Hey there, i will start by saying that i am an avid and pretty much die hard fan of your work , I have played and finished Divine Divinity when i was much younger , finished Divinity 2 , only played a little Ego Draconis , never touched Dragon Commander to be honest..it really wasn't for me , and i played and finished Original Sin 1 , currently i am still playing and only just left Fort Joy in OS2 ( i know i'm abit late but i will explain in this post why it took me long to get started with it)

I have also played and finished all Baldur's gate and Icewind dales multiple times (and also both Pillars of Eternity) so before i go on with my rant , i just wanted to display my love for both genres and both your games and the old DnD style games , as this concern is coming from a place of love towards this genre.

The reason why i started Divinity OS2 very late and did so only because i kept and keep hearing praises towards many aspects (most of all the story line and continuity which you have molded throughout the Divinity games) was because of the combat system (i know you saw this coming :P )

Turn based combat , in my honest opinion , was ONLY good and worked for strategy games like Heroes of Might and Magic and Disciples game series...it did not appeal to me the slightest in Original sin 1 , but i bought the game and i felt obligated in a way to see it through to the end. I am enjoying OS2 since the combat is much more polished and the other aspects like storyline and voice acting etc etc etc are also better than the previous game.

After the announcement that YOU guys were going to develop BG3 i was extremely excited , since good dialogue and storyline and world building has always been you're strongest attributes..but..i hoped to all the gods both new and old , that you will make the combat system similar to what Pillars of Eternity did ( not exactly the same , indeed you have your freedom to experiment) but i just wanted the whole turn based concept to go away...but after the gameplay trailer , i can safely say it was like a dagger to my testicles , after hoping for a sequel for this game for almost 2 decades..to see that it's basically Original Sin game with Forgotten Realms lore and using a modified 5th edition of the D&D ruleset to fit the game..but man , this does not feel right at all , i'm aware that development is too far to change anything , but this is a pretty common concern among some of your fanbase..i just wanted to voice my concern and maybe get everyone else's opinion , i will most likely still buy the game and play it for the continuity...but it just won't have the same soul to it.

Kind Regards.

My two cents, this is everything that I didn't want for BG III. BG I & II were not turn based games and III shouldn't have been either. I will not be buying this and no folks you will not change my mind. I'm not here for a debate, just to make a statement.

I saw people complaining about not having fog of war , or the layout of the UI being almost like OS2 or not having the oldschool isometric view (like Pillars of Eternity).....I CAN live with all of thoese , but not the combat system...i'll throw out an example , let's say the game without turn based takes 100 hours to complete, with turn based it increases to 150-200 for literally no damn reason , basically wasting my time for NO REASON , im not mentally handicapped , i don't need turn based , i can function at a normal pace and make decisions quickly..i know i'm being a little mean at the end , but god my dissapointment is too strong...i wanna play a game with normal combat..not god damn chess..............

I just agree. BG 3 without RT-COMBAT is not good. And it looks like a DOS 2 RIPOFF.

I stopped watching the demo when I lerend the fog of war was still broken... you can actually see through walls and over doors... not worth my time.

combat looked totally fine lack of fog of war though makes the game a joke.

I believe RT-combat is a mistake because this is D&D not Diablo. Although I do disagree with the way the turn based combat is executed. Why is it your team vs enemy team as a whole. Why is it not individual-based like in actual D&D? Who made that decision? Was it a single person? A group of people? Have they ever played D&D?

I do not know if they played D&D but I am pretty sure they played XCOM...

It just doesn't work for me man...it doesn't feel right to go afk for 1-2 minutes everytime your enemies turn starts, in OS2 the scarecrow battle took me 15-20 minutes , like that's just garbage...there's so much wonderful dialogue ,reading and lore and books to read and things to do and experiment...i don't want to spend so much time waiting for characters to finish animations , and it's awkward to watch them staring at each other while the next NPC/Character finishes his turn. At least have an option that will speed up animations so i can get through the waiting times in a more tolerable manner.

Edit: I have edited this comment since i did not formulate correctly what i wanted to say the first time

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it, but I´ve never seen a non competitive TB game that you have to wait for your turn so long as you`ve said.

Literally the worst part of Baldur's Gate is the combat system. It is objectively inferior when it comes to DnD implementation.
The move to TB is logical because it allows the game to actually use the license that they have access to. This is coming from someone who still own the original big box versions of the BG series I purchased 2 decades ago, and owns every version of the games released, including platforms I do not own (Xbox).

You are complaining about having to actually play the game, so as far as I can see you don't actually like old school RPGs. The fact you even complain about the amount of lore the games contain seems to indicate that you should look at different gaming experiences, as this does not look like your wheelhouse at all.

I think it kinda misfired...
It looks too similar to DOS, plays too similar, had bugs and missing features from the tabletop. Hope this is far away from beta.

Yeah, I'm a big fan of BG, I played the second in particular something like ten times or so, from start to finish.
I still think the combat being real time was the most glaring flaw of the game, despise having some damn good encounter design to ALMOST make up for it.

Conversely, I liked a lot of the two Orginal Sin, but hwat I hated the most about them was their half-assed ruleset/progression system and the horrendous randomized itemization.
This automatically addresses both (at least to some extent) even just by merely being based on D&D.

No matter how I look at it, this is a win/win for me.

THAT SAID, I really think they should work on giving the UI and camera a more distinctive look and separate identity over the OS series.

I don't think it's too late to change. As Sven says in a recent interview, they want to get feedback on the game and D:OS1 turned out to be a very different game after its early access period than it was when when it went into early access.


But if Larian don't change the game to RTwP or add RTwP as an option equal to TB, then they should change the name of the game. Because this isn't a Baldur's Gate 3 and it is disrespectful of the fans of the Baldur's Gate series who have waited decades for a sequel to pretend that this is the game they've been waiting for. Calling this BG3 is indeed wrong and It shows a lack of integrity.

