me how you know the story has nothing to do with the narrative and/or characters in those 2 games." - which are two VERY separate things, which Delicieuxz is trying to equate in order to look smarter than he is and create anger.

I suppose he succeeded.

Yes. You clearly do not grasp what a strawman is and what it isn't. Also, if you think you've found fault with "much intellectual resources", then you're demonstrating that you haven't much intellectual resources.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/much
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/much
"Much is now generally used with uncountable nouns. The equivalent used with countable nouns is many."

Generally - not exclusively. My usage of it is an older one, but still a usable one.


But... I didn't do that. I pointed out that you don't know what a strawman is - I didn't assert it. And I didn't then argue against it, but I pointed out that your recurring misuse of the term without learning from your mistake is making you look foolish.



You have yet to demonstrate that you understand what a strawman argument is. None of your alleged examples of strawman arguments in that long post you made which I went over here are strawman arguments.

When somebody shows that you are wrong, you can't just say they're making a strawman by saying that you said what you said and pointing out that it's wrong. That's foolish.

I never changed the meaning of what you said with any edits.

Why are you pretending that I've lied? I haven't. I also didn't say that others (plural) are lying - only that you have repeatedly lied, which you have.

"please tell me how you know the story has nothing to do with the narrative and/or characters in those 2 games." That was your question and I already answered,sorry but I don't understand what you want xD. In any case I'm not answering more about this,I don't want to turn this into another warzone so please both of you drop it. We're going nowhere with this. Thank you.

"Yes. You clearly do not grasp what a strawman is and what it isn't. Also, if you think you've found fault with "much intellectual resources", then you're demonstrating that you haven't much intellectual resources.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/much
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/much
"Much is now generally used with uncountable nouns. The equivalent used with countable nouns is many."

Generally - not exclusively. My usage of it is an older one, but still a usable one."

I don't think it's incorrect, I've just decided to use that with you since you seem to think you're smart.

"But... I didn't do that. I pointed out that you don't know what a strawman is - I didn't assert it. And I didn't then argue against it, but I pointed out that your recurring misuse of the term without learning from your mistake is making you look foolish." - You claimed my misuse of it is dishonesty which is clearly not true. It's either a misunderstanding from my part (stupidity), which automatically absolves any potential dishonesty, or actual intentional dishonesty, which would mean I fully understand that I'm bullshitting and am therefore not stupid. Unfortunately, I've made a mistake but still you can't have it both ways - which is precisely why I'm saying that particular one is a strawman argument - you're claiming both is possible, which is untrue. If you claimed that I was infactual however (instead of lying or dishonest), you would be correct. Which I would expect from someone with your grasp of language and grammar and the importance you put on in.

Unfortunately, as I've said, I've made a mistake and took most of your claims as "straw men" while they were in fact malicious misinterpretations or straight up lies.

Pretending? You're claiming I "accused" you that "please tell me how you know the story has nothing to do with the narrative and/or characters in those 2 games. Oh you don't? OK." which you apparently "refuted" by saying that BG3 takes place after descent into avernus and is not a direct continuation of that game (and not even you but Adgaroth did that), which refutes it about as much as me saying that that you're not a human being because you like The Beatles or some other, fully random, incoherent things...

"only that you have repeatedly lied, which you have." - yes, another accusation without any proof. Please, stop the lies

Edit: additional lies:

"You haven't read my post"
later:
"You haven't read my post"
later:
"You've been dishonest"

Well, I was going to leave this alone, as Adgaroth requested, but it seems you can't help yourself from digging your hole deeper because you made multiple additional false accusations.

When you have your mistake pointed out to you, and you deny that it is a mistake and continue to do it over and over again, then what would you call that? I can't know if you're lying or just lacking understanding. But I did say multiple times that you've failed to grasp what a strawman argument is. So, I didn't accuse you of lying over that. I accused you of lying over other things in the previous discussion, going back a few pages.

That was not a lie.


Those aren't quotes of mine, so you're being dishonest.

Actually, the quotes of what I said are:




Considering that your initial and subsequent responses to my post were oblivious of what it said and instead attacked a strawman argument that I hadn't said in my post, it's clear that you had not read it. That is a deductive conclusion, and what you've shown me.


You've been dishonest constantly in this discussion. See above in this very post for the latest example of you being dishonest.

Guys, quit snarking at each other. It's disruptive and nobody else wants to see it.

So after my initial sarcasm, where I stated RTwP is the only thing that makes a BG game actually part of the series in your mind, you said, and I quote:

"And further, I didn't say that RTwP is the defining trait of Baldur's Gate - I specifically stated that Larian's D&D RPG has literally no association with the Baldur's Gate series in any of its components - not its story, not its gameplay, not its narrative, not its characters, not its style and tone, and not is visual look. It is not even a sequel to anything in the Baldur's Gate series but is a sequel to Descent Into Avernus."

Which is in fact the only thing you said apart from spewing more obscenities about fanboys and such. When I decided to actually take my time and respond to these, as I previously thought it's apparent, you decided to claim this is absurd, just as you've done in your most recent post and haven't actually replied to any of them:



Then, at the end, you've quoted someone else and yourself, making your post twice the size to obscure what you're saying - which is in fact, nothing apart from saying I was obscuring something. At this point I thought you were perhaps just not too bright, as y'know, I've clearly responded to what you said. After that, you've become even more malicious, calling me a liar:




You have answered nothing this whole time, instead hiding behind your rhetoric. Unfortunately for you, "We know that Larian's game's story has nothing to do with the story and characters of BG1 and BG2 because Larian have stated so." doesn't mean that "We know the story of BG 3 has nothing to do with the main protagonist and the continuation of his story because Larian have stated so" but it means "We know the story of BG 3 has nothing to do with any of the characters that have had a significant impact on the events that took place in BG 1 and BG 2 and the events in BG 3 are not at all shaped by the events that took place in BG 1 and BG 2 because Larian have stated so", which is as far away from the truth as anything.

Just stop with the deception and misdirection. Yes, you got me on the "strawman" - good for you, with the entire frustration I was feeling I'm surprised that's the only stupidity I said.
Oh, and the misquotation at the end, where I tried to add a modicum of decency to your lines by only pointing out the obviously false parts and not the entire shitstorm you threw at me. Well done! Have a cookie.

Now stop lying

Sorry, I was writing that out as your message came in so I didn't see it. Promise I'll stop

The Truth... You can't handle the TRUTH!!!!

At least not when you all going around calling each other liars.

The truth is the game is in pre-alpha and those that opt into the early access are the ones that will help shape the game with their feedback.

@1:30:00

How adult and accurate, insulting other people only bec. they do not share your opinion. Please grow up.

Raze has already made the point:


I would like to move on from this rather than further fan the flames. Thanks.

I don't have a problem with different opinions. I do have a problem with the sense of ownership and entitlement the BG fans have toward the game. If Larian made a game I didn't like, I would express my opinion and move on. I like how the game is shaping up, so I'm here. A lot of the whiner crowd seems bent on trying to force Larian to change the game to their vision, when what's important here is Larian's vision.

