Uh...yeesh. Backgrounds and world look excellent...but yikes those spell effects are horrendous. That statue crumbling and falling made me cringe. Yeah, this is clearly very early stuff and will doubtlessly look better after more work and polish...but not at all something I'd consider even remotely show-off worthy for something like this.
This did not instill excitement in me. Quite the opposite, I'm more worried now than I was before.
Terrible physics, animations and spell effects. At this point don't know if they will be able to release a solid Early Access.
By definition early access isn't solid...
Well I will not be playing the early access I will wait until it is fully release first than play Baldur's Gate 3 I really don't like the idea of playing a game that is still being worked on
I do have one question about the trailer are we getting the female goblin as a companion it does look that way to me maybe not in the demo but when the game is fully completed
I do have one question about the trailer are we getting the female goblin as a companion it does look that way to me maybe not in the demo but when the game is fully completed
I think they could do better for origin companion, than a weird looking female goblin, I would rather have a badass orc barbarian or githzerai or some other monster as companion. Of course extra playable races are always nice, whatever they are... On the other hand this goblin got an awful lot attention, so it is possible..
I think the female goblin is just an npc for the game, who is related to some bigger quest.
It would be nice to see, some important cool npcs as well, that appear in multiple stages of the game to make them more memorable.
The horrible D:OS artstyle seems to not have been placeholders after all. So I was right. Everything continues to look exactly like a D:OS game and nothing like a Forgotten Realms game.
The horrible D:OS artstyle seems to not have been placeholders after all. So I was right. Everything continues to look exactly like a D:OS game and nothing like a Forgotten Realms game.
Taking a look at the WoTC official material from D&D beyond and the monsters manual anyone can see that they made a pretty good depiction of the creatures
I sometimes wonder if people do know how D&D5E´s creatures, uniforms and the city of Baldur´s gate actually look like before making comparisons...
Everything continues to look exactly like a D:OS game and nothing like a Forgotten Realms game.
Surprise!
I hope everyone enjoys D:OS 3, because Baldur's Gate is dead and it isn't coming back.
Well everyone loved D:OS 2 so they should like what you are calling D:OS 3, even though it's BG3. Sorry it doesn't have the shitty graphics of a 20 year old game. Baldur's Gate is, in fact, NOT dead as it's currently being made by Larian studios who were given this game to make by WoTC, who own Baldur's Gate, so not really sure why you're saying it isn't coming back. The fact that you are on this forums proves that you actually know that it IS coming back. Just better than before and you don't like that.
I do have one question about the trailer are we getting the female goblin as a companion it does look that way to me maybe not in the demo but when the game is fully completed
I think they could do better for origin companion, than a weird looking female goblin, I would rather have a badass orc barbarian or githzerai or some other monster as companion. Of course extra playable races are always nice, whatever they are... On the other hand this goblin got an awful lot attention, so it is possible..
I think the female goblin is just an npc for the game, who is related to some bigger quest.
It would be nice to see, some important cool npcs as well, that appear in multiple stages of the game to make them more memorable.
I agree with you on this female goblin has got a lot attention that's why I am thinking she might be a posable companion and I have just find out that she is apart of a group of hobgoblins and goblins who are devoted to Tiamat the red hand symbol on the walls prove that and one of the backgrounds in 5e is cultist here is the video on how I find out about this new bit of info
Everything continues to look exactly like a D:OS game and nothing like a Forgotten Realms game.
Surprise!
I hope everyone enjoys D:OS 3, because Baldur's Gate is dead and it isn't coming back.
Well everyone loved D:OS 2 so they should like what you are calling D:OS 3, even though it's BG3. Sorry it doesn't have the shitty graphics of a 20 year old game. Baldur's Gate is, in fact, NOT dead as it's currently being made by Larian studios who were given this game to make by WoTC, who own Baldur's Gate, so not really sure why you're saying it isn't coming back. The fact that you are on this forums proves that you actually know that it IS coming back. Just better than before and you don't like that.
I do find it funny how some people was expecting BG3 to have the same graphics as a game that come out over 20 years ago it was never going to happen even BioWare would not use a 20 year old engine
I do find it funny how some people was expecting BG3 to have the same graphics as a game that come out over 20 years ago it was never going to happen even BioWare would not use a 20 year old engine
I don't think that's fair. D:OSs have this over-the-top, very-not-grounded in reality animation style that is, at least, partially brought to BG3. A good comparison could be Obsidian's Tyranny vs Pillars of Eternity. Pillars had movement and animation grounded in reality, while Tyranny was over-the-top.
I generally prefer my fantasy to be a bit more grounded - the more fantastical the setting is, the more believable it needs to be.