Sorry but i may i have made a grammatical error in my statement , as english is not my main language , what i meant to say was that i enjoy and love the "long dialogue ,reading and lore and books to read and things to do and experiment" which is enough time invested , i do not want invest my time in the combat just to watch animations play out separately for each enemy/character , still really not my thing , i would invest my time in a combat system that would not make me fall asleep...you can say whatever you want about the combat system being "appropriate" for the genre , but it's basically chess , only less entertaining:P

I have talked with a lot of BG series fans and everyone was worried that it might be a DoS clone.... I hoped it wont be but...
Thank you Larian studios for ruining the hopes of thousands, I hope your studio will go bankrupt or something.

I agree wholeheartedly of implementing both combat systems which you can change in the options , or make it a permanent choice per character start , but a choice nonetheless..and this will satisfy both camps , because at the moment , the game has heavily divided the fanbase between the ones that want Turn based , and the ones that want real time...why not both eh:)?

You can like whatever you want, but I sincerely wish you could stop talking as if you were the bannerman for all the old school Baldur's Gate fans out there.
You surely aren't speaking for me, as the ditching of RTWP for turn-based is something I always wished for the series.

In the same way I always loved Space Rangers 2 but I sure as fuck wouldn't want the RTS sections back in a sequel and I would gladly replace them with something else (i.e XCOM-like combat would be neat).

P.S. "implementing both combat systems" is a terrible idea that could easily turn out to be a half-assed hybrid and the worst of both worlds.

I don't think the turn based combat is that big of an issue. Both DOS turned out fantastic and there are some features of the tabletop that can be better implemented through TB such as surprise, which was present in the reveal.
The problem is that it looks like a DOS mod, both grafically and gameplay wise.
Also if they are going TB I hope they make a perfect translation from tabletop to PC, which is not viable using RTwP. However there seemed to be a LOT of stuff missing, including race features.

POE2 turned out fine. TB just takes too long because of the size of mobs. But in DOS and probably in BG3 there are less enemies.

100% this, RTwP simply sucks!

From what i'm seeing via youtube chat stream ,comments and forum posts and also twitter , there's like 65% of people who want it to be real time and about 35% who want it turn based , people who want it real time are 95% people who played the BG/Icewind Dale series , and 95% of the people who want it turn based are people who played the Original Sin games and liked them , not Baldur's gate , all i say is for the devs to find a way to satisfy both , and having a real time option added to the game would fix thing , it's not making it a broken hybrid like some above comments mention , it will obviously be played different , but it's better than splitting the fan base and disappointing more people by making it turn based , compared to real time , or vice versa.

It is called "Side Initiative". It is a variant of the initiative on page 270 of the DMG.

I have edited my comment since i have written while a bit frustrated and it did not explain properly what i wanted to say and i apologize for that.

I am sorry, I somehow quoted the wrong post. It was this one I should have quoted and the Side Initiative was to answer the blue question..

Please stop bringing up this subject in so many threads. You have already started multiple topics about this subject, you have made your point.

I just saw the first few minutes of the gameplay video (missed the live event, because I was playing Starbound with friends) and I'm so disappointed.

As the game is now, it will end up being a fiasco like "Sword Coast Legends", we all know how dissapointing that shitshow was, because of how they tackled the DnD 5e ruleset.
While BG3 looks amazing, it does the exact same thing. At the moment it looks like a Divine Divinity Clone set in a Faerûn, I (and I think most other people who care about the BG-Legacy) DO NOT want this.

What we want is:
- A "True" DnD 5e Experience
- Real-Time combat with Pause Function
- ALL the spells (and I do mean ALL spells)
- Preparing Spells for spell-casters
- Spell Slots that go away making you a useless wizard if you're not carefull.
- Correct Character Stats
- a BORING fighter with zero to no buttons to press

I really hope that someone from Larian reads this post and stops the train in the direction it is moving. While you guys do an amazing job storytelling, it's time to tell WotC that fans don't want a simpleton-RPG, we want our good ol' friend BG back.

PoE2 is a perfect example of why a second combat system added as an afterthought works poorly,

"I want a true D&D 5th Edition experience!".

*Proceeds to list a series of arbitrary changes that are not part of a true D&D 5th Edition experience*

you forgot the "" around true

and that list is correct for me, for the "real thing" I'll just do tabletop instead

Spell slots are in the game!

Get dabbed on RTWBabies

No the game isnt gonna bomb.
Seriously butthrut Boomers arent a big enaugh demographic.

That beeing said, im surprised by how much like OS2 it looks. Obviously lots of thigns are placeholder that literaly use OS2 assets, btu the world design looks very simmilar, which i guess can be boiled down to "Larians artstyle".
but yeah, i guess right now the coolest thing swere "throwing stuff" and "climbing".
Certainly an uphill battle to get me be hyper excited, the expensive CGI certainly made me expect more of a tripple A foray rather than a direct evolution of the previous games.

But eh, still looks good

Not a boomer and also wanted RtwP - despite clearly knowing it wouldn't happen.

I think Larian actually looks for feedback, so they might give you an option do play RTwP like in POE2. What I expect though is that they make the game exactly as the tabletop if it is going to be TB, and there seemed to be a lot of suff missing.
I noticed that humans didn't have an extra feat for example, instead they got +1 to all ability scores. The point buy also didn't please me, you should have the option to roll stats like in the tabletop and the older games.

Hi modders out there, can you start working on a RTWP with fog of war mod? I guess we should start modding right away.

At the present time , the game is looking to be more of lovechild between Dragon age and Original Sin (especially the camp where you interact with everyone and the camera style used during conversations), while ONLY using the Forgotten Realms world , and the 5th edition DnD rules , which i guarantee only 5% of the fanbase know how it works , and most won't even care as long as the game feels right...I'm pretty certain all this criticism and hate came from using the BG IP but nothing else from the older games , which is understandably disappointing , not saying that games aren't evolving and they shouldn't experiment , but using almost nothing from the old IP and stamping the title as Baldur's gate 3 is indeed kind of a cash grab while using the fan's nostalgia and love for the series as bait.