No one want them to change their game.
Fans don't want this game to be "the BG3".

The name of Baldur's Gate 1 and Baldur's Gate 2 is still alive after 20 years because of fans.
Changing so many things and doing a "DoS-like" with the legendary game we honnor for so many years is a shame (maybe you are only Larian fans, or not whatever, but yeah, the Baldur's Gate games from 1998 still has community, new mode,...).

But yea stop the obvious comments.
Of course they CAN call it BG3, they have the rights, WoTC """is the creator of D&D"""" and blablabla...
It's just a perfect f*** to all fans that created the legends.

That's an amazing shitpost you made, perhaps even more so than the many others you made before it.

As you are aware despite your public denial of it, I addressed your comments and refuted them, and I have not lied - but you have been outed for lying multiple times. It is the peak of immaturity to try to cover your own butt by lobbing that which you've done at somebody else, hoping that it confuses people and does something to hide your guilt.

Um, throwing out a bunch of nonsense that has no relation to the reality of what has transpired here does nothing to defend your position and doesn't make a point for you. You replied to my responses with comments which were completely irrelevant to what I said, and you became increasingly immature as you proceeded to do the same thing ad nauseum throughout many more posts. You are simply embarrassed at the mistakes you made and are trying to blame others for what you did - namely lying, but also much else. I assure you that you have fooled nobody here.

I'm not going to keep repeating myself. Stop it, guys, unless you want an enforced break.

how is it possible?
bg3 vs dos3? there is no dos3.

and no bg3,magic my friend.

https://baldursgate3.game/

Illusionism spells from the wizards of the coast. Beware.

I have no wish for Larian to change their game, but certainly the title by dropping the '3'. It doesn't warrant it. Baldur's Gate: Inspired Title absolutely, but that '3' just does not belong. This game seems (thus far) to be taking a very similar overall approach in terms of its technical design; it's a CRPG, it's party-based single-player, it's D&D and I've no doubt Larian carries the spirit of it with them through the design of this....but it is not a sequel and does not deserve the '3' in its title.

They've stated as much themselves, this game's story stands very much on its own. There may be in-game talk of what happened the 100 years prior during the Bhaalspawn saga, maybe a few NPCs that were present and/or involved in it will be party members or NPCs here (though Larian has been understandably cagey about that so far)...but it is not a sequel. Nothing, thus far, suggests it even remotely is. In fact I've found it to be quite the opposite, much of the interviews have been very, very careful to avoid inferring a sequel but are quite clear about it being its own thing.

I have no doubt I will play this game. How I feel about its gameplay and such I won't know until I'm playing it...but I do know I deplore the obvious and vulgar marketing of using the '3' in the title when it really doesn't need it.

Use the Baldur's Gate name to carry on the spirit, but that '3' needs to go. To do anything less is to spit on the legacy upon which you're trying to profit from.

But you dont get to make that call so it doesnt matter.

There was the same fan-concerns about Gothic IV, when Piranha Bytes lost their rights for the series, and they went to JoWooD. But in the end, Arcania: Gothic 4 turn out to be great, maybe even the best game in the whole Gothic series. Or, for example, similar situation with Vampire: The Masquerade series, when Paradox Interactive bought iintellectual rights for the game after they purchased White Wolf company. Although Paradox hired for Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines 2 many people from the Troika Games, creators of original game, in any way fans looking forward for the game release.

Maybe Larian and Swen Vincke will hire producer of original Baldur's Gate game - Ray Muzyka, at least in the role of consultant. Which would make most of the game series fans happy.

Larian still has a chance to turn things around - just changing certain visuals, setting a darker tone, darker colors, and making the game look a bit more serious/gothic/medieval/dirty...it could be improved a lot.

All the sunny beaches/cute rabbits and crazy jumping/gimmick stuff needs to be replaced with something more adult, realistic - then this game might have a chance.

I'm also quite worried that Larian will not be able to execute the story in focused way.

What's unrealistic about rabbits FFS

Nothing wrong with rabbits, just saying BG is not a game that you play to enjoy cute rabbits.

Are there no cute moments at all in BG FFS

Miniature giant space hamsters? Yes. Cute rabbits? No.

I find it odd that people are disregarding a lot of the funny moments in the original BG games. Remember when you got the Nether Scroll for Edwin, and he accidentally changed his gender? The party took to calling him Edwina...yeah, everything in BG is super serious...

Not only that, we have only seen 1-2 hours of gameplay and haven't even been to a major city yet. I'm sure we will be exploring the seedy underbelly of Baldur's Gate itself (not to mention graveyards, crypts, etc.).

And just because Baldur's Gate 3 can stand on its own doesn't mean it won't have the story elements to tie in this game with the previous two. The Cult of the Dead Three is an easy way to connect the events of the Bhaal Spawn to the current game. BG2 had Mind Flayers beneath Athkatla trying to organize, and you find a letter stating:

"The base is established, and the infiltration continues. The Hidden gathers followers, and soon we shall dominate the minds of the entire..."

It is quite possible Larian is using The Hidden as a jumping off point. We won't know until more of the story is released.

No, I honestly do not remember many cute moments in BG.

It was a dark, gritty, at times even surreal game setting and experience.

Just remember going to the Underdark in BG2 SoA, fighting Drow and Mind Flayers, fighting vampires etc.

Those settings and art style was brutally dark and horroresque.

So its not all about Larian now using the DOS template for BG3, it is CHANGING THE ENTIRE FEEL AND TONE OF THE ORIGINAL GAMES.

That is what bothers me most is that Larian is still using their goofy cartoony looking style of creating the setting.

Probably the dialouge will be goofy as well. THERE WAS NOTHING CUTE ABOUT BG1 AND BG2, why are you people insisting that BG was cute and funny?

We are not saying BG1/2 were cute and funny. We are saying there were cute/funny moments. You know, moments of levity. The original games, overall, had a serious tone, but that is not to say they didn't have their own sense of humor now and again.

And it's baffling to me that you've seen an hour and a half of level 1 gameplay and automatically write of the story and setting as goofy/cartoony. The opening cinematic alone is gruesome. Not to mention we know Demons and Vampires are in this game along with the Mind Flayers.

I'm fairly certain that Faerun is home to dark castles, dingy cities, and hellish crypts while at the same time having glorious cities, enchanting ruins, and sunny beaches. Here's hoping we see a vast variety of environments with their own tones and personality (the whimsical Fey Wild, the dark Shadowfell, or the hellish Avernus).

Sorry to dissapoint you or burst your bubble right now.

Did you watch the demo?

Did you by any chance see PINK BRAINS WITH FEET that were supposed to be enemies?

Did you by any chance see how other monsters look - like kids cartoon stuff.

So yea, seeing that demo was more then enough for me to understand what is happening.

Seen it happen before with Diablo 3 - huge failure, now they are going back to the "original" Diablo "dark" tones. LOL

Pink Brains with feet? You mean Intellect Devourers? The Mind Flayer pets that are a staple of D&D? I don't know any campaigns that feature Mind Flayers without Intellect Devourers at their sides. And yes, their design in BG3 is accurate.