There's a benefits to Larian's approach - playing a game from top down view, it is useful to be able to identify each action - that's something that traditional cRPGs struggle with. The need for combat log, could be minimised, if one could gather useful information from the battlefield itself.
[quote=_Vic_]Taking a look at the WoTC official material from D&D beyond and the monsters manual anyone can see that they made a pretty good depiction of the creatures
Nobody said anything about twenty year old graphics. If you don't understand language, don't post. I'm tired of your ridiculous straw-man false claims that we are looking for twenty year old graphics. Even the Larian devs themselves in several interviews have said they are aware the game should not look like a D:OS game.
This is more than Forgotten Realms, it is a sequence to BG which was darker and in, many other ways, more realistic. PoE 2 and Witcher3 are more believable than this, so it is nothing impossible to achieve.
There were other high fantasy D&D games like Neverwinter but BG is not the case
I sympathise with game developers everywhere, trying to cater for the wildly different likes/dislikes of their potential customer base.
That said, this trailer does seem to suggest that the Larian engine is from the Nigel Tufnel school of design - all the settings go to 11. I won't mind that if I can choose to dial back to, say, 8, or if they manage to implement HDR or some other pixel compression scheme that prevents the sort of over-exposure evident in much of the trailer.
I generally like the BG3 character models, except where they stray too far into renaissance styling, and the spell/status effects are OK, since most of the game will be pretty static turn-based, they won't become a visual cacophany. The animations are a mixed bag, as you might expect; spell-casting looked decent, archery remains poor.
A big unknown is the built-environment. The gameplay in trailers has revealed only generic building styles that would fit happily on the Sword Coast, inspired as it is by Western European tradition. The depiction of Yartar ( not a gameplay trailer ) was less convincing, with its seeming mix of Babylonian and Italianate styles. I'm not against decorative buildings, but personally don't feel its a comfortable fit for renaissance and later building techniques being in wide use.
No doubt others disagree. There have been many different artistic interpretations of the Forgotten Realms over the years, not infrequently following real-world fashions and sensibilities.
The animation of the statue goes off of the pillar looks unnatural.
Haha I totally agree... This is SOOO cheap. Can't understand they choose this for a trailer (+An arrow in a rock statue can't broke that statue... Seriously this is ridiculous...)
I really don't like the colors and general artstyle. This is too childish, "too fairy" and unnatural. Don't like what I see again...
And the music... It looks like a cheap mobile game pub you see on youtube.
To be honest the only thing that bothers me is that the statue is unnatural , from what i noticed the statue was previously a broken archway and they swapped it . If you see the background you will notice that this place is from the starting area that they showed us in the pax gameplay reveal .
As for me I LOVE the artstyle and overall visuals. I guess its a matter of taste. The game looks beautifull, environments and the world look extremly beautifull. I can wait to get lost is these magical wildernesses. I also LOVE the character models, faces, armores ect. The only thing that needs more time and work is animations. They are bit rough around the edges, but animations are the aspect of the game that gets better over time so I am not worried about that. Overall I LOVE the game so far and its #1 among my upcoming anticipated games.
except where they stray too far into renaissance styling
Could not agree more there. I absolutely despise Renaissance styling as far as the aesthetic of the attire. Utterly hideous and ridiculous looking. To each their own of course, but yeesh, people looked like walking doilies.
Honestly can't stand what I'm seeing here. It's like a good friend died 20 years ago and someone says "Don't worry, we're going to bring him back!" and then this mutant monstrosity walks in without any resemblance except roughly humanoid form..."aren't you glad we brought him back?" Well, no. Not in the least. And then people are saying "well it has the right number of limbs so what are you complaining about?"
I don't mind technical and graphical updates as those are inevitable and even desirable. I could get behind mechanical changes like turn-based combat even though I prefer the alternative, if the game's feel was right (although so many departures from the originals strongly imply Larian have vastly prioritised pushing out what is essentially DOS3 instead of giving even the vaguest nod to the predecessors). I feel like The entire essence is missing. It's got a lot to do with the visuals but I think it'd be an oversimplification; the feel is just not right and as a consequence there's no connection. It'd be like making a LotR game in the right setting, with the right creatures and peoples, but getting the flavour completely wrong somehow. You'd feel it immediately.
I don't want to come across like I'm mindlessly hating here because if what I'm seeing didn't have a BG label to it, it'd be great. There's a lot to like in general but in my view it's just not good enough for something that's meant to occupy a very specific space. I just don't get it.