Would probably be a good game considering a different name indeed.

Solasta crown of the magister is faithful. Demo was crazy fun and well received

#1: You want a "true DnD 5e experience" but advocate for a RTwP system. BG2 is my favorite game of all time, but it's combat doesn't work like DnD (it got close with having rounds/turns behind the scenes). In 5e, you get an action, bonus action, and movement during your turn. How does that work in a RTwP scenario? Either you want the experience more true to the table top, or a RTwP system...I am of the opinion they are mutually exclusive.

#2: You want "ALL the spells." They showed off a pre-alpha build, so no doubt there will be more spells...but there are some that just can't work in a video game. How does the Dream spell work in-game? What about Clone, Augury, Scrying, Geas, Glyphs and Wards? The list goes on. I have no doubt they will have as many as possible, but not even BG2 had all of the spells and some were modified to work in-game.

#3: Preparing Spells will no-doubt be a thing. Again, this is pre-alpha, but it stands to reason you should be able to prepare spells in camp (for those classes that can).

#4: There will be "Spell Slots that go away." An audience member asked "do spell slots come back after a long rest?" and the answer was "yes." The descriptions for cantrips says there are spells that don't need slots to cast...that literally tells you that spellcasters have finite spell slots.

#5: Not sure what you mean by "correct character stats." It seems to me that Larian implemented the point-buy system for stats at character creation. This is the most balanced form of character stat placement in 5e.

As for my own opinion, I don't think we should be able to see enemy HP, and Fog of War needs to be implemented. Other than that, I'm impressed by how close they are getting to the feel of DnD 5e.

Yeah id also have prefered RTWP with TB toggle, obviously im gonna prefer having both options.

i already said i dont love all of it.
But the loud Boomers go on my nerves, by which i mean people stuck in the past.

So many of the arguments beeing made are just pure nonsense based on no evidence just to fuel that hateboner

So this is a divisive issue.

Every since the resurgance of cRPGs the "turn-based vs RTwP" debate has been going on. A good compromize would ofcourse be to have both but that means alot more hours of development at the cost of (probably) the overall quality of the game. What Pillars2 did was they implemented turn-based after the release. For PF: Kingmaker there is a mod (and for the upcoming PF it will be an option but the game will be balanced for RTwP).

I'm sorry that its a dealbreaker for so many people though.

This is all opinion, but I don't feel PEO's turned out fine in terms of combat for me, too janky. I'm up for RtwP if the AI scripts are good and easy to edit, they weren't in Poe's or Pathfinder, DA2 is imo the pinnacle at this time. Both Poe/Pathfinder seemed to have great AI scripting but shit if I couldn't get it to do what I really wanted in action. I spent hours at first doing the same fight over and over testing and was just not firing right, then I had to say to myself. Am I going to put 40 hours into this? DA2 fwiw, it worked pretty much as you set it up and setup was easy. It was also smart in giving you more depth as you go, so you could grow into it.

If I'm going Real Time, I want my AI to do in order how I ask it to, heal when needed, AOE when enemies line up, etc. Otherwise I'm pausing too much and then it is poor mans TB.

This is probably the first time DA2 is being praised for something. I played POE2 mostly RTwP and really liked it, however I micromanage a lot and never program AI, but people that did use AI thought it was very well done.
If the AI is bad in BG3 is not an issue to me since I don't use it anyway. But anyways, the optimal is being able to choose the game mode. Since the TB apparently displeased most of the fanbase I'd guess they will at least try RTwP.

Good point @ Danielbda , even if they don't, for the sake of the continuity and my childhood , i'll still buy the game and finish it , but i'd still rather not waste 30-40-50 extra hours just watching animations play out , gotta get me some good old weed to take thoese boring moments away.

Here... Please Read my post. I think we can relate a bit here.
I have similar concerns as well.

http://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=659445#Post659445

Yes exactly. Of course there are going to be some fans of the original games who prefer TB, but there is no question the vast majority prefer RTwP (and do see the RTwP combat of those games as being good, so talk of people "hating" the combat in those games is just TB sour grapes). So essentially BG3 is Larian making a game with the "BG" title but meant for the D:OS fanbase at the expense of the BG fanbase.

I will be boycotting this game (while continuing to criticize the game at every turn), and I hope many of those of you who also prefer RTwP will be doing the same. We can instead support P:WotR because those Pathfinder games, and even the Dragon Age games for that matter, are the true successors of the original BG games.

@ Kanisatha I actually just bought Pathfinder Imperial edition a few days ago but only played a little due to work ( but weekend is here so i'm gonna not sleep til monday ) i omitted to buy at release since i kept hearing about bugs and inconsistencies , all of which have been fixed from what i gathered from later reviews , and yes , i actually giggled a little because i literally found out TODAY that they are making a new one, this game and the first Pillar of Eternity (not the 2nd one) seem to me the closest possible relatives to BG and IwD , and yes i've literally played and finished all other possible existent CRPGs ...i won't boycott this game , i will buy it, even though it's not Baldur's gate per say , it's still a game from a company i've been playing their games since they started , and i always had good experiences (except Dragon Commander , for real i dont know why they thought anyone would like that game maybe it was just an experiment , who knows :P)

First we all know the disappointed side will be more vocal, but lets leave that known thing lay.

Why did Poe2 not live up to sales expectations? Why didn't Kingmaker sell more? Why did DOS or Xcom for example as TB games outsell both of these? If RtwP was so much more preferred by everyone, why did more everyone's buy the TB games? I feel it is a fair enough question. How does that happen? As a community we went out of our way to buy the game style we like less.

PoE2 didn't live up to expectations because of its writing and its forced social agendas. The criticisms of the game upon its release noted that, and not its combat system.

