Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General BG3, DOS and the D&D rule-set

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in this case "sequel" only means a continuation of the saga. Though there should be nods to the lore in BG3 to tie them together but that has yet to be seen. We will as they either preview it or we see it ourselves in the game. Gameplay technology is going to naturally evolved between BG1 and BG3 and I welcome it.

I'm just gonna play the damn game

From interviews I remember some hints that there will be some connection to previous titles beyond using the same location for the setting.

We already know "Volo" is in the game. Maybe we would see some other iconic characters too.

Skyrim is a "sequel" to oblivion but doesn't have much to do with oblivion other than the setting. Different story, different game mechanics. But its still a great game.

If you say so. Never managed get into either of them.

Not sure it's really a sequel, just another game set in the same world that makes reference to previous events - the Red Mountain and migration of Dunmer to Skyrim, High Elf-Human war etc.

And I think that is where BG3, by specifically referencing a previous title rather than just the Forgotten Realms, needs to have a more concrete story or character link. Non-humans from BG1/2 can just turn up ( and as we have the Underdark, Drizz't and Viconia have an excuse for appearing, for example ), while Humans seem to have survived the commercial disaster of 4e/Eberron by being petrified ( Minsc/Boo ) or the imprisonment spell ( Volo ). Maybe BG1/2 characters whose subsequent history is unpublished will also appear. There will definitely be more than just Volo.

PSA: when you accuse someone of being disingenuous you are claiming that they are being insincere, either by intentionally lying or omitting relevant information. It isn’t just something you say when you disagree with someone.

Sequel can mean lots of different things in games. Some sequels continue a story or even just a setting and a premise but are in different genres. Resident Evil 4, Gand Theft Auto 3, Red Dead Redemption, Fallout 3, and Metal Gear Solid are all mechanically as different from their predecessors as Baldur’s Gate 3 is to BG1 and 2. I think whether or not you consider these proper sequels is irrelevant to the question of whether or not BG3 should be titled as it is. There is plenty of precedent in video games for this. It’s not anything new.

I am fully aware of that, and that's intended. It is not however, directed at the poster, but at the idea itself. If a game wants to benefit from all positive things that come from using an existing IP, it would be disingenuous of it to demand for players to approach it without expectations. "With great IP, come preconceived notions"

[EDIT: After some research perhaps the word I was looking for was hypocritical]

I don't think anyone questions WoC and Larian legal basis for naming their upcoming game "BG3". They can call it Planescape Torment2 - it's their IP, they can do whatever they want. Whenver, BG3 fulfills expectations is of course subjective. In my personal estimate Fallout3 is not really a fallout game, but New Vegas very much is. It is important to me, because I like Fallout1&2, NV, and I was bored to death by Fallout3. And that's really good analogy, because if BG3 is like D:OS2 I might be equally unengaged by a "sequel" to one of my favourite games... or maybe I will like it for different reasons then BG1&2. Time will tell.

I understand you want the new game to have strong ties to a game and a story you like, but to be fair games where you are playing the same main character and takes place at roughly the same time of past games and somewhat continues the same story are a rarity. There are few great exceptions, like Mass effect, Gothic, the witcher or POE games.

In most subsequent installments of the same franchise the game advances in time, in place, 95% of the games have a different MC; takes place in another world, or the new game tells the story of other people in the same events that takes place in the other games (Like in valkyria chronicles, where you play different squads fighting in the same war)
But the usual is that the new game takes place many years before with different characters and setting, like in KOTOR and KOTOR2, in the same world but in different locations without much ties to the original story, like in fallout, fo3, fNV or FO4; in other city and other time with different characters, like GTA games; In other galaxy like Mass Effect-Mass effect Andromeda; in the same world but in other place many years later like TES games; in a new setting like FFgames; 50 years before the previous game like in drakensang and drakensang TROT; In different kingdoms of the world at a later time with distinct factions at war, like Suikoden and Fire Emblem games; same place but years later with different story and enemies like NWN or IWD franchises; in a complete alternate reality like Fate games,...


Sometimes you met a few of the people you met in the past games or visit some common places, but they rarely have a huge impact in subsequent installments of the same franchise. If the game takes place a century later, with the previous crisis already resolved, you can expect the world has changed. It´s the usual.

I understand BG is a legendary IP that deserves a great game, but I do not think its fair to impose unrealistic expectations about the new game.