I do find it funny how some people was expecting BG3 to have the same graphics as a game that come out over 20 years ago it was never going to happen even BioWare would not use a 20 year old engine
I don't think that's fair. D:OSs have this over-the-top, very-not-grounded in reality animation style that is, at least, partially brought to BG3. A good comparison could be Obsidian's Tyranny vs Pillars of Eternity. Pillars had movement and animation grounded in reality, while Tyranny was over-the-top.
I generally prefer my fantasy to be a bit more grounded - the more fantastical the setting is, the more believable it needs to be.
There's a benefits to Larian's approach - playing a game from top down view, it is useful to be able to identify each action - that's something that traditional cRPGs struggle with. The need for combat log, could be minimised, if one could gather useful information from the battlefield itself.
Maybe I was a bit too harsh on my graphics comment it does have a cartoonish look to it but my point I was trying to make was it's the story that really matters I mean lets face it the graphics in BG1 and BG2 was not great to begin with
To be fair, the art of the D&D5e Forgotten Realms is what I assume you call "cartoonish" (Just make a search online) so I do not think Larian is to fully blame here. It would be different if the setting is Eberron or Ravenloft, I suppose.
If you are making a game based in a franchise, It´s usual to follow the design guidelines of the franchise, like in Mordheim and W40k. Mostly because WOTC will want his brand to be recognizable.
Originally Posted by IrenicusBG3
Originally Posted by _Vic_
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Everything continues to look exactly like a D:OS game and nothing like a Forgotten Realms game.
Taking a look at the WoTC official material from D&D beyond and the monsters manual anyone can see that they made a pretty good depiction of the creatures
I sometimes wonder if people do know how D&D5E´s creatures, uniforms and the city of Baldur´s gate actually look like before making comparisons...
The problem is the color pallette that makes very unrealistic, unlike BG2. The demons are very cartoonish in BG3
I suppose It´s a matter of tastes. I kinda like it the comic vibe. And as I said, the videogame versions of the creatures really look like the D&D5e counterparts.
Honestly can't stand what I'm seeing here. It's like a good friend died 20 years ago and someone says "Don't worry, we're going to bring him back!" and then this mutant monstrosity walks in without any resemblance except roughly humanoid form..."aren't you glad we brought him back?" Well, no. Not in the least. And then people are saying "well it has the right number of limbs so what are you complaining about?"
I don't really like the color palette or art style either. It is too colorful, vivid and cartoony for my taste. It should be more Baldur's Gate-like and less D:OS-like, but alas, that is obviously a lost hope.
Well, as stated before the game uses the same palette as the designs in the manuals and artbook of D&D so technically it´s a very accurate (official D&D5e) Baldur´s gate.
All that the devs showed us pointed out that they are following the guidelines of the modern version of D&D so It´s improbable that they are going to change in the middle of the race.
Not really. It looks what one would expect from Larian, which is a D:OS-like art style. Even the art style in Dragon: Age Origins is vastly superior to what we have seen IMHO.
I vastly prefer the art style in the Pathfinder: Kingmaker, which is a recent CRPG. That said, thank goodness Owlcat Games did not copy Pathfinder's official art style, which is really lame IMO.
Well, as stated before the game uses the same palette as the designs in the manuals and artbook of D&D so technically it´s a very accurate (official D&D5e) Baldur´s gate.
All that the devs showed us pointed out that they are following the guidelines of the modern version of D&D so It´s improbable that they are going to change in the middle of the race.
Firstly, I want to thank you and a couple of others like you who are responding to what we critics are actually saying instead of making up stuff about us wanting twenty year old graphics. As you correctly identify, it is the art-style we are talking about here, NOT quality of the graphics.
That said, I also am glad you posted those 5e artwork above. I am a 3.5e D&D fan and have not looked into 5e much. And apparently for good reason, because those 5e D&D artwork images look absolutely hideous. Clearly Larian is following that artwork style, and styling their character models based on that 5e artwork. So you're right. The blame lies with the hideous and horrible nature of 5e D&D art-style, which is not Larian's fault if WotC is forcing them to use that hideous and horrible style.
What can I say, @kanisatha, BG is a WoTC product, so it is what it is... â”(´ー｀)┌
Originally Posted by dlux
I vastly prefer the art style in the Pathfinder: Kingmaker, which is a recent CRPG. That said, thank goodness Owlcat Games did not copy Pathfinder's official art style, which is really lame IMO.
Pretty sure Amiri in Owlcat´s PF: K and Seelah in PF: WoTR has the exact portrait and same character artwork that in the Paizo´s Pathfinder1e&2e material. And all the portraits have the same design (and several of the lead designers) of the original Paizo team. Google it, man.