Why did adding TB to PoE2 not do anything to improve PoE2's sales or review scores? Why did PoE2's Steam score not increase by even a single % point in the months following the addition of TB to the game?

If TB was so popular, why did Torment: Numenera tank in sales despite having TB instead of RTwP combat? Why did people criticize the game for abandoning Planescape: Torment's RTwP combat, if everyone supposedly preferred TB combat?

If TB was so much more preferred by everyone, why did those games bomb in sales and not benefit from having TB?

If TB is so popular, how come Wasteland Remastered isn't selling and has mixed reviews?

If TB is so popular, then how come there are more owners of Pillars of Eternity on Steam than there are of Wasteland 2?

If TB is preferred by everyone, then why does Pathfinder: Kingmaker, which is RTwP, have almost as many Steam reviews as Divinity: Original Sin, despite that Pathfinder: Kingmaker released 4 years after D:OS1? It seems to be out-performing D:OS1's popularity on Steam, yet it's RTwP.

If TB is preferred by everyone, then how come Dragon Age: Origins, which has RTwP combat, sold lot more copies faster than Divinity: Original Sin 2 did? It took Divinity: Original Sin 2 two-and-a-half months to sell 1 million copies. After just over 3 months, Dragon Age: Origins had sold 3.2 million copies. So, DA:O greatly outsold D:OS2. And that's not even counting DLC: DA:O also sold "well past $1 million" of DLC within its first week of release.

How can you explain all of that?


The answer is simple: Because there is no trend that games with either TB or RTwP combat systems do better than the other type of game due to the combat system. Each game does well based on the sum of its parts, and either RTwP or TB can be done in a way that is good and compliments the game. D:OS2 didn't become popular specifically because it has TB combat, but because of the sum of its parts.

The same false argument that TB games are doing better than RTwP pause games keeps coming up by people who I have to assume are not experienced with the PC RPG genre, because otherwise why would they be oblivious to the actual recent history of RTwP and TB PC RPG game releases and receptions? Why are they only familiar with D:OS2 and speak totally uninformed and baseless assumptions about what the market has been approving of in recent years?

There's literally one TB game that has been a mega hit (D:OS2), while other TB games have done decently to terribly. If people were loving TB games because they're TB, then Torment: Numenera wouldn't have been a flop. Then PoE2 would have improved in sales and reviews after getting TB added. But T: Numenera did flop and PoE2 didn't improve in sales or reviews after getting TB added. And Pathfinder: Kingmaker, which is RTwP, has blown both of those games away in popularity. And Pathfinder: Kingmaker is getting a much-anticipated sequel.

So, there is no truth to arguments that TB is more popular. D:OS2 is a recent popular game, and D:OS2 has TB. That doesn't make TB a better system, it just means that there are a lot of D:OS2 fanboys out there who don't know much of anything about PC RPGs and only know D:OS2 and so fanboy to get a carbon-copy of it.

If Larian made BG3 with RTwP and they did a good job with the RTwP system so that it was at least as good as Dragon Age: Origins' (but hopefully better), there would then be just as many fanboys of BG3 with RTwP demanding that every next game be RTwP because TB is out-dated and not relevant anymore in modern gaming. Fanboy thinking isn't based on situations actually are, it just distorts perception of reality to put the one thing they liked recently on a pedestal and create a mythology about its importance.


What's important is doing a good job with what a game is. And a Baldur's Gate series game should be an RTwP game, as well as a game that respects and honours the other characteristics of the Baldur's Gate experience. Larian should be doing that and shouldn't be making D:OS 2.5 with the Baldur's Gate license.

That... Doesn't make sense when you think about it for more than five seconds. BG1 and 2 were RTwP because that was the best method of adapting the edition of D&D they were made with to the screen.

Meanwhile, 5e has a LOT more decisions every player has available to make every turn, so it makes sense to reconsider whether or not a RTwP system makes sense for converting that.

Limiting yourself to one gameplay style for no real reason other than tradition doesn't make much sense.

(Additionally as much as 5e has some issues, it's still a MUCH more robust RPG system than D:OS', so comparing the two games, particularly before we even have one of them, is... not a good idea at all.)

So, to turn your point from the middle of your wall of text back on you, there is no inherent advantage to Turn Based or Real Time with Pause, what matters is how well you use them.

Just like with the claim that Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 had RTwP combat due to technical limitations, what you've just said is another false claim regarding why BG 1 and 2 have RTwP combat. Making Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 RTwP wasn't forced by any technical needs, but was a creative choice made free from pressure to make it any particular way.

As I wrote in another recent post:

"Where did you get that idea from? It's wrong. There were loads of TB PC games out when BG invented RTwP, and BG's RTwP system actually calculates rounds in the background. It would have been less work for BioWare to go full TB-only in BG than to implement RTwP. But James Ohlen wanted Baldur's Gate to be real-time and Ray Muzyka wanted it to be turn-based, and so they created a system that caters to fans of both styles. There was never a factor of technical limitations at play, and if there had been it would have been simpler to just implement TB."

Likewise, when BioWare made Dragon Age: Origins, claiming it to be a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate without the license from WotC, BioWare was free from technical limitations (and also ruleset limitations) and were completely free to make the combat system anything they desired - and they desired and chose to make it RTwP.

Baldur's gate was RTwP because RTwP is what BioWare wanted it to be. It had nothing to do with the underlying ruleset or any technical limitations. BioWare was free to choose any combat system they wanted, and they chose to create a new one, which was RTwP.


That doesn't make sense. Every turn the player still has 2 decisions to make: Movement, and action. There aren't any more things to consider.


Not for tradition, but because it's what the series' identity is based in, because the Baldur's Gate series invented the RTwP genre, because RTwP is a great system that can be far better than D:OS2's TB combat (DA:O already has better combat, and it's RTwP), and because it's disrespectful and unfaithful to co-opt a series and turn into a clone of another series. Larian should just release their game as D:OS 2.5 or D:OS 3 if they're going to do that.