[img]https://media.wizards.com/2014/downloads/dnd/MM_IntellectDevourer.pdf[/img]

The original games had plenty of sunny areas and weren't doom and gloom environments all the time. All I'm saying is, the demo for BG3 showed variety (sunny beach, dark dungeon, scary crypt). If that's not enough for you, I don't know what to say.

Please just check how the int. devourer looks in the pdf that you posted and then go and watch the BG3 gameplay again.

In the demo they look like PINK BRAINS WITH SMALL FEET, they look like a joke, they dont look scary nor weird, they even look cute.

That is the whole problem I'm trying to stress out here.

My opinion:

I LOVE that this game is more like D:OS 2 than BG 2. Because I only had a short affair with BG 2 but I'm in love forever with D:OS 2.

(Actually I'd have preferred D:OS 3, because I'm way more into Rivellon than Baldurs Gate, but ok... as long as I get a similar humor, the canonical context of the story doesn't matter that much to me... I just think that "classless" is MUCH better than "classful", but ok, ok...)

@ kyrthorsen: We will have to agree to disagree on what hue an Intellect Devourer should be. I can respect your position that they could have a more muted color pallet, however, I don't think that is the direction they should go personally.

It has been 20 years since BG2, and I think Larian has an opportunity to have a wide variety of color pallets across the entire game. I would really like to see how the Mind Flayers look in action. That might make or break my position. Everything else from Intellect Devourers to Goblins looked good to me.

They will made it anyway. I have just a problem with the name BG 3 infront of it. Just name it DOS 3 or dunno Sword Coast xyz .

With the name baldurs gate the fans think bout something else than this product.

This post literally makes no sense. Why would they name a Baldur's Gate game, one that resides within the Baldur's Gate universe, with the same lore, anything but Baldur's Gate? How would naming it DOS make any sense?

Should Fallout New Vegas have been titled TES because it used the same engine and assets? Should Mass Effect or Dragon Age be titled the other for using the same engine and assets?

An IP is defined by its lore first and foremost. Gameplay and art is subject to change. Thus far we've seen a Baldur's Gate game with D&D gameplay and content.

People are acting like this is Bethesda bastardizing the Fallout IP based on a small showcase in a very early build with placeholder content. I'm honestly baffled.

If they were to rename the game (which they wont, and cannot), would you shut up?
no.

You wouldnt. youd mvoe the goalpost yet again.

At firs tit was "it was gonna have the divinity ruleset" no it doesnt.
then it was "it will have too much humor and wont be grimdark" cue the trailer
now its "we dont like the name"

youll never be satisfied. so no cocnessions should be made to you.

And if you people KEEP bringing up this nonsense about "Muh dark atmosphere" ill make a collage of all those brightl ylit BG2 images from the other thread and i will post it EVERY.SINGLE.TIME you bring this up.

Of course people would no longer complain. Do you think anybody cares if Larian makes a game? Of course they don't. What they care about is that Larian is co-opting another game series to make a clone of their DOS series, and are marketing their D&D DOS formula game as something that it isn't - which is a Baldur's Gate series game.

If Larian called their game anything that wasn't pretending to be Baldur's Gate 3, nobody would complain.



You should put at least some thought into your post. The former two criticisms, about the ruleset (I haven't seen that criticism and I'm guessing that you haven't, either and are just BSing) and the type of humour, only apply because Larian are claiming it to be Baldur's Gate 3. If Larian weren't claiming it to be a part of the original Baldur's Gate PC series then there'd be no measurement by which to say it should or shouldn't have a particular ruleset or a certain style of humour.

Quit making nonsense up out of thin air to pretend that you have an argument when you have none.

Please do so.

hi i just want to chime in regarding my opinion. what i've seen this is basically just exactly DOS2 clone but with Baldur's Gate name. the UI, aesthetics, the graphics even 4 party character limit (not to mention turn-based) is exact DOS2 clone. i have DOS2 and i've played it. it's a great game. but Larian please don't be lazy by just copy paste and clone everything like DOS2. i'm looking forward to play baldur's gate 3 not DOS3.

one of the party character looks like Ifan from DOS2 and the vampire guy.. is he an iconic baldur's gate character? i don't particularly like his desgin. the hair, the face, the clothings doesn't seems to click well with high fantasy but looks modern. same with some demon where it's appearance doesn't seems to click at all.

what is that shove and jump? it looks really silly. why not just teleport or blink? it's really very silly and out of proportion in baldur's gate settings. i know this is just my opinion but the art design especially character design except the githyanki.. they all doesn't look right or suitable or reminds me about baldur's gate at all. i don't know? maybe the color pallette? the modern vampire look?

larian.. don't try to be naive and ignore negative feedback. right now i see the community has split like 50/50. you are going to be on a very bad reputation for ruining the franchise.

honestly if you call this DOS3 i will be more than happy.

I dont know what you mean by a DOS clone but BG3 is hardly a clone except maybe visually which is an improvement from BG1-2.
Also, BG3 is using the 5th edition DND rule with the collaboration from wizards of the coast dnd headquarters . DOS 2 has different combat rules and doesn't follow the DND LORE. So your way off base by calling it clone.

I think my biggest hope is that the game plays more "open world" then the way the DOS games are separated into "Acts" where you can only traverse the lands for the specific act you are in. Anyone have any idea?

The lack of open world feel is my biggest problem with DOS 1 & 2. I hope when exploring the forgotten realms in BG3 you can freely explore all the lands from the beginning. I know it's easier to balance encounters with it separated into "Acts" but I hope they go a different route here.

I LOVE Divine Divinity (Even though I hate the real time clicky combat) and I didn't love DOS 1 or 2 (I thought they were ok).

Explosing barrels in every room, UI, graphics, gameplay, color, start on a beach, target line, fire trap, assets, game cover, grease everywhere, the way you move objects, ...... Do you need more exemple ?

Stop saying this is not a clone... 3/4 of what we see came from Dos (and have sometimes evolved I agree)
Your only argument are that it's not the same rules + not exactly the same using of their engine...

It's not a clone cause it's a fact and facts dont change, it only looks like DOS visually. Your the one that keeps changing the goal post. It will always stay BG3 lore wise and 5th edition rules . Live with it. -)

It isn't a clone. Is it going to be similar? Of course; it's Larian. Should it be similar? Of course. They produced the massively successful and highly lauded game. Turn based and the ability the interact with your environment are crucial elements that resonate with D&D. In that way DOS was more D&D than BG ever was.

Yea, visually and from the gameplay we've seen so far (movement, skill activation etc.) it's a total clone of DOS, a skin for different background mechanics. I think that is a problem, so much of gaming experience is interaction with the world visually and mechanically through 'jumping', exploring, pressing skills buttons, if that's exactly the same as DOS, it means BG3 loses it's identity behind something different.

Not only that but the combat mechanics is not the same as DOS, BG3 uses a completely different mechanic,it used 5th edition rules which DOS2 didn't use .
And story/lore wise it's different and the monsters too. So it's far from a clone.

Yeah, its great that you love DOS, totally fine, its a great game.

But this is BG in the making, and saying that you would like BG3 to be like DOS is like saying you would like Quake to be like Doom.