Facepalm : People complain about the art style even though the game uses exactly the style of the source material. Larian said they work closely together with wotc and both sides check everything if it makes sense. Looks like they really do this.
What do you want? That a new game looks exactly like a 20 year old game? Just import your favourite portrait from BG2 and create a char who looks as close to this as possible.
Taking a look at the WoTC official material from D&D beyond and the monsters manual anyone can see that they made a pretty good depiction of the creatures
I sometimes wonder if people do know how D&D5E´s creatures, uniforms and the city of Baldur´s gate actually look like before making comparisons...
The problem is the color palette that makes very unrealistic, unlike BG2. The demons are very cartoonish in BG3
Regarding the look of characters: __ I think there is some disharmony to put grassy-wood, blue sky, red demons (tieflings) in the same picture. They could adjust colors, so they mix well with the environment, or make different kind of tieflings to different area. The characters and monsters you meet, the armors they wear are also part of the artwork and should match with the scene, so it feels right. Matching them with the lore is secondary.
It was an early stage version, so probably they will change coloring till release. At character creation window the characters are still incomplete and "pretty" like dolls, but origin characters look way better, so probably they will still adjust the "faces" and make them look cooler.
Facepalm : People complain about the art style even though the game uses exactly the style of the source material. Larian said they work closely together with wotc and both sides check everything if it makes sense. Looks like they really do this.
What do you want? That a new game looks exactly like a 20 year old game? Just import your favourite portrait from BG2 and create a char who looks as close to this as possible.
Players of the original game would like to recognize some of the essence of BG1/BG2 in the new one.
This can be anything, from previous BG games: more consistent art theme+color palette, dynamic fast pace combat, music, style of storytelling, focus on protagonist and antagonist, portraits, less flashy animation, item icons, UI, some reference to the old games on gamplay presentations or at least in new teasers...
Despite of these things I will play it. I think it will be a great game and I think it looks great and some stuff are better, than I expected, like the cinematic treatment of each conversations.
Taking a look at the WoTC official material from D&D beyond and the monsters manual anyone can see that they made a pretty good depiction of the creatures
I sometimes wonder if people do know how D&D5E´s creatures, uniforms and the city of Baldur´s gate actually look like before making comparisons...
The problem is the color palette that makes very unrealistic, unlike BG2. The demons are very cartoonish in BG3
Regarding the look of characters: __ I think there is some disharmony to put grassy-wood, blue sky, red demons (tieflings) in the same picture. They could adjust colors, so they mix well with the environment, or make different kind of tieflings to different area. The characters and monsters you meet, the armors they wear are also part of the artwork and should match with the scene, so it feels right. Matching them with the lore is secondary.
It was an early stage version, so probably they will change coloring till release. At character creation window the characters are still incomplete and "pretty" like dolls, but origin characters look way better, so probably they will still adjust the "faces" and make them look cooler.
Exactly the point. The environment and art design don't match the characters and the colors. It just looks like a funny carnival.
I really hope they do, this trailer has so many flaws that I don't know why they showed this.
I don't even think this is at the level you would expect for an Early Access in a few months.
Looks like the game will need at least a few years for a truly satisfactory final product.
A few years? No, it doesn' t need a few years to fix some animations and come a final color palette. If they haven't even started on Acts II and III then sure, a few years away. But what you guys are complaining about is not years worth of work still needed.
We don't need to go very far : the opening cinematic is really fantastic. Completely believable and mature. In my view, they truly captured the BG essence there. Why not continue throughout the game?
Just look the color palette in the cinematic: yellowish buildings, faded colors in armors and people's clothes, the water is dark. Even the red dragons are not that red (unlike the gameplay demons). It is just perfect.
This is what they should aim for themselves. If they made into the cinematic they can do the same in the gameplay too.
The artwork in the books tend to be cartoonish, but they know how to implement that in a mature way. The Mind Flayer in the real game is horrible compared to the one in the cinematic mainly, because of the colors and illumination. (Also believing that the textures will improve too).
Thats why I am so disappointed, because Larian can do it, but so far they chose to continue DOS style. Don't know if they don't have the courage to do a a different formula.
But let's see more, I still have hope.
Originally Posted by _Vic_
To be fair, the art of the D&D5e Forgotten Realms is what I assume you call "cartoonish" (Just make a search online) so I do not think Larian is to fully blame here. It would be different if the setting is Eberron or Ravenloft, I suppose.
If you are making a game based in a franchise, It´s usual to follow the design guidelines of the franchise, like in Mordheim and W40k. Mostly because WOTC will want his brand to be recognizable.
Originally Posted by IrenicusBG3
Originally Posted by _Vic_
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Everything continues to look exactly like a D:OS game and nothing like a Forgotten Realms game.