Just like your assertion about why BG1 and BG2 have RTwP combat, which is wrong, your assertion that I wrote a wall-of-text is likewise wrong. You should put some effort into understanding the things you're going to claim before you present them as arguments.

A "wall of text" is text without proper indentation. If I'd made my post as a wall of text, it would have appeared like this:



While I agree that neither RTwP or TB is inherently better than the other, one may be more suited for a particular series, for a particular audience, and for a particular experience. When making a Baldur's Gate game, RTwP is central to its identity and experience, and is what decades-long fans of the series hope to get to play in a new Baldur's Gate game.

I think you are all missing the point and are skirting around the answer even though it has been said. Neither RTwP or Turn-based mechanics have anything to do with whether a game sells well or makes a good game. It is the story. If the story isn't done well then it doesn't matter what mechanics you have, what computer you use, the size of your graphics card, or whether you live in a luxurious mansion or your mother's basement. (sorry had a Tommy Lee Jones moment. )

If the story isn't good, word of mouth will rule the day. The same applies if the story is good.

People fight against change or for what they believe. RTwP or TB?

Remember when the earth was flat?

It's really not central to the identity or experience, in any way, shape or form. You've not given any evidence to back that up you're just asserting it.

And, your quote from the creative team of BG 1 and 2 doesn't ACTUALLY respond to my point because it doesn't even touch on WHY these people made that decision, wanted that state of things for the game, which was the claim I was making there. It just says two people wanted different things and they settled on a middle ground, it doesn't discuss their reasons for holding their individual positions at all.

And again, you keep arguing to tradition, "This is what BioWare wanted" well Bioware is now just another corpse drained by the vampires at EA, so, this current development team shouldn't be chained down by their ghost and left unable to make decisions they genuinely think would improve the experience.

Series are not some ancient artefact that must be preserved in it's original state, never growing or changing. In fact, when a series refuses to evolve in meaningful ways, we call it stagnant and begin mocking it for that (Hello Pokemon, fancy seeing you here.)

I've made that point, myself. But when using an established series name, which is only done because the name actually stands for something, it's also important to live up to that name and to not abuse it. Baldur's Gate is a RTwP series, made such out of creative desire and conscious preference by BioWare. The fans of the series know RTwP to be a part of the identity of Baldur's Gate, and those who've hoped for sequel for decades generally want to play a faithful Baldur's Gate game and not a clone of another series that has merely co-opted the name of Baldur's Gate.

BTW, it took Divinity: Original Sin 2 two-and-a-half months to sell 1 million copies. After just over 3 months, Dragon Age: Origins had sold 3.2 million copies. So, DA:O greatly outsold D:OS2. And that's not even counting DLC: DA:O also sold "well over" 1 million copies of DLC within its first week of release.

So, Dragon Age: Origins, which has RTwP combat, was a lot more popular when it released than D:OS2 was when it released. Therefore, going by the weak 'this game was more popular therefore its combat system is preferred' argument, RTwP is the more preferred combat system. So, if Larian are just making "BG3" for a cash-grab (which appears to be the case considering their "BG3" is actually D:OS3), they should be making it with RTwP combat, anyway.

Reposting this because you seem keen to avoid my arguents, perhaps because you can't actually respond to them.

It's really not central to the identity or experience of BG, in any way, shape or form. You've not given any evidence to back that up you're just asserting it.

And, your quote from the creative team of BG 1 and 2 doesn't ACTUALLY respond to my point because it doesn't even touch on WHY these people made that decision, wanted that state of things for the game, which was the claim I was making there. It just says two people wanted different things and they settled on a middle ground, it doesn't discuss their reasons for holding their individual positions at all.

And again, you keep arguing to tradition, "This is what BioWare wanted" well Bioware is now just another corpse drained by the vampires at EA, so, this current development team shouldn't be chained down by their ghost and left unable to make decisions they genuinely think would improve the experience.

Series are not some ancient artefact that must be preserved in it's original state, never growing or changing. In fact, when a series refuses to evolve in meaningful ways, we call it stagnant and begin mocking it for that (Hello Pokemon, fancy seeing you here.)

And new addition, the so-called " the weak 'this game was more popular therefore its combat system is preferred' argument," is weak BECAUSE IT'S A STRAWMAN, nobody is actually saying that, you're just using it to deflect away from our actual arguments.

Spamming is not the way to make an argument. And when I just spent the time addressing somebody else's comments and you only posted your previous comment minutes ago, there's no basis to think somebody is avoiding it.

But if that's the way you think things work, then let's see if it works on you.

Reposting this because you seem keen to ignore what I wrote - perhaps because it obliterated your every assertion.


Just like with the claim that Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 had RTwP combat due to technical limitations, what you've just said is another false claim regarding why BG 1 and 2 have RTwP combat. Making Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 RTwP wasn't forced by any technical needs, but was a creative choice made free from pressure to make it any particular way.

As I wrote in another recent post:

"Where did you get that idea from? It's wrong. There were loads of TB PC games out when BG invented RTwP, and BG's RTwP system actually calculates rounds in the background. It would have been less work for BioWare to go full TB-only in BG than to implement RTwP. But James Ohlen wanted Baldur's Gate to be real-time and Ray Muzyka wanted it to be turn-based, and so they created a system that caters to fans of both styles. There was never a factor of technical limitations at play, and if there had been it would have been simpler to just implement TB."

Likewise, when BioWare made Dragon Age: Origins, claiming it to be a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate without the license from WotC, BioWare was free from technical limitations (and also ruleset limitations) and were completely free to make the combat system anything they desired - and they desired and chose to make it RTwP.

Baldur's gate was RTwP because RTwP is what BioWare wanted it to be. It had nothing to do with the underlying ruleset or any technical limitations. BioWare was free to choose any combat system they wanted, and they chose to create a new one, which was RTwP.


That doesn't make sense. Every turn the player still has 2 decisions to make: Movement, and action. There aren't any more things to consider.