I don't think anyone is actually saying you can't have expectations for the game. I think they have big expectations in reality. I think most of them expect great characters, a rather excellent story, a great world. These were the things that made BG1/2 great, at least for me. It wasn't the specific story or characters, but how well they were made. I expect this same level of world building from Larian, and I think that's fair. However, I don't expect the same exact characters and story basis, that seems rather restricting.

Oh don’t get me wrong. My disagreement is purely ideological. I definitely don’t want anyone to touch BG saga. I think it would be very difficult to try to recreate style of those games. Didn’t play Dragonspeare but I hear it didn’t work out so well. Bhaalspawn saga is finished and let it sleep. I had not interest in BG3, and Larian being revealed as people who make it actually got my curiosity.

BG3 as it is being made is the one I can get behind (or rather remain fairly indifferent about until I won’t be able to say I am fan of BG games without adding a lengthy clarification regarding my respect and lack of interest in Larian multiplayer RPG design) , because from what I have seen it’s Larian DND RPG, not attempt to dig out BG out of its grave. Which is fine.

But claiming that one shouldn’t criticise BG3 based on expectations they took on themselves is ridiculous IMO.

See Obsidian. They did PoE1&2, now they are doing Avowed, in the same universe. Avowed is not called PoE3, not even PoE: Avowed. Therefore, I have no expectations as to what Avowed will be.

That makes sense.

Well, If they make an EA I think they´re interested in receive all the criticism possible prior to the final installment of the game, so they can fix things.

Exactly, that sums up everything.

My main criticism is that they cleared created BG3 from the mechanics of DOS2, instead of reinventing the game or at least using the mechanics of the prior game as a source. It is understandable that is logic and easier, but a game that carries the name of BG should be thought from ground zero.

CP 2077 has absolutely no resemblance to Witcher series. Of course they are different styles, but CD Projetk could have done the same as Bethesda that cleared used Elders Scrolls as a source for Fallout 3.

I would prefer the CD Projekt's approach rather than Bethesda's. Not that BG3 will not be a great game, but so far I see many of the limitations of DOS2 carried over to BG3.

What do you mean they created BG3 from the mechanics of DOS2? Skills aren't on cooldowns, instead of action points there are separate things of movement, actions, bonus actions, reactions, readying am action, help. Instead of classless characters it's now a rather strict class system. Levels unlock skills and features rather than buying skillbooks. Only the wizard has an interest in "skillbooks," and a rather specific group of warlocks. Shadows now play an important part of stealth. Instead of things being pretty strict and predictable, especially persuasion, almost everything is based off of chance now. BG3 also had verticality now. The only similar mechanics are it's turn based, which isn't a new idea by Larian, weapons have a skill that comes with them, and a cone of sight is important to stealth. Mechanics-wise, I think they are very different games.

In this age of a thousand streamers and Let's Players nobody has to play anything.

I hate beating a dead horse, by my personal concern is Larian’s coop-centric design. Due to personal preferences I don’t mind at all BG3 being turn-based, but that is not that I didn’t like in D:OS2. I didn’t like the quest design, map design, narrative design, weak companions and constant feeling like I am playing a multiplayer game by myself. One can easily point out to similarities between D:OS2 and BG3, like a origins, which for now I don’t like as a concept.

That said, gameplay they showed did raise my interest, and does seem like a promising improvement.

Also in mechanics I didn't even touch on armor, saving throws, or the rather big change in status effects, mainly that knockdown doesn't cheese your way through combat anymore.

Fair enough. I wasn’t talking about a legal precedent, though. Just the convention of precedent. There are lots of sequels in video games that are very different from previous entries. That being said, the comment that started this wasn’t suggesting that we should not expect any resemblances between BG3 and the older games; just that we should judge BG3 on its own merits, and I agree that this is a good way to approach all games.

Yes, similar. I tried many of the cRPG "revival" games, assuming that the state of the art in cRPG design would have significantly advanced over 20 years. Most (including D:OS) were disappointing, for a variety of reasons.

At least BG3 looks, in many areas, to be making the sort of progress I expected of a new generation of cRPG. But the tension between good SP design and good MP design is still there.

Very well-said. I agree completely. Wish this forum came with "like"/"agree" buttons.

Yes, precisely. Even if I do decide to try this game, it will be some years down the road when the price is right in correspondence with a combat system I will hate. But that doesn't mean I cannot critique the game in the present based on information I can readily access from various sources.

Again, I couldn't agree more. And this concern I share, about the game's systems being designed for MP firstly and SP only secondarily is my #1 concern about the game.