It does not make much sense to me.

Yeah well IMO that is exactly what is the problem with games today in general.

All games are trying hard to appeal to everybody.

Who do you like better, rock bands like the Doors, Beatles and Roling Stones, or you prefer Britnery Spears, Ariana Grande and Backstreet boys?

Today, all gaming studios are trying to be like Britney Spears, and its ruining so many games it unbelivable.

Devs should be looking to studios like From Software - they are not afraid to make a dark game, and they are a huge success, people love those games.

Hey sorry for bothering you with my thread.

As I said i really loved DOS1 and wish all the best for that game series.

However, I liked BG1 and BG2 better - better story, better setting, better combat, better spells. BG spell system was so advanced still to this day no game has came close to it.

So YEAH I would love if somebody made a GREAT BG3, but all I saw in the demo was a new DOS game called BG3.

Larian knows this is the truth.

Look what happened to Fallout 4 - the game looks like a circus for kids. Unfortunately it seems that Larian is making the same mistake as Bethesda with Fallout.

Since BG3 is still in development, I'm just making a suggestion - even though the probability that the devs will listen is close to zero.

Larian, if you are making BG3 then make BG3!

If you are making DOS3 then make DOS3.

You can't make BG3 as if you are making DOS3.

There are two entirely different games.

Remove the spider man jumping and remove all silly/cute things from the game, make it darker, brutal and horror-like.

You can easily replace jumping with a climbing animation.

Also, tone down the colors - no need to make the game look like a fun park.

Look at what was great about BG2 - DONT FIX WHAT ISNT BROKEN.

SOMETIMES LESS IS MORE.

Thank you.

How about instead of judging the game by its cover or in this case by the demo. Try it and and then make a judgment.

Judging the game by its gameplay demo is not like judging a book by its cover.

I've been playing RPGs all the way back to mid 90's, and been a gamer for more than 30 years.

I know what I'm talking about so just looking at this demo tells me even more than I needed to know. Sad.

These are all your opinion. Not to mention, it's an opinion on which you're judging this game with little to no evidence beyond it being turn-based combat to support your opinion. The game will be using the Baldur Gate setting and story to continue with series. It's just placed far enough ahead in the timeline to make it capable of being standalone, however, they've stated there will be bits for those who know the other games.

For all you know the spell and system in this game will be more robust than anything in BG 1 or 2, but no one (including you) has seen enough to know that. All we know is that there will be more environmental interaction (which is a positive). As to it being some advanced system that no game has come close to? It was great, but it's also unbalanced and overpowered.

Comparing a game's combat type changing from RTwP to TB (which is arguably more accessible and better illustrates the D&D formula) to Bethesda reducing a beloved RPG franchise to a mindless shooter without any passible writing is absolutely ridiculous and completely disingenuous. Fallout 2 to Fallout Tactics or Fallout 2 to Fallout New Vegas would have been a better comparison.

Until more information or the early access is readily available, such claims are completely unfounded.

I actually don't have a big problem with the combat being TB.

I actually do have a big problem with the game looking and playing - in every possible way - like DOS3.

This "BG3" has nothing in common with BG1 and BG2.

This is the SAME THING Bethesda did with Fallout - they just copy/pasted Elder Scrolls - Oblivion engine and game mechanics and called it Fallout.

Open your eyes.

I have asked this question so many times and have not gotten an answer. What would make this game more "BG" aside from RTwP? Darker colors? Really?

I'm sorry, but I just can't take you serious with all these doomsday posts based on the next to zero information you have. You're literally saying you don't have a problem with it being turn-based in one sentence, while saying that's part of your problem in the next.

Then you're saying this game has nothing in common with BG1 and BG2, when it's literally the same universe and lore. Neither of us have seen enough to know, but this game could have multiple ties to the previous two games while still being a hundred years later.

As mentioned in my previous post: It would be asinine for them to not use their engine and assets when it saves a ton of time and resources.

Guess who also used Oblivions and Fallout 3's assets? Obsidian with the developers of the original Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 to create a world that many original fans accepted to be a true sequel to the series.

There are some similarities that I'm not too fond of myself, but to say the game is a clone and is not worthy of being a Baldur's Gate game is ridiculous. The easily abusable and quite irritating jumping/teleporting gimmick shouldn't have been carried over, though I can live with it. I'm also not a fan of the Origin characters, though I'll concede it's interesting to be able to play through the companions' perspectives.

Ultimately, until we've seen the early access it's simply absurd to jump to such conclusions.

Yeah definitely a tweak in the art style towards a more menacing dark look would be a step in the right direction.

Im not sure what else the devs could change at this point since the game is copy/paste DOS2.

You can find other suggesions here:

http://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=660349&nt=4&page=1

I actually try to answer this in my opinion thread. I realise i should probably merge it maybe, but i thought it was different enough to stand alone

Look the problem is that they marketed a new BG game and they come up with an upgraded DOS game.

Thats the crux of the problem here - its false advertising imo.

If they were serious about making a new BG game, they could have at least try to change the visuals so that it does not look exactly the same as DOS.

All im saying is that its a cheap move, and it just not right to use the BG franchise as a cash cow like that, and get the old fans hyped.

I can live with TB - but copy pasting the entire game is just a bit too much.

For the lore - we will see about that - but im not very optimistic at this point.

Well, thank for providing an answer that makes sense to you. But, looking over what you wrote in the other thread you linked to, I will just say that I really don't think there is anything more I can say to you on the subject except ... and I am not trying to be harsh ... don't ever expect anything to bring back the "feel" of that game (as you perceive it).

Yeah you are probably right about that - BG3 just wont be as good.

On the other hand, every year or two I do find a great game that captures that old magical feeling, so all is not lost.

Cheers

Again unless you have been living under a rock, it was written in the stars that BG3 was going to look alot like DOS visually, but not lore and rules. Based on the many interviews with larian studios and wizards of the coast. They came to an agreement that they will improve on the DOS style and at the same time keep the integrity of the lore and 5th edition rules. I wasn't surprised because I actually followed the game from the beginning. And honestly they improved the BG series greatly by doing so. So market wise and reputation their infact. They know this will sell, and they also know there will always be a minority who will disagree. Sorry you have to live with it. There are options like pathfinder wrath of the righteous that will bring your nostalgia. Go play that

Definitely going to be Baldur’s Gate 3. The game is using a lot of assets from DOS in the demo we saw, but that will change with time. It’s already been addressed in these forums.

people thinking its an upgrade to OS2 are unhinged.
and if it was marketed as this people would be pisses off just as much as i tis nothing like it in terms of the character classes and combat skills

I mean, technically it is, if you think of the engine.