Not for tradition, but because it's what the series' identity is based in, because the Baldur's Gate series invented the RTwP genre, because RTwP is a great system that can be far better than D:OS2's TB combat (DA:O already has better combat, and it's RTwP), and because it's disrespectful and unfaithful to co-opt a series and turn into a clone of another series. Larian should just release their game as D:OS 2.5 or D:OS 3 if they're going to do that.


Just like your assertion about why BG1 and BG2 have RTwP combat, which is wrong, your assertion that I wrote a wall-of-text is likewise wrong. You should put some effort into understanding the things you're going to claim before you present them as arguments.

A "wall of text" is text without proper indentation. If I'd made my post as a wall of text, it would have appeared like this:



While I agree that neither RTwP or TB is inherently better than the other, one may be more suited for a particular series, for a particular audience, and for a particular experience. When making a Baldur's Gate game, RTwP is central to its identity and experience, and is what decades-long fans of the series hope to get to play in a new Baldur's Gate game.

I agree.

Oh fuck a strawman AND ignoring all of my arguments from last comment in one go. Delicieuxz, seriously, stop.

If you wanted to respond to both of our comments, you can do so... in ONE POST, by talking to one person first and then the other. VERY EASY. Making multiple posts just fragment everything up and cause confusion and misunderstandings. Like, golly gee, I wonder, THE ONE YOU JUST CONVENIENTLY MADE.

It's really not central to the identity or experience of BG, in any way, shape or form. You've not given any evidence to back that up you're just asserting it.

And, your quote from the creative team of BG 1 and 2 doesn't ACTUALLY respond to my point because it doesn't even touch on WHY these people made that decision, wanted that state of things for the game, which was the claim I was making there. It just says two people wanted different things and they settled on a middle ground, it doesn't discuss their reasons for holding their individual positions at all.

And again, you keep arguing to tradition, "This is what BioWare wanted" well Bioware is now just another corpse drained by the vampires at EA, so, this current development team shouldn't be chained down by their ghost and left unable to make decisions they genuinely think would improve the experience.

Series are not some ancient artefact that must be preserved in it's original state, never growing or changing. In fact, when a series refuses to evolve in meaningful ways, we call it stagnant and begin mocking it for that (Hello Pokemon, fancy seeing you here.)

And new addition, the so-called " the weak 'this game was more popular therefore its combat system is preferred' argument," is weak BECAUSE IT'S A STRAWMAN, nobody is actually saying that, you're just using it to deflect away from our actual arguments.


And, finally, I did miss one argument of yours, the nonsensical conunter to the idea that 5e characters have more options than 2e characters...

Like YES OF COURSE THERE ARE ONLY TWO CATEGORIES OF OPTIONS, NO SHIT SHERLOCK, but 5e characters have more variety WITHIN those two categories to choose from, which is what makes them quite a bit more of a handful than 2e ones.

I swear at this point you're just being angry for the sake of it, you don't actually have any ideas or constructive stuff to contribute, you're just being petulant because times have changed and there's a SLIGHT STYLISTIC DIFFERENCE IN ONE SYSTEM OF A VIDEO GAME.

And they have used that difference to create more elaborate traps which better evoke D&D tabletop ones, if you'd actually finished the video. They're not just doing it for the hell of it, they've made that decision in order to deliver a better D&D video game experience, which is the whole reason Baldur's Gate exists in the first place for fuck's sake. To be D&D as a video game. THAT is it's identity. D&D has changed a LOT since back then, and the devs are trying to be authentic to D&D as it is today.

There is no straw man argument in what I said. You keep naming concepts that you don't understand: wall-of-text, strawman, why BioWare chose RTwP for Baldur's Gate (it wasn't due to any technical or ruleset limitation). Your arguments are overall vapid and spammy and overall very immature.


OK there, post nazi. Get a hold of yourself. You don't dictate whether a person responds to everybody in a single post or in multiple posts. And I was typing out my post to the other person before you had made yours. Do you suffer extreme anxiety and go into panic attacks when you aren't given attention every second of the day? If not, then why are you behaving so irrationally as to start spamming the forum because I was responding to somebody who made a post before you did, before I started to respond to you? Your post that you're having a panic attack over not being addressed wasn't even existing in the thread when I started typing out my response to the other poster. Did you think of that?


The only reason to use the name of an established series is because the name represents something. In the case of Baldur's Gate, the name represents the birth of the RTwP genre. If there wasn't associations with the name, Larian wouldn't have any interest in using it. The Baldur's Gate series name isn't needed to make a game with a D&D ruleset, in Forgotten Realms, or containing the city Baldur's Gate in it. The only reason the name Baldur's Gate is being used is to capitalize on what it represents. But Larian are dishonouring the name and the series' legacy.

I have not appealed to a need to preserve tradition. I have only pointed out that a series' name should not be co-opted and used as a husk to sell another series, which is what Larian appear to be doing with their "Baldur's Gate 3" that is actually a D:OS 3 without any character traits of Baldur's Gate in it.

It isn't needed to make a D&D game but it is the most widely recognised one out there, and considering they are not an existing D&D game studio, it makes plenty of sense.

And, what do you mean "without any traits of Baldur's Gate"!?

It's a character and storytelling-focused D&D game set in the city of Baldur's Gate.

Those three traits are if anything MORE significant to the series than the subgenre they spawned.

Like, dude, there's more to a game than the specific exact way you fight people in it. Or, there should be, in order to make an actual good game. And if there's a SINGLE genre which should remember that the most, it's RPGs.

Nonsense. All that you're doing is throwing arbitrary opinions out to try to defend an argument that is overtly baseless. Every game is a sum of all its parts, and a series creates an identity for itself based on the games it releases. The Baldur's Gate series has had only 2 games in it and they both share the same characteristics. Therefore, to use the Baldur's Gate series name is to appeal to fans of those two games. The RTwP combat system, which Baldur's Gate is the father of, is as much a defining trait of the series, even more than which D&D ruleset the game uses.