Taking a look at the WoTC official material from D&D beyond and the monsters manual anyone can see that they made a pretty good depiction of the creatures
I sometimes wonder if people do know how D&D5E´s creatures, uniforms and the city of Baldur´s gate actually look like before making comparisons...
The problem is the color pallette that makes very unrealistic, unlike BG2. The demons are very cartoonish in BG3
I suppose It´s a matter of tastes. I kinda like it the comic vibe. And as I said, the videogame versions of the creatures really look like the D&D5e counterparts.
Assuming 100 hours of RPG content and what they have shown so far it looks far away of being released.
Originally Posted by deathidge
A few years? No, it doesn' t need a few years to fix some animations and come a final color palette. If they haven't even started on Acts II and III then sure, a few years away. But what you guys are complaining about is not years worth of work still needed.
I think better lighting would solve a lot. Nearly everything is lit straight from camera or all around. There is very little (soft) shadows or global illumination / ambient occlusion. It gives everything very flat and unnatural look. However, the game isn't even in alpha yet and probably more than a year from release, so stuff like this is expected.
Well, as stated before the game uses the same palette as the designs in the manuals and artbook of D&D so technically it´s a very accurate (official D&D5e) Baldur´s gate.
All that the devs showed us pointed out that they are following the guidelines of the modern version of D&D so It´s improbable that they are going to change in the middle of the race.
You are probably right, but that doesn't mean its a good idea to slavishly copy if such action provides an inferior result. DnD artwork over the years has been of variable quality and frequently contradictory, and what looks good in print is not always ideal for other media.
I don't have a particular issue with the character models, but I do find it odd that comic-book excess seems to be creeping into the graphical presentation. I thought the original gameplay reveal was a perfectly acceptable graphical presentation, but this trailer really was not. I'm not sure how long I could play a game with that degree of overexposure.
Maybe it's just this trailer, not the game as a whole, but for me, it has certainly had the effect of questioning their direction rather than assuring their competence.
Adressing the nonsense in this thread in no particular order.
>PoE has good artstyle Opinion discarded >Witcher literaly a game thats based heavily of freal world inspirations versus forgotten realms which is THE quintessential kitchen sink fantasy. If you wanted a grounded game, why do you want it set in one of the most ridiculous created-as-fapbait settings there is?
>Muh dark atmosphere and more bullshit. I swear every time one of you people spouts this nonsense i hope they put in another weresheep. Its not true, its not based on anything youve actually seen, its just a value judgement based on nothing. As ive demnstrated multiple times iwht screenshots.
SInce none of you (all 3 people of you with your 40 accounts with 2 posts each) has actually disproven anyhting of that with evidence of your own, its safe to assume that i can just discard all of your uneducated opinions.
>Muh Colours should we get the screenshots again? Dont make me humilliate you like that. Your nostalgia addled brain still hasnt realized that Baldurs gate wasnt dark souls. Baldurs gate had that exact colour scheme, just boot up the damn game and see for yourself. The infinity engine games had THE most generic artstyle in RPG history. Dont kid yourselves.
You were children when you played those games and thats why they feel "mature" to you.
>oh no an isometric game doenst have perfect physics You should know what youll get. CRPGs arent tripple A video games and you would have to be stupid to expect that. Now let me ask you, would you rather have the feature to let terrain fall on enemies but with suboptimal graphics, or would you not like to have that feature? Come on, go discredit yourself. For all the lapping up of the garbage that was the infinity engine, you suddenly sure all seem to be hung up on graphics of all things. Almost as if all those low post count accounts are massive hypocrits.
>Muh character design doesnt match the enviroment You mean the artstyle directly taken from the Source books? The same thing baldurs gate did back in its day?
Oh and one particular gem i cannot help but comment on.
>Thank goodness owlcat didnt copy pathfidners official artstle Hahahha! Did you miss the entire huge kickstarter blog post where Owlcat went into great lenghts of explaining how the game is meant to mirror Wayne Reynolds artstyle? Down to the fact that there was a very deliberate descision to include all the equipped items on a given character BECAUSE thats how Wayne Reynolds depicts it in the official art.
I really hope there will be an old dwarf or an elf in BG3 who will Loudly complain on how better everything was back in a day, how people dress like idiots and how hardcore he/she had back in the day.
I pretty much disagree with everything you said. Things like the dark atmosphere...the intro cimematic for BG 1 is an unknown individual getting his throat crushed by an as-yet-unnamed overpowering villain, and being thrown to his death on the cobblestones below. As for the art style etc, what I've seen so far of Larian's efforts reminds me of nothing so much as having the sun shined directly into my eyeballs for a prolonged period.
