Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Swen On Fan Expectations For Baldur's Gate 3

Yes a VERY good choice ... if your goal is to falsely lure people to your game.

Also, Fallout 3 was made by the same company that made Fallout 1 and 2, and that company never said they were making Fallout 3 as a game that completely ignored the legacy of the first two games. Furthermore, nothing I've said has anything to do with BG not being a "direct continuation" of the first two games. Nobody expects any version of BG3 to be a direct continuation of the first two games because that story is over. I am speaking of BG3 being made in the same spirit as the first two games, i.e. new story, new characters, new timeline, but where someone who played the first two games would find the third game to be familiar in how it plays. So you are creating a strawman here.

So, what are you saying then? I'd still argue the same point as Raze. Plenty of franchises have continuations in their title, when the first story is even completely finished. All of this sounds like a personal opinion/expectation, and you want everyone to have the same opinion as you.

It's a '3' because it adds more to that universe, bringing in more stories to the fold. I really don't see why, what or where your upset is coming from.

Of all the franchises Raze could have picked he went with Fallout.
I would have taken Final Fantasy or Dragon Quest for example instead as both drive his point home more closely.
In all seriousness, Fallout's fandom are slightly divided in that one side of the aisle believes 1, 2 and New Vegas are true Fallouts and superior to 3 and 4 in terms of writing and exploration whereas the other is more likely to have been introduced to the series via 3. I would not recommend that Baldur's Gate go down this path.

The reason some people are upset on here is because there have been statements to the effect that fan expectations are "soaring through to the roof" (made without due clarification), that Swen wants to do his own thing yada yada and because next to nothing has been shown of BG3 since.. uh, June? If WoTC is trying to pull a bait-and-switch here with a product called BG3 that has absolutely nothing to do with the previous games (by the way ToB was supposed to be BG3 if I'm not mistaken so there you have it, three mainline titles that revolve around Bhaal and the Bhaalspawn) I think I have the right to know as a prospective customer. It is also my duty to let everyone know what is going on in that case. If it's meant to be a clean break then do a reboot and call it Baldur's Gate instead. This isn't about making a direct sequel to the Bhaalspawn story but whether the legacy of the previous games will be honored as far as lore, history, writing etc.



Alright, can I take you word at face value? Are you affiliated with Larian in any official capacity?

Classic strawman.

My main stance here is that it seems like a waste of breath to overthink or worry about something that we simply don't know yet and get upset about that. There are of course scenarios and exceptions where that can be tangibly warranted (see SW: Rise of Skywalker concerns based on fans disappointment from Last Jedi and Disney's management of Star Wars as a whole), so that worry can stem from past experiences. The only way I can see this thread becoming relevant is if solely based on Swen's statement, of which this thread furthers to back up. People have expectations, and they make forum threads overbuilding themselves with what they personally want and expect from gameplay, story directions, titling of games, relevance to past games, etc. And there's much of it, hence "Impossible to meet expectations that are soaring through the roof".

Because, as you said, we haven't seen much of anything since the initial teaser. So there's not much to reasonably build expectations by, other than knowing something is in the works and we all hope it'll be good.

Okay, Mr. Nordmann, are you a spokesman for Larian? If not, I don't see any way this is going to be defused unless the man who recently assumed a belligerent stance towards fans the series owes its success to confirms your version is exactly what he meant. There are quite a few things attributable to PR-speak: 1) insincerity, 2) feigning ignorance, 3) whataboutism.

How is it a straw man tactic, @Kanisatha? Assuming we work under the same definitions, to pull a straw man in an argument, I would take your argument and distort it in a misrepresentable way to manipulate it into working in the favor of my argument. Do we agree on that?

If so, going back to calling my post 'classic strawman', at which point have I taken someone's argument and distorted it in a misrepresentable way? Or are you perhaps trolling?

@Korotama - No, I'm not. I'm asking you to clarify and back up your thread as OP, because I'm a discussion participant that fundamentally disagrees with you, and want you to clarify and back up your argument, as you originally demand Swen to. I've provided you with replies on what I believe and more importantly, why I believe you're in the wrong. Now it is your turn to either further build on your opinion to help me understand what you try to say, or go into personal arguments as individuals. I personally think only one of those possibilities are in any way productive.

I understand your plight. I'm going to give you a quick rundown:
1) Baldur's Gate 3 is announced
2) Fans rejoice
3) Larian gets to make it
4) Cinematic trailer is released
5) Interviews revealing some game mechanics and design choices are given
6) Fans make threads speculating about possible features and begging for new info
7) Swen implies fans are being unreasonable and that he's striking out on his own
We are here -> 8) Requests for clarification go unanswered

I may have got the exact sequence of events wrong but I assure you I am acting in good faith and want to help "spread the words" as Swen puts it in that interview. If I don't know whether series veterans like me will enjoy BG3 how is asking for such a favor fair to me as a fan?