I never suggested otherwise. But since you suggest you think that comment means it doesn't matter which combat system a game has, full-stop, therefore you would be 100% OK if Larian make BG3 use RTwP, an only RTwP.

The Baldur's Gate name is recognized as representing a specific game series with specific characteristics. The only reason its name would be used is to draw in the people who like that series and its characteristics. Its core characteristics include RTwP combat.


Like so much of what you've claimed, this is also false. Multiple people have made that argument on the forums before, and elsewhere. Hence why brought it up and discredited it.

So my opinion that the ruleset, thematic elements, and setting, are much more main and centre in the series... Is somehow less valid than your opinion that everything is about this one set of combat mechanics and literally nothing else matters?

(Because, this is not a strawman from me, you have literally said that BG3 is nothing like the previous one despite sharing all of those elements and only really having that one difference that we know about so far, so not only are you now contradicting yourself by saying the game is a sum of all it's parts, you're actively saying the opposite at every opportunity.)

And, that argument is not relevant to any of the points WE'RE making in THIS thread, so bringing it up and debunking it is still a strawman in the context of THIS argument.


Look, you're being an obsessive, entitled prat. Chill out or piss off. The devs don't have to make "Literally just baldur's gate 2 again but with modern gen graphics", they were given creative freedom from WotC and at every turn as far as I can tell they're taking the responsibility of that role seriously.



So what if their combat is a little less evocative of BG if they're living up to the series' other core concepts even more vividly, particularly when it comes to evoking D&D in video game form; (If you'd actually watched the entire video you'd see that even the introductory trap in the first dungeon is much more evocative of something you'd see in D&D than almost anything that'd come before. But then looking at your comments thus far if you'd watched the whole video you'd instead be whining about how the pregen vampire character is gay and that magically ruins the game somehow. (And yes perhaps that's an ad-hom but you're fucking exhausting to talk to so my patience is spent at this point.))

"Resemblance of the previous games" is not a linear measure based solely on whether the combat system is the same. It's a complex array of factors and they made the decision to emphasise some at the expense of others because they felt it'd make for a better final product, and until you have actually played the finished game you have no right to judge that.

Oi, pack it in. Be polite or don't post at all. That goes for everyone.

People have opinions and they're seldom changed by a forum flame-war. Nobody is obliged to read or respond to anything they don't want to but they are obliged to be civil. Thanks for your attention.

They haven't been polite to me this entire time, a girl only has so much patience.

Point taken, which is why my comment was aimed at everyone. Don't take it personally, but move on if someone's being snarky. Life's too short.

Fair enough, thanks for the defuse

You asserted something as fact when it was arbitrary (and likely disingenuously made) opinion. Don't try to twist this into something about not respecting other opinions. It's a case of you falsely presenting your supposed opinion as if fact.


I have not listed all the differences and similarities between the original Baldur's Gate series and this Larian "BG3" game. I have not claimed that you made a strawman argument about this. And I have not contradicted myself by saying that a game is the sum of all its parts and also that RTwP combat is a key characteristic of the Baldur's Gate series - both statements are simultaneously true. Either you're being incredibly dishonest with me and everybody reading this, or else you sorely need to work on your English comprehension and possible logic skills.


With that comment, just like with the one where you spammed something because you weren't immediately getting the attention you craved, "you're being an obsessive, entitled prat. Chill out or piss off." I am not obligated to exclusively discuss whatever singular idea you are currently trying to discuss in this thread, and my comment about the respective sales of DA:O and D:OS2 and the speculative popularity of RTwP and TB systems based on them was not made towards you. So, why are you fussing about a comment that didn't involve you? You are trying to be a post nazi again.


Wrong again - you are outright lying now. Before I ever made any comment towards you, you were rude towards me and flame-baited. Here's a reminder for you:


You have behaved like an extremely immature infant from the start. And from there, you started spamming the same post in the forums because you couldn't tolerate that I was taking the time to respond to somebody else and not making you (who didn't post before the other person) my priority. Here's a reminder for you about that, as well:


I had not treated you in any bad way before you did those things.

So, you are hereby caught outright lying about other people to try to cover your own butt. And in doing so, you prove yourself to be a hypocrite. I do not say those things as pejorative, but as the literal truth. As I said, you have behaved immaturely from the start. And you are continuing to do so in a most pathetic manner.

You are projecting after having made a series of baseless and poor arguments that have been discredited. If you don't like having your arguments rebuked, then make better ones. Making poor ones and then crying foul when they are discredited only makes you appear weaker.

Shall we review your ever-increasing long list of failed arguments?


Elvenoob's comment to you is an outright lie, an attempt to cover their trolling and chaos-stirring in this thread. They're manipulatively trying to play you, just as they have repeatedly tried to pull one over on me in the discussion.

None of that is factually speaking what happened (And she can check the forum history for herself so just claiming that I was lying about you being abrasive and rude... doesn't work) and a moderator has asked for this argument to end so I have nothing more to say on the matter.

Literally, everything I said factually happened. So, you are lying and trying to manipulate people once again. And I didn't claim you lied about me in your original posts, only that you were rude and immature from the start - and you were. That said, however, you possibly lied when you asserted that my post was a "wall of text" when it wasn't. That, or you simply were unaware of what the phrase meant.

But the lying of yours that I commented on was when you lied about me and to vometia by claiming that I hadn't been polite to you and that it was your patience that had been tried rather than mine by yourself. You flame-baited me before I ever made a comment to you.

And yes, everybody can check the forum history for themselves. Here it is. In fact, here are screenshots to ensure you don't try to edit your post history.

This is your first comment to me, before I had made any comment towards you:

http://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=659672#Post659672


And here is your follow-up comment to me, which you spammed when I didn't immediately respond to you but continued a discussion with another poster (who posted before you did):

http://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=659685#Post659685


If you're going to lie, as you seem to be wanting to do, leave me out of it. I don't care for your trolling and your drama. So don't drag me into the escapades created by your rotten behaviour.