But really my objections are more of a sum of the individual issues, none of which taken on its own is sufficient to make the point. As someone said above, a lot of us want to see some meaningful resemblance to the originals so we can identify that connection, other than simply the setting itself. Plus I can't stand it when people say the setting IS what makes it BG. You could make a LotR game in the setting of Middle Earth but if you did it in the style of Pokemon it would be justly seen as ridiculous. On the technical front I don't care that it's not Infinity engine-esque because that would be irrelevant if the essence was correct. If you got that right even a first-person rpg would fit just fine.
There are five of us in my circle who are into BG. Four of us absolutely hate what we've seen so far and one of us thinks "it's not BG but it'll probably be a good co-op game." 0.5 out of 5 is not a good success rate for old fans. Each fantasy creation has its own particular flavour, whether it's Divinity, GoT, LotR, BG, Witcher...they all taste different, and for whatever reason or combination of reasons Larian's effort tastes wrong for this creation.
Maybe the fans of the old games are not the game target audience anymore for reasons known by the Sales department. I mean, they are using D&D5e Assets, they are advertising modules of WOTC together (Descent into Avernus, etc), they are doing interviews together with WOTC CEOs, working with D&D5e creators, using the ruleset and the setting...
But I dont´remember them referencing the old BG games in any interview unless asked first (In one interview even Sven Vincke and Mike Merle didn´t remember the canon ending of the baalspawn crises), they didn´t make videos of "Sven Vinke playing the old bg games", didnt´hire any of the original game screenwriters, musicians,... didn´t use images of the old games and characters to advertise the game (Owlcat, for example, included two of the iconic characters of Pathfinder in the videogames, Amiri and Seelah),... didn´t take people from Black isle into the game-cons,... and they do none of the things that the PR department use to do to rally the old game fans.
Maybe the fans of the old games are not the game target anymore for reasons known by the Sales department.
You're probably completely right. The optimist in me would have thought that it should be possible to tie the old and the new together in such a way that didn't detract from the overall potential of the game as a financial prospect. And the purist in me says that if you're going to develop a sequel to a beloved pre-existing creation it would seem...honourable, or at the very least, appropriate to do so. The lack of that makes me view the entire enterprise very cynically.
Forlorn hope you just keep repeating yourself i dont know how i should adress that. Give me screenshot comparisons, because i already did that to prove my point , so its up to you now to do the same.
Give me screenshot comparisons, because i already did that to prove my point , so its up to you now to do the same.
To be honest my man, I think because we're so firmly in different camps if I took screenshots for comparison we'd both see what we wanted to see while looking at the same thing. It might be more productive to look at BG3 side by side with DOS to see how ridiculously similar they are. Indeed, part of what rubbed me up the wrong way about the footage we've seen so far is not just that it doesn't feel like BG, but that it feels so much like Divinity instead.
Maybe the fans of the old games are not the game target audience anymore for reasons known by the Sales department. I mean, they are using D&D5e Assets, they are advertising modules of WOTC together (Descent into Avernus, etc), they are doing interviews together with WOTC CEOs, working with D&D5e creators, using the ruleset and the setting...
But I dont´remember them referencing the old BG games in any interview unless asked first (In one interview even Sven Vincke and Mike Merle didn´t remember the canon ending of the baalspawn crises), they didn´t make videos of "Sven Vinke playing the old bg games", didnt´hire any of the original game screenwriters, musicians,... didn´t use images of the old games and characters to advertise the game (Owlcat, for example, included two of the iconic characters of Pathfinder in the videogames, Amiri and Seelah),... didn´t take people from Black isle into the game-cons,... and they do none of the things that the PR department use to do to rally the old game fans.
Just food for thought.
Target Audience by priority IMHO.
D&D 5e fans Forgotten Realms fans Divinity fans TBRPG fans Traditional Baldur's Gate fans.
As both a 5e fan and even more so an FR fan and a TB fan its shocking to be in the target demographic for once because that nevet seems to jappen to me.
Maybe the fans of the old games are not the game target audience anymore for reasons known by the Sales department. I mean, they are using D&D5e Assets, they are advertising modules of WOTC together (Descent into Avernus, etc), they are doing interviews together with WOTC CEOs, working with D&D5e creators, using the ruleset and the setting...
But I dont´remember them referencing the old BG games in any interview unless asked first (In one interview even Sven Vincke and Mike Merle didn´t remember the canon ending of the baalspawn crises), they didn´t make videos of "Sven Vinke playing the old bg games", didnt´hire any of the original game screenwriters, musicians,... didn´t use images of the old games and characters to advertise the game (Owlcat, for example, included two of the iconic characters of Pathfinder in the videogames, Amiri and Seelah),... didn´t take people from Black isle into the game-cons,... and they do none of the things that the PR department use to do to rally the old game fans.