Here is verbatim what you said: "Plenty of franchises have continuations in their title, when the first story is even completely finished ...." "It's a '3' because it adds more to that universe, bringing in more stories to the fold."

Nothing in here has anything whatsoever to do with what I am saying. So yes, you are deliberately misrepresenting what I am saying to satisfy your counter-argument. Hence, strawman.

@ Korotama - Please read again with extra focus on the bit where that question is directed at Kanisatha in regards to his comment on my post being a straw man tactic. I am not calling you a troll.

I am fully aware of your stance, I just happen to disagree with it. I disagree with that there is a need for clarification, and believe that you've read too much into something that isn't there and decided to have opinions on it. Which is fine, but so is me disagreeing with it.

So, to strongly emphasize on the following being my personal interpretation and opinion on things:

I fear that 'veteran fans' will place their personal wishes and expectaitons in place up front of actually knowing what to expect. They will speculate and try to articulate their ideas, which also is fine. A select few will turn those wishes into demands, which is where I believe Swen's comment comes into place. If you've ever published anything at all on the internet, whether it be a YouTube video, a forum thread, a game, a short story, you can't please everyone. There will always be someone that doesn't like it, or disagrees with you, etc. Swen, like any creative human being out there, particularly experience, will know that 'veteran fans' are more prone to hype themselves up and raise their own individual ceilings of expectations so high, that as a developer, those are impossible to meet. So the smartest course of action is to not strive to please those, and rather make your own thing from what you believe will work best, and hope that it is enjoyed by most people. That's all this comment expresses in my opinion. It's not an attack on fans, it's not "striking out", it's just a reply to a question from an interviewer expressing what is a common stance for any creative production out there, particularly if having a pre-existing fan-base.

I think that this thread is pointless, and only serves to prove said comment that you wish for a clarification on, as it has now gone into speculation and ideas that goes ahead of itself, based on things we don't know yet. I also think that because of that, all this is, is a disservice to yourself and to cause yourself a headache where there's no real cause to do so. It's a non-issue that's blown up from what I can tell.

Literally all we know at this point, is that Mindflayers will be in focus, and Larian is working in conjunction with WoTC to make it. We don't know much more other than a few comments through interviews, and that Larian is doing what they believe is the right choice for the game and with their flavor on it.

So the TL;DR is that I think it's way too early to speculate and make expectations at all, at least on things we simply don't know yet. Doing so, in my opinion, is just a disservice to one self. Some people take this (arguably bad) habit and gets way ahead of themselves and sometimes end up in a negative mindset prematurely to having any reason to be so, and I believe that's what Swen means, that certain fans fall into this trap and potentially ruin their experience before there's even anything to experience.



Absolutely. We're all curious if we're going to enjoy BG3. So far, Mindflayer fans can be excited. We don't know too much else beyond that. That's why we're eagerly awaiting more info. Though, no one can ever tell you if you're going to enjoy something in advance. So even if Swen were to drop by and leave you a comment to clarify, I'm not sure if it would actually clarify anything, and he certainly wouldn't be able to tell you whether or not if you as a veteran fan of the series will enjoy BG3. In fact, I'd rather be concerned if anyone did promise that.




-----------------

@Kanisatha - I'm inclined to disagree. In order to misrepresent what you say, I have to in some fashion repeat what you've said, or quote snippets of it to serve my argument. I'd like to ask you in specific quotes of how, where and when I've done any straw man'ing against you. On that subject, let me actually quote a post from you.




Now, I've taken the liberty to make the part I wish to comment on from you in bold. You're (from what I understand), saying that "Swen has explicitly said he is making a new game as he wants to make it without any regard for how the first two games were done", yet in the very article cited in OP's post, Swen says this:



Is he not saying the exact opposite there, in comparison to what you're claiming he said? Is this not hyperbolic, or perhaps a bit of a strawman? To further elaborate on this:



If they do not care about previous installments of the series, why would they talk with previous developers about how they made the previous games. It would almost sound like as if they're interested in trying to do their best in giving the game as best service and attention as they can? At least I think so.

So, please tell me.

1) How is it strawman? Use quotes. Point out specifics for me and help me understand, please.
2) Can you please share a reference to where Swen have explicitly said he is making a new game as he wants to make it without any regard for how the first two games were done? Preferably with a link to your source.