The UI is a work in progress, as is the game itself. The build in the presentation didn't have the save system implemented yet. When Early Access started for D:OS and D:OS 2 there was stub text, a few pieces of equipment with incomplete descriptions and a few missing inventory icons, etc.
In BG3 that is a riverbank, actually. There are lots of games that start with characters being in prison, amnesia, a peaceful village being attacked, etc, but that's not much of an argument that the games are the same.
Are you suggesting that BG3 should not indicate if and where an attack is blocked because D:OS 2 did so?
I'm pretty sure traps are part of DnD, as well.
Other games were you can move objects in almost the exact same way (no rotation) include Divine Divinity and Beyond Divinity. D:OS 2 did not let you climb onto objects (you could sit on a chair stacked on top of other items if it wasn't too high, but you couldn't use this for exploring, etc).

then Technically in Baldurs Gate you can turn into a Dragon and fly around with a Jetpack...

The interface change would go a long way.
Back to the more simpler and less colorful icons. The oak/stone UI look.

Yeah definitely.

Raze already stated in at least on other thread that the UI will be changed/tweaked once the underlying mechanics have been "finalised".

A lot of what you see is placeholder, it's just relatively polished placeholder and as such it's easy to assume that that is final.

It has also been stated that there will be graphical enhancements before release as well.

As for what makes BG BG stylistically, well the Infinity Engine approach has a lot to do with it. Painted assets giving a false painted reality look. Muted colours, though not necessarily dark or without colour just more of a matte filter.

3D modelled games have always been shinier. Even Witcher 3 is vibrant and full of colour for such a dour story.

That said ignoring placeholder assets in UI and world, the main characters showcased so far look a little too "new". Like thy stepped out of a comic con. Witcher the Netflix TV series was given the same criticism, costumes and style looked too much like a tv set and less like a lived in world.

Spiderman on the PS4 - Vibrant (it's super heroes!), but you start off in this worn out suit and you work at getting it patched up or replaced. It's a nice touch but it meade me feel like I was playing a Spiderman that had already been around all the blocks multiple times.

Here, in the Demo and I stress DEMO, the main character (Astarion) comes out of a crash looking pristine and Shadowheart already has back what looks like all her gear. Now we didn't see the tutorial, so we comment on this DEMO scene as being the "opening". But if we have just been through (proverbial) Hell, like Shadowheart puts it, make it look that way, because BG never felt clean, even though it is still High Fantasy.

It feels old, from the stone UI to dirty boots and rusty swords and whilst colour is good, sun is good ( I don't need constant grimdark), different settings are good, lived in is better. Does that make sense?

Fair criticism. Some ripped up clothes for the start would be more appropriate and a dirty or grimy facade such as in God of War would be nice.

BG2 wasn't capable of showing the level cleanliness or dirtiness that BG3 can, so not that fair to compare the two.

BG2 wasn't able to graphically show it, but it felt textually real thanks to the painted look of the artwork and you imagined the rest when it came to inventory screens.
Again Witcher 3 does a good job of making the characters clothes feel textually grounded, but again we are comparing finished product vs demo and D&D, even Baldur's Gate, has always had flamboyancy in clothing, style over function, but "personally" it could do with feeling/looking a little more worn ;-)

>NOBLE
>Elf
>Dressed in rags
Bruh, hes been captured by mindflayers, he wasnt thrown in the dungeon by the local lord

the absolute seethe over minor details is realy amusing

Ah, the start in prison, a staple of Bethesda

Oh Helloo Larian, watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qORVHGkEn58

There you can see a real good RPG which looks kinda familiar with baldurs gate, good music, effects and fun gameplay.

Y-YYES!!!

Lead evil by example and one day we need no longer take the boots to those who stray off the path of goodness in to the muck and bile of villainy, and track great bloody footprints across our lily white tiles! Boo will have clean woodshavings you evil bastards! YEARGH!

Yeah, that looks more of the old BG games. Larian doesn't make those kind of games, though. And apparently, WotC doesn't want it either.

Pathfinder: Kingmaker was great (at least after a year of bugfixing) and sequel looks great too. You still have couple days chance to back it in Kickstartter, I got myself a collectors edition. However, it's very iterative in it's approach. It doesn't do much beyond what Baldur's Gate did 20 years ago. Sure it does graphics and game mechanics better, but there is very little new in there. Will it be the title all other cRPGs are compared to for the next 20 years? I doubt it. Baldur's Gate III on the other hand is stretching the limits what can be done in cRPG. The interactivity with environment, different approaches you can take to each situation etc. That's something new. It's more riskier take, but it has a chance to be that title that will be talked for 20 years. I'm glad we are getting both, rather than two similar games.

Feels like people forgot temple of elemental evil... This was turn based and D&D and so much worse than BG especially because of the fighting system

haha, bullseye!

Hah, this game looks exactly how BG3 should have looked. LOL

That actually looks horrible. Everything is so brown it's hard to even make out the player models.

"but it's pre-alpha!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5a1rPHaQ5fQ

And the music <33

I love it.

It's BG3 because they were given the BG IP to use.
And it takes place in the BG universe.
And it takes place in the BG timeline.
And the events of BG 1 & 2 are canon to the events in BG3.

Huh. Seems like BG3 to me. You know, because the game-engine & mechanics have little..actually, have NOTHING to do with game sequels and in-universe lore.

Fallout 3 was not the same as 1 & 2.
World of Warcraft was not an RTS.
Kid Icarus was a side scroller. KI: Uprising was an amazing on-rails shooter plus 3D shooter for the ground battles.
Castle Wolfenstein was, again, a side-scroller before becoming a 3D FPS.
Duke Nukem, AGAIN, was a side scroller, then an FPS.

This is the same thread as the Steam forums; people angry that BG3 is not real-time w/ pause, because they can't take off their nostalgia goggles and accept something new.

We get it; you're angry that BG3 is not going to be a carbon copy of a 20 year old game who's combat was the worst part of it.
You're angry that Larian did not know to psychically contact you to let YOU decide how they should spend their millions of dollars to create the game.
And you're angry that other people are going to like something you hate.

As I've said on the Steam forums; no one cares. Go back to Pathfinder: Kingmaker and let the fans enjoy a perfectly good, perfectly enjoyable turn-based D&D game.
Kingmaker, for me not liking RTwP, is a perfectly fine D&D game.

Go away and let us fans enjoy what will be another perfectly fine D&D game with a combat system we can enjoy.

And on the steam forum:

WE DO CARE !

So pls let others do not like something, you like.

You hatespeech us bec. we do not like something you do, but critisize us for the same? Funny guy/girl.

Everyone has the right to critisize something. If you cannot stand that, do not come to a forum and read.

And it has nothing to do with nostalgia goggles.

The fighting-system in bg was far superior than most of modern RPG's, even if YOU did not like it. Just accept it, thank you.

And if i make a game named baldurs gate 3....OFC the old fans will have some hopes and thoughts bout the product of that.
They should haved named it DOS 3 or something like that. Then the rumours and heavy feelings would not have happend here at all. But i guess you cannot understand that.

I agree, there is no need to behave like the toxic steam forums where everyone is just angry sperges. We are above that. I read those forums and weep for what people must think gamers are

You're really going to say I don't understand, when I just told you literally every reason why it's a legitimate sequel? You're argument for why it's NOT a Baldur's gate sequel is basically 'The mechanics changed'.
And argument I already shot down. But I don't understand?

Uh-huh. Sure, buddy. It's pretty clear YOU don't understand, and ignored half of my post that took apart your complaints, just so you could continue complaining.