D&D Forgotten Realms Sword Coast Baldur's Gate
These are all recognisable terms that could have been used in a game title to give the necessary marketing flavour to a new game not directly related to the original story. There was no need to actually call it BG3, and in doing so they were wilfully appealing to the goodwill associated with the original games.
It may well be true that they have made no other hires or references whatever to the original games, but in choosing a name that screams sequel, Larian made a rod for their own back.
Personally, I don't care if it is a sequel to the original story, and I don't have any desire to retain any of the implementation details of the original games, but at present it is really not clear what BG3 actually is, which leaves it open to criticism based on assumptions.
It remains possible that there are deep and satisfying links to the original story arc that might justify the sequal tag in terms of story-telling. And it remains possible that the game will be a superior single-person, party-based role-playing experience in the Baldur's Gate region that might justify the sequal tag in game-play terms.
But the evidence for either seems thin at present.
Oh, I agree that the name BG3 gives a lot of exposure: They had lots of interviews, media apparitions, Wotc license and support, a Belgian videogame "indie" studio like Larian even made as a face for the launch of Stadia with a game that is not even finished, so they did it right.
What I meant is that the target audience of the videogame is not "old-BG-games-fans-only" as in "we are not doing anything reminiscent to the original games and it was never intended to be". I think they are making a game for D&D5e fans, Forgotten realms fans, TB fans, CRPG fans... first and foremost; as the screenshots, trailers, etc show and the OP @Omegaphalic pointed out; for múltiple reasons already posted in this thread (design, mechanics, colour palette, etc).
Not that I have anything against that, I happen to like D&D5e, TB, the forgotten realms... etc so I´m happy with plenty of what they show us so far (Even tho I found wierd some design choices) and, even I loved the old games I do not particularly care that much about the game to be similar to the old (and amazing) BG trilogy.
I mean, the story of the baalspawn is already finished, it´s a different studio, do not share plot or common characters that we know of, It´s a turn-based game, 20 years and 3 different editions of D&D passed and they are using D&D5e game mechanics, lore and Artwork; and a setting 200 years after the baalspawn crisis, so... Do you really think they are worried about "deep and satisfying links to the original story arc that might justify the sequal tag in terms of story-telling and game-play terms"?
Adressing the nonsense in this thread in no particular order.
>PoE has good artstyle Opinion discarded >Witcher literaly a game thats based heavily of freal world inspirations versus forgotten realms which is THE quintessential kitchen sink fantasy. If you wanted a grounded game, why do you want it set in one of the most ridiculous created-as-fapbait settings there is?
>Muh dark atmosphere and more bullshit. I swear every time one of you people spouts this nonsense i hope they put in another weresheep. Its not true, its not based on anything youve actually seen, its just a value judgement based on nothing. As ive demnstrated multiple times iwht screenshots.
SInce none of you (all 3 people of you with your 40 accounts with 2 posts each) has actually disproven anyhting of that with evidence of your own, its safe to assume that i can just discard all of your uneducated opinions.
>Muh Colours should we get the screenshots again? Dont make me humilliate you like that. Your nostalgia addled brain still hasnt realized that Baldurs gate wasnt dark souls. Baldurs gate had that exact colour scheme, just boot up the damn game and see for yourself. The infinity engine games had THE most generic artstyle in RPG history. Dont kid yourselves.
You were children when you played those games and thats why they feel "mature" to you.
>oh no an isometric game doenst have perfect physics You should know what youll get. CRPGs arent tripple A video games and you would have to be stupid to expect that. Now let me ask you, would you rather have the feature to let terrain fall on enemies but with suboptimal graphics, or would you not like to have that feature? Come on, go discredit yourself. For all the lapping up of the garbage that was the infinity engine, you suddenly sure all seem to be hung up on graphics of all things. Almost as if all those low post count accounts are massive hypocrits.
>Muh character design doesnt match the enviroment You mean the artstyle directly taken from the Source books? The same thing baldurs gate did back in its day?
Oh and one particular gem i cannot help but comment on.
>Thank goodness owlcat didnt copy pathfidners official artstle Hahahha! Did you miss the entire huge kickstarter blog post where Owlcat went into great lenghts of explaining how the game is meant to mirror Wayne Reynolds artstyle? Down to the fact that there was a very deliberate descision to include all the equipped items on a given character BECAUSE thats how Wayne Reynolds depicts it in the official art.
Absoluteley delusional.