Id like to know the opinion of everyone on Torment: tides of numenera when it comes to "carrying the title"
Considering thats a completley different universe, different premise, different system and nobody seems to have complained

Fallout's a strange one. FO3 was panned before it was even released; and even today, the virtually identical NV is touted as its polar opposite in terms of "Teh Narrative" etc. When some people pointed out it was basically the same, it was "yeah, but Obsidian were forced to do it Bethsoft's way" and now The Outer Worlds has, erm, landed (which is awesome, btw) it seems that given the choice, Obsidian have made a game that feels just like a Bethsoft one. er anyway. I guess I my point if there is one is to not get too hung up on the execution. To look at it another way, as I've frequently stated, I am Not A Fanâ„¢ of isometric turn-based, for example, but absolutely had a blast with DOS and DOS2. Ultimately it didn't matter that much, it's the game as a complete package that counts IMHO.

@Kanisatha



I just noticed/realized, it's actually kind of funny even. How can I deliberately misrepresent what you're saying, if what I'm saying has nothing whatsoever to do with what you're saying? Even if we'd ignore that kind of funny flaw in what I'm sure was just a comedic miswording, I do that all the time too, I still fail to see how it's misrepresenting anything. I can't really see any point in the quote of my post, where I'm even trying to represent anything you've said. And if I haven't tried to represent it, it's technically impossible to misrepresent it. Which is why I asked for some specific quotes and explanations in my earlier post, to help me see exactly how you think I've deliberately misrepresented you. If anything, the initial post you suggested was straw man, is more a comment in agreement of what Raze said.

For real though, are you trolling?

I have no problems with Baldur's Gate III being titled as such and carrying on the series. In fact, it gets me very excited. I think it's a good way to go - providing it's actually Baldur's Gate III and not a D:OS reskin.

However, regarding Torment: Tides of Numenera, the Steam store rating was at Mixed for a a very long time after its release and the game had disappointing sales, showing that people did have some complaints. In fact, there were a lot of complaints. I backed Tides of Numenera on Kickstarter and followed its development and release. People anticipating an indirect sequel to PS:T were very disappointed with it and the criticisms were many. The Steam score for Tides of Numenera only recently passed 70% turning it into a Mostly Positive rating recently.

By the way, one of the big things Tides of Numenera changed that people didn't like is the combat from RTwP to TB. Stuff like that which is fundamental to a series' identity and is responsible for its success and popularity shouldn't be changed - or, otherwise, if it is, the new game should be made its own thing and not a part of the same series.

Torment: Tides of Numenera isn't a direct continuation of PS:T and InXile didn't have the Planescape license and so the game couldn't be in the same universe or have the same lore. It's use of "Torment" in the title isn't really to carry on the brand and it isn't a part of the same series as PS:T. But, it was considered by InXile to be a sort of spiritual successor to PS:T (clearly, InXile meant regarding the philosophical and surreal aspects and not the combat) and that was meant to be conveyed by including "Torment" in the title.

Tides of Numenera is a pretty different game than PS:T and I can see why it didn't satisfy a lot of PS:T's fans, leading to poor reviews and low sales. But, I think that it's a fantastic game on its own and I wish there'd be a sequel to it (though I suspect that's unlikely) or that we'd get more games from the Numenera realm. Maybe it just shouldn't have been billed as a spiritual successor to PS:T and then it would have performed better in sales.

Aren't there forum rules against claiming someone is trolling? Anyway, it certainly crosses a line with me so I'm done with you.

There's not.

Also, I'm not claiming anything. I'm asking you. Wait... Aren't you doing a classic straw man right now?

Not specifically, but it does seem to be a good time to remind everybody to keep things good-natured and friendly, thanks.

Also not the case for BG3, as pointed out above, with the rest of Swen's quote.



Not knowing why you think '3' is unethical doesn't make it a strawman argument. I made a point about numbered series, in reference to a general phenomenon, to a comment about numbers vs subtitles. With no reason given there, and none previously that I recall (I didn't reread the earlier posts to check), I couldn't have misrepresented your argument if I had wanted to.




No, and asking someone if they are trolling is not an accusation.
You've made worse implications in this topic than just questioning whether someone believes what they are posting, or not.





That was a factual answer to a question about the highest expectations, and nobody has argued that there are no unreasonable expectations, so I'm not sure why any clarification is required.



I know. I didn't claim it was, though people have made that argument against using a 3 in the name elsewhere.



That is much easier to show than tell, especially since everyone has their own opinion about what honouring / respecting the D&D setting and earlier games means.

There will be more information released about the game 'soon', and people will be able to judge that for themselves.

But that game was not carrying any title from a previous game. "Planescape: Torment" and "Torment: Tides of Numenera" are literally two completely separate titles. If T:ToN had instead been titled "Planescape: Torment II" (and assuming WotC allowed this), you can bet anything there would've been a firestorm of anger and protest.

A firestorm of anger and protest?
lol, You are realising you are talking about an indie RPG?
Only a few nerds care about that or BG 3 being named Baldurs Gate 3.