And you're allowed to not like something..somewhere else.
The forums should be for the fans to have a place to enjoy something without harassment and negative posts.

You don't see me going onto Pathfinder: Kingmaker's forums and complaining that it should have been turn-based from the start. Why? Because they have a right to enjoy their game and community without negativity.
Plus, it would be stupid for me to demand a developer change their game to appease me, who would be in the minority at that point.

So once again:
t's BG3 because they were given the BG IP to use.
And it takes place in the BG universe.
And it takes place in the BG timeline.
And the events of BG 1 & 2 are canon to the events in BG3.

Game mechanics are the WORST way to ask for a sequel. Game mechanics change was technology grows and improves. I also already listed a number of games that changed full GENRES, not just MECHANICS, and succeeded.

So stop and let us enjoy the hyper for a good game.
A good game, regardless of how RTwP people feel.
A good game that will be turn-based no matter how hard people complain otherwise.
A good game that is, regardless of inane complaints, a Baldur's Gate sequel.

sorry, Eguzky, but people with opinions different from yours is not "harassment", but telling people they are not allowed to express opinions is.

Both of these things. Everyone be nice. Or else.

Oh yeah, Forgotten Realms + ""timeline""/event + D&D rules... Okay I now understand...

Baldur's Gate (and video games) is a set of many elements. Universe and rules are just a part of it.
That's not only what define the experience.

Diablo 3 would never be named Diablo 3 if it wasn't H&S.
World of Warcraft is not named Warcraft 4...
DoS3 is not gonna be a RTS game.
TES6 won't be on a other world as Nirn/Tamriel.

This is just part of the experiences but this is important these things are presents for players to find the spirit of previous games.
No one said BG3 should run on IE. Part of an experience doesn't mean take the exact same things.

arent you very smart.

Then technically Baldurs Gate 3 is literaly a game in which you turn into a dragon and jetpack around the place.
Also Dragon Ball FighterZ is a first person shooter.

You absolute Genius

Yeah. There is no trend in gaming indicating that TB is preferred to RTwP. There has only been big TB hit, and that's DOS2. 1 game isn't a trend.

There are been more recent TB games that tanked than there are ones that did great. Torment: Numenera and Wasteland Remastered were both flops and both had TB. And the TB combat was one of the things that were criticized about Torment: Numenera - because Planescape: Torment had RTwP and people didn't like the title switching to TB.

There are more owners of Pillars of Eternity, which is RTwP, on Steam than Wasteland 2, which is TB.

Pillars of Eternity 2 had TB added to it, but it didn't improve its sales or raise its Steam user score by even a single percentage point in the months that followed the TB patch.

And Pathfinder: Kingmaker is more popular right now than any TB game other than DOS2.

And while DOS2's sales have been great, they still haven't topped Dragon Age: Origins': DA:O sold 3.2 million copies in just over 3 months. DOS2 sold 1 million copies in 2.5 months.


So, there is no trend anywhere that TB is more favoured than RTwP. But some fans of DOS2 have let their appreciation of the game blind them to the point they've crafted a mythology about TB games and their popularity.


Here's Larian's "BG3" senior designer and main combat designer, Edouard Imbert on RTwP vs TB:

https://jv.jeuxonline.info/actualit...rt-senior-designer-combats-baldur-gate-3

That is somebody who should not ever be allowed to develop a Baldur's Gate game. They are prejudiced against Baldur's Gate from the outset and have no interest in making a Baldur's Gate game. There isn't a problem with RTwP, there's a problem with their perception of and skill with RTwP. They require a very dumbed-down experience that is ultra-simple and clarified in order to be able to follow what is happening. They aren't the average gamer, though.

This further underscores that Larian are not even thinking about making a Baldur's Gate game and couldn't care less about the Baldur's Gate series other than the potential for its name to boost their own Divinity brand's popularity, as Swen said is what he hopes to do:

https://youtu.be/kGnGOnzlC4s?t=214

And as Walgrave revealed when he said Larian are sticking to the DOS formula (which disingenuously saying that D&D is a turn-based game while omitting to acknowledge that Baldur's Gate isn't just D&D and is a RTwP series):

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2020-02-27-baldurs-gate-3-interview

It's no wonder Walgrave couldn't think of a single aspect of their D&D RPG that justifies calling their "BG3" a successor to the Baldur's Gate series:

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2020-02-27-baldurs-gate-3-interview

So, Larian's "BG3" is a sequel because it's a party-based RPG with colourful character and with combat in it - and the combat uses a D&D ruleset. He didn't even dare add that Baldur's Gate has specifically RTwP combat - because, of course, Larian's "BG3" doesn't. Walgrave's claim is the equivalent of saying that any first-person game where you play as a single character and use a variety of weapons to shoot at lots of things is a DOOM series game or a Half-Life series game.

There are loads of games that fit Walgrave's description that aren't called Baldur's Gate series games, and there are thousands that fit the description if not counting the D&D ruleset qualifier. What Walgrave is saying is that there is no similarity between Larian's D&D game and the Baldur's Gate series and so he couldn't think of something that actually justifies calling Larian's "BG3" a Baldur's Gate series game.

Black Isle themselves, the creators of the Baldur's Gate series, wasn't willing to call their game "BG3" despite that their cancelled game had a lot more in common with the BG series: https://twitter.com/jesawyer/status/1234228179906134016

So, if they judged it not right that their own follow-up game not be titled Baldur's Gate 3, then it's clear that they would not approve of Larian's game bearing the Baldur's Gate name.


Larian talk like snakes in interviews when trying to rationalize why they're calling their game "BG3". But it's abundantly clear that the only actual reason why they are calling it "BG3" is for a cash-grab, to promote their own DOS formula and brand. And co-opting another series and disregarding its important legacy and its fans for such a self-serving goal is selling-out. If they weren't interesting in making an actual Baldur's Gate game, and it's clear they have never been, then they should have left the title alone.

BTW, in a recent interview Swen said that their studio all loved the BG series (except for everything about it, it seems). But in an older interview from when the license was being announced, I'm pretty sure he said that the people in their studio didn't even know what the Baldur's Gate series was when the idea was raised.

TB/RTwP discussion here please. Thank you.

World of Warcraft WAS Warcraft 4. They changed the name when they switched genres, but it was a continuation of the same story in the same world (IE: The events of Warcraft 1-3 are canon to WoW) with the same people.
Baldur's Gate 3 is not even switching genres; it's still an isometric RPG based on D&D. It's also using the same world, and the events of BG 1 & 2 are canon to BG3.

DoS3 could be an RTS, and as long as it takes place in the same world as DoS2, it's a sequel. I would not buy it, because I don't like RTSs, but it would still be a sequel.

Mechaniics change as technology changes. And developers make what they are comfortable making. I'd rather have a TB game from Larian, who have shown they are very good hands at making TB games, then an RTS.

If you don't like turn-based games; fine. I don't like RTwP. It would be silly of me or you or anyone to buy a game they are going to hate.
But if you don't mind turn-based games, then don't let something as silly as a mechanics shift chase you away from what looks like a very good game so far.