Hahahah
This kid needs some serious therapy.
Just look at the BG 3 opening cinematic and the current gameplay and you can see the discrepancy.
Just look at the BG 3 opening cinematic and the current gameplay and you can see the discrepancy.
No game has ever looked like a cinematic trailer.
You seriously cannot compare BG1 and 2 to BG3 in terms of aesthetic. The resolution alone kills any comparison that you might try to make. I bet if they had today's tech 20+ years ago, BG1 and 2 would have been A LOT different, probably unrecognizable from what they are. They didn't have access to what Larian has access to.
compare the colour palette :^) you have already faileda t that in another thread. Compare the character design. OH no you already failed at that in another seperate thread.
Compare the writing! OH NO! Its minsc ruining your entire narrative!
Adressing the nonsense in this thread in no particular order.
. . .
. .
. . . . Absoluteley delusional.
I totally agree with you.
I think the main issue is the name: Baldurs Gate 3. Things would be less dramatic if they called it "Divinity 3: the gate of baldur" (now with DnD 5E licence) They called it BG3 to get as much attention as possible. Lots of people talking about their product ( including several people who talk nonsense or who complain that the game does not look exactly how they imagined the successor of their favourite childhood game) is way better for them than nobody talking about it.
Except its not a Divinity game. The combat system doesn't have the same mechanics. It's set in Faerun, not Rivellon. The races, classes and skills are all D&D related, not Divinity related.
There is nothing linking it to the Divinity games save for the fact that both have TB combat systems, and even then the mechanics are completely different.
Adressing the nonsense in this thread in no particular order.
. . .
. .
. . . . Absoluteley delusional.
I totally agree with you.
I think the main issue is the name: Baldurs Gate 3. Things would be less dramatic if they called it "Divinity 3: the gate of baldur" (now with DnD 5E licence) They called it BG3 to get as much attention as possible. Lots of people talking about their product ( including several people who talk nonsense or who complain that the game does not look exactly how they imagined the successor of their favourite childhood game) is way better for them than nobody talking about it.
I agree with you on the name it does look like a cash grab Larian would have been better off just making there own DND video game instead of trying to carry on the series
The fact that they choose to use the title "Baldur's gate 3" may not be in their favor. As we saw, a lot of baldur's gate fans are disapointed by the actual form of the game.
Since Baldur's gate 2, we had a lot of game from forgotten realms with different "atmosphere" and look. But using "baldur's gate 3" is a huge commitment. I have not doubt the game will sell well. They did it to expend the audience we all get it, they said that themselves. And maybe Larian does really love baldur's gate 1 & 2, maybe not.
They used their experience in divinity like a legacy for BG3 on the look, the assets (for now) etc.. And for some of us (we will see how much with the early access) it is hearthbreaking. It's hard to explain precisely why it doesn't fit, because it is a global feeling. It is not only the balance of exposure and usage of colors, or the turn by turn gameplay...
It is the sobriety of the gameplay, the ellegance of the decor and scenery. The quality of the writing that i didn't find from what i saw in the gameplay revealed. The color harmony; The feeling not to play a game in "tune with the times". The impression of a huge world even with only a few maps. The habilityand sharpness to make it coherent.
From a very personnal point a view, i found that last trailer absolutely ugly. If i did'nt know where it came from, i would've say it is for a new mobile MMO with good graphics. It is very personnal and i don't judge the dev for a short trailer, it was just a quick feeling. Before the trailer i was confused, now i'm desperate ;)
They only thing they had to do is calling it something like "Forgotten realms : Avernum" (just an exemple). Because now it blocks the way to really create a more baldurish 3 game.
Just look at the BG 3 opening cinematic and the current gameplay and you can see the discrepancy.
No game has ever looked like a cinematic trailer.
You seriously cannot compare BG1 and 2 to BG3 in terms of aesthetic. The resolution alone kills any comparison that you might try to make. I bet if they had today's tech 20+ years ago, BG1 and 2 would have been A LOT different, probably unrecognizable from what they are. They didn't have access to what Larian has access to.
It has nothing to do with the resolution. And I am not even comparing to BG1/2.
It is about keeping the coherence they established on their own opening. And it is nothing really hard to fix or to achieve.
They are not doing (?yet) because they don't want to.
Just look at the BG 3 opening cinematic and the current gameplay and you can see the discrepancy.
No game has ever looked like a cinematic trailer.
You seriously cannot compare BG1 and 2 to BG3 in terms of aesthetic. The resolution alone kills any comparison that you might try to make. I bet if they had today's tech 20+ years ago, BG1 and 2 would have been A LOT different, probably unrecognizable from what