Stop. I won't ask again.

Right something like don't stoop to their level... move on, no big we're talking game design opinions. But the point of my reply, life for me is taking forever!

Ugh, that's what I thought too. I'm sure I was in my mid 20s last week, now I'm a fiftysomething.

Centenarian by the end of the month

Can one to TB gameplay add rounds system like in Baldur's Gate 2? Enemy pawns will attack simultaneously main character after his TURN / ROUND has ended.
Gamplay could be more faster and dynamic.

Hehe...when i made this topic i never thought it would get much attention, mostly thought i'd be shut down for criticizing Larian's new game, but most dicussions on my topic and others (even though some people might have thrown light jabs at one another) seem to have been very constructive and i do hope Larian take into consideration what all fans would want from this game and it's legacy

But from what i gathered , there's are more people that want RTwP and their arguments seem to be objectively stronger and make more sense (even though you will say my opinion is actually subjective since i do belong to the group that wishes RTwP)

As i may have said in another post, people who desire and are for TB , are 95% or more that never played baldur's gate , almost all of them divinity fans or larian fans in general , the only solid argument for TB is that it's perfectly suited for 5e ruleset of DnD , which i do agree , but that's pretty much it.

Personally , the only games suited for Turn based is chess or similar games , or Heroes of Might and Magic and the Disciples game series(which are strategy games , not RPGs) ..as i may have mentioned , i will still buy and play this game, for its story and legacy , but the immersion is pretty much over for me during combat when chess starts , i will enjoy any other part of the game (story , dialogue , envoirments , graphics etc etc etc) since Larian have been good at these since their first game.

I don't think that there are any other existent turn based RPGs besides Original Sin games that people actually bought and played ,and people don't do that because it's turn based , that's the weakest argument of the TB camp, they do it because all the other characteristics of the game , make combat tolerable , of which i 100% agree.. that's why i'm only now currently playing and finishing Original sin 2 , because after the first one , i thought i will never want to be that bored in my life during combat and i overlooked it , but i kept hearing from almost everyone that it makes up for it with all the other characteristics besides combat i made above , and so here i am playing this game 3 years after release, and only did so because i ran out of things to play , and i play exclusively medieval fantasy type games from different genres, i don't think PC games that have magic and dragons and knights and all that good stuff that i haven't played or finished (except Torrment tides of Numenera and please do guess why that is )

It's hard for me to cope with Turn based in an RPG game , i'm also quite the Soulsborne/Sekiro expert , imagine going from the hardest and most reaction based fast paced games to basically chess , my head hurts:P

I know i've trailed off the discussion and i do apologize , to enclose , i do hope the devs find the time ,resources and will to at least make a supported addon or mod for real time combat , hell..i'd even pay 50% extra of the game's value on top of the game's price just for that ,because i'd make that money back in 2-3 fights in this game while waiting for the animations to finish :P , everyone gets what they want , devs get more money and i could use that time exploring their game and/or replaying it , instead of wasting my time watching the monitor and pausing for 1-2-3 minutes for the enemy pack to finish their turn.

I don´t know, games like PoE2 made the two modes, and you can play Pathfinder kingmaker in TB or RTWP with a mod. Owlcat studio already announced that they will allow two gameplay modes: RTWP and TB in the upcoming PF: WotR...

But to be fair those games do not have online multiplayer mode, so it is unlikely that BG3 would have that option from the start.

Looks good so far.

There's one thing I'd like to see though: enemies having a sense of self-perservation.
SOME enemies might give up when the health is too low and too many of their companions die. They would drop to both knees in surrender and drop their inventory. Or run away after dropping their weapons.
But "trying to run" seems pointless if they can never leave the map, thus you WILL end up having to kill them.

Just something for the players that do not want to murder every living thing. You can also make it that spells like fear increase the chance that an enemy might simply surrender.

And BG3 will? When was that announced?

Thing that I like: The double rank quick-bar at the bottom. Hopefully that'll be enough room for everything and hopefully it scales to account for my ultra-wide monitor to give me even more actions available.

Thing that I'm really not sure about: The past tense dialogue just seems weird. Larian managed full voice for D:OS2, not sure why they'd change it for this.

I am OK, even happy about the turn-based combat, RTwP hasn't been done well since DA:Origins and TB in D:OS2 was great. And I am one of the boomers who have been reviled by at least one person on these boards. I have the original BG2 box set staring at me from my shelves as I type, even though I have no CD/DVD drive to use its contents with. But I do feel that CRPG's have moved on and I'm happy with that.

Yes, BG3 will have a multiplayer mode, 4 player coop, if that is what you are asking. They confirmed that in several interviews:

https://www.pcgamesn.com/baldurs-gate-3-co-op

https://www.dualshockers.com/baldurs-gate-3-interview-2020/

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

https://screenrant.com/baldurs-gate-3-adam-smith-interview/

And the game will also be available in Stadia so...

That's fine. Everyone gets to make their choice. For me, I won't touch this game, and since it is personal to me I will also do all I can to try and persuade other people to not buy it. It is personal to me because they chose to call the game "Baldur's Gate 3." If it was just another new game using D&D rules that would be different. I'd still hate the game and wouldn't play it, but it wouldn't be personal. But a game carrying the BG name but being 100% NOT a BG game is personal to me.

There are plenty of other very good RPGs out there, including even a couple of TB games, that are all way more superior to this trash. So I am very much looking forward to P:WotR, Black Geyser, The Dark Eye, Realms Beyond, Solasta, and that's not even including games like Dragon Age 4 and the next Witcher game, which are also of course true RPGs (with RTwP thankfully). BG3 is garbage. My time is very valuable. I won't be wasting any of my time on garbage.

So that kinda clarifies the 4 party size. Maybe it also has something to do with how CR is calculated, since is based on having a party of 4.