And no matter how much you, me, or anyone tries to claim otherwise, a sequel is determined by a games STORY, not it's mechanics.

Sequel:
a published, broadcast, or recorded work that continues the story or develops the theme of an earlier one.

You will note in that definition, it covers the story. Not the mechanics.

Right on. I have every right to be angry, to complain, and to describe this game as a bad game. And I will continue to do so.

Based on a single tech demo. It's what, pre-alpha? Hilarious.

One could argue that the upcoming Diablo 4 is moving to a more open world hub style game more,with MMORPG elements. They will still call it Diablo 4 and not World of Diablo.

I really do think though that too much is being made of the BG3 title. WoTC wanted a BG3 game, they specifically chose Larian due to how D:OS was as a game and all that that entails. Life is too bloody short to care about this to this extent and I say that as someone for whom BG2 defined everything when it came to RPG games going forward. I took ages to warm to NWN purely for this very reason, because although it wasn't called BG(x) it was the next BioWare RPG game that I played (I missed Icewind Dale, though I did play a fair amount of Planescape Torment) and it didn't have a PARTY.

We all have things that are personal to us when it comes to beloved franchises or music or whatever. For me like I said, it's 6 people party composition in a D&D setting with epic story and awesome interactions. Anyting else is just a game mechanic.

For others its the painted landscapes, for others the combat system, or a combination. Either way, I feel we need to move away from "this isn't BG3!!" Because it is, because WoTC have said it is and because Larian are making it as such.

Is it my BG3? Your BG3? Yes, no, perhaps or variants of. It's healthy to state what we like or dislike, but arguing over the title should really stop and instead we should focus on providing constructive feedback as to what we would like to see from Larian going forward.

I think they've seen what a passionate corwd we can be, but let's be passionate and support and where appropriate critique, not act like spoilt brats who didn't get a red BMX but a black mountain bike for their birthday.

To be fair; the mechanic many people dislike will not change, most likely.

But complaining about graphics, animation, voice acting, or UI at this stage is like complaining that cake batter does not look as good as a finished cake.

That's the nature of the internet and the early reveal we all crave. But I utterly agree with you.

We take what we see at face value and discuss it as if it was the "near" final product. I said it in another thread, due to the borrowing of assets from D:OS2, the BG3 Demo looks quite far advanced, more than Larian perhaps intended. I feel Larian could have been more vocal about the graphical look and feel side to the general public, but, but maybe they were and I missed it. After all until I joined this forum, I went mostly by the presentation by Swen at PAX, whereas most of the Media videos that came out shortly after were more enlightening.

I think that the Early Access news also makes people sit up more and go, "argh it's nearly playable and it's not BG3 looking at all". Rightly or wrongly. Yet it is still very much a wait and see approach that is needed, though I wholeheartedly believe we should be providing constructive criticism for all things, even if we believe they are final, becaue a) they're probably not and b) I beleive Larian would at least take note, even if they ultimately stuck to their idea over our collective one.

Alright, I seen this argument before.

Diablo 3 was a huge success and sold over 20 million copies over all platforms, making it one of the most sold games of all times (MC and PUBG is ahead).
To compare, Diablo 1 and 2 sold around 6 million copies (2 for D1 and 4 for D2)

The only ones that thought it was a HUGE FAILURE was a smaller group of Diablo 2 fans.
Something is not a failure because YOU don't like it.

You simply cannot just make up your own definition of "Failure".

And if you want to bring up the point of Diablo 2 coming out in 2000, fair enough. It sold well for that year, but it is still 7 million copies behind The Sims.

This looks like a total clone of Pathfinder: Kingmaker and nothing like Baldur's Gate II

Oh come on, D3 was not a commercial success because of its new art style and corny dialogue.
It was successful in spite of this because old fans were desperate for a new Diablo and there was precious little else out there in the genre, plus the later ability to play on console with 4 -layer couch co-op, the much better expansion and continued updates make it still one of the better games in a niche genre.

I love Diablo, but stylistically and tone wise, d3 is a poor Diablo game, so says pretty much everyone, including blizzard. Plus you can not compare it to the sims?!! That’s like me comparing big sales to bloody fifa

So these things are important and I look forward to seeing how Larian handles BG3.

I feel dumb for asking this, but what does this mean? The "painted" landscapes part.

I think they are referring to textures that look or almost look hand-drawn. For me, what they call "painted landscapes" is just better graphics for 1998, but poor quality ones by today's standards. Then again, maybe look to Pillars of Eternity for more current examples ... even though they don't seem as "painted" as BG3. But it's all so vague and subjective, I don't think anyone really knows.

The 4 million Diablo fans hardly made up for the 20 million plus sold.
I am not a fan of Diablo 3. I did buy it and then hardly played it.

I am having problems with people going overboard and saying things like "Complete failure" or "Disaster"
The game did fine and sold enough copies to be on the top 3 of all times.

However, the "failure" of Diablo 3 was that Blizzard aimed for it to be a cash cow to be milked for many years. The intent was not for it to "just" be a single player game, but to be a "Game as a service". This part never took off and they had invested years into the whole concept.
As a friend pointed out, if they had focused on churning out a Diablo series of games instead, they would have made a lot more money.

I feel that Diablo 4 will be more in style with Diablo 2, but they will most likely push the side cash cow even more this time around.

Huh

I thought they meant that all the backgrounds assets where places by hand or something.
I mean, it is obviously assets that are used many many times in different places.

I don't think it refers to the style really. Would be the first time I see that.

Here I agree

From this thread, a few posts down on the first page.

#standingovation

Exactly.

There's not a single thing above I disagree with. There are only 2 games in this world i'd consider myself a fan of; Baldur's Gate and PS:T.
Planescape 2 was a disappointment for me because what I missed mostly was the atmosphere. Bought the game nevertheless because I knew from the start what I was getting and wanted to support the genre.

But this time i'm not "sad" disappointed, I'm furious! I was expecting a game that would feel familiar to its' predecessors. All i see is DOS.

Primary reasons are the artwork and the combat system which kinda effects a fair portion of game time..
And now thanks to Delicieuxz I'm learning that combat system apparently changed so they could attract new players(guess what's happening to some old ones?), can't risk changing what they've already done, and they believe "D&D is turn-based so Baldur's Gate should be turn-based too" is a logical argument.
What were Baldur's Gate 1 & 2 then? Have you ever tried playing D&D RTwP? No, because you can't. Well, in the actual Baldur's Gate you can.

Thank you, this was most helpful

It is really neat stuff how they did it. Obviously, digital painting back in 1998 was pixel dependent and not vectored like we can do today, but there is no reason why something as artful could not be accomplished today.

Pillars of Eternity actually does an incredible job of this in the Unity engine. They used the same technique by making expansive 2D backgrounds (just not as big as the maps in BG, sadly) and then populated them with 3d rendered objects. Pay very close attention to the Odema's Camp right at the beginning, you can see that it is a "showpiece" that received a lot of love and attention, not just because it is the first thing players see.

The environment is a flat, 2d planar map, but they have 3d rendered adra rocks and walls and characters. They use lighting to blend it all together. You can tell very well that the trees are painted then rendered. It is gorgeous.

He was speaking in general terms. As is almost always the case when describing the opinion of a group of hundreds of people.


He said there were people who didn't know Baldur's Gate, not 'the' people.
In any case, these statements do not conflict; it is entirely possible to love something now that you did not know about more than a year ago.

If you think a game is a huge success just because a lot people that loved the series bought the next installment...big sales dont make a good game

Same with BG3, jeah sure the game could make lots of money because of its IP - but that doesnt mean it will be a great game

The ONLY POINT Im trying to make with this thread is that BG3 needs to be DIFFERENT than DOS and SIMILAR to BG 1 and 2.

The PROBLEM is that the gameplay LOOKS as a DOS game not a BG game.

PERIOD.

How is it possible to pay tribute to that thing when you know little about it, and choose to eschew the things that made it what it was?

LOL, now even Larian in their new community update is giving excuses about the similiarity between DOS saying that the engine is only 30% DOS2, and that this engine 4.0 is being dubbed BG3 engine, when actually they are updating the DOS2 engine.

There is NOTHING wrong with that, but Larian really needs to stop, think and execute a game that is not DOS anymore...they have to say bye bye DOS and hello BG3, change their art style, visuals, set a darker tone, and look to things that BG1 and 2 did good and IMPROVE ON THAT --- not improve on the things DOS2 did good because then it would be a DOS3 game.

I am going to ignore your last part about DOS vs BG since that had nothing to do with my post.

And I feel like I already explained what actually made Diablo 3 a success and what made it a "failure". Neither had anything to do with the original fans.

I know what your point is about DOS and BG, and I think it isn't really worth exploring.

Personally, whether it's a real BG3 or a DoS3, I just don't care. Either way, it's gonna be a good game. And that's all that matters to me.

Wel thats sad. You young gamers today, you would play anything served on your plate.

ITT: disingenuous nonsense

You made a wrong assumption here. Too bad for you.

As a matter of fact, I played the first BG when it came out and all its sequels afterwards. But maybe you have to understand some players are not bond to nostalgia and prefer to enjoy a good game rather than crying on the fact its mechanics are not the same anymore. And as a long time backer for Larian Studios, I know I will be playing a very good game when BG3 is out.

Well quite. I played Pong back in the 1970s; I thought it was pants then and I have the same opinion now! I do have nostalgia-goggles for some games but I've revisited enough of them to accept that, for me at least, times move on.

But BG2 is still an awesome game, in some points unreached until now. That's not just nostalgia.

So are a number of titles I played, particularly in my Third Gaming Phase; but that was then and while they have a lot of strengths, they were of their time. While there are elements I'd love to see again, I dunno if I'd really be that entertained with a more modern clone: once the novelty wore off I think there'd be a risk of feeling all btdt.

There's a whole bunch of IE rip off games, from PoE to Pathfinder to Tyranny to that new Torment game. The market is saturated, there's really no sense in making one more modernized IE rip off.

To those who think this game should not be called Baldurs Gate 3:

I have some alternatives
- Baldurs Gate: The DIVINITYve Edition
- Divinity Original Sin: The Gate of Baldur
- Day of the Tentacle 2: Invasion of the Brain Eaters

I am really looking forward to this game.
I have played and enjoyed old games like BG1+2 and I have played and enjoyed new games like Disco Elysium.
And I do NOT care how the game is called (hint: Baldurs Gate 3) or if it looks like a 20 year old game (hint: it does not) as long as I enjoy playing it.

I feel like games quality has largely dropped since 2010, in favour of technology.

Well what kind of games do you like from back then? Because to me, the rise of indie gaming means we have bot hold school titles and big budget titles, as opposed to 10-20 years back when AAA games were on the level of indie games now.

As far as RPG's go, I think we're in a new golden age, first one being the early 90s with gold box, second being Black Isle / Interplay period and now third with a myriad of indie developers as well as AAA studios making great RPG's.

Not to mention the huge amount of awesome strategy games (Rimworld, Banished etc.), survival games or even roguelikes. If you can't find anything to play in the year 2020, maybe you're just not that interested in playing anymore?

Did you change topics from what you quoted? I fail to see how individual people not liking particular elements of the original games (which I assume this is a reference to) means the entire team can not make a suitable game. Especially since, as I stated, some BG1&2 fans share the same opinions.
For what you quoted, with a junior environmental artist asked to make a tree, with or without knowing about a game released before they were born (when the internal announcement was made), it makes no difference to the tree.

I really don't agree with a third "golden age" because I think there are not many games we'll still play/talk/remember as a legendary experience in 20 years.
That's not equal as saying there are no good game at the moment of course.

I think the main problem is the way video game industry has evolved.
Now, games to be "succesfull" has to sell millions of copy. I think It's usualy less about passion and amazing/unique video games experience (many "... -like" , same receipe and mecanics that comes again and again),...but more about money.
Just look to the amount of money they spend in marketing, this is just amazing. Video games is now one of the biggest industry in the world.

I'm really convince if Larian's was so sucessfull with DoS 1 and DoS 2, it's bacause they were a "little" studio, that had to use crowdfunding to create 2 games with so much passion. They took their time to create their own receipe and this receipe clearly works.
They showed passion can still match with the industry.

II really think they're slowly moving from passion to money now they are more confident, such many others before them.

That's a reason why I'm not confident anymore with BG3 in their hands, but this is opinion and personnal analyses, certainly not a way to open another useless discussion.

Hah, you know what they say about predicting the future. There are two types of predictions, lucky or wrong.



I take it that you don't play indie games? I suggest looking into games by Obsidian as well as Atom RPG, Pathfinder and other indie RPG's.

As many here, you're really boring playing on every words.
I add a "I think", so you can just stop answering to say nothing...

And guess what ? Owlcat HAS to convince fans (passion needed) BEFORE creating ther games, such Obsidian before Microsoft enter the game...
Don't create me a life because you know nothing about me and games I'm playing...

To be fair, people weren't really playing Baldur's Gate before they got re-released. Well I was, but modding the games to run like EE's was a pain in the ass. BGTUTU for example, it took so much tinkering that your average gamer had no interest in. So I guess whether current RPG's will be played in 20 years or not depends on if they'll be kept alive by updating and possibly re-releasing them.

And you're again talking about you as "poeple".
Lot's of people still played BG before EE exists... And lots of people still plays the original games even if the EE exists...
Maybe you don't, but that's not why it isn't true.

On the other hand I can absolutely agree than some players re-discover (or discover) the game with EE.

Not that many as it was out of print. You could only get it illegally from torrent sites for a long time, and BG1 especially wasn't a good experience due to its outdated engine. Sure now it's easy, just buy it from GOG for ten bucks and you can choose which version you want.

Ok you're right again if it pleasures you.
It's just impossible to speak with someone like you...

I'm just stating simple facts my friend. Re-releasing a game naturally gets new players playing it. Did you actually play the games on a modern computer pre-EE's? Modding BG1 to play on the BG2 engine + wide screen support was a pain in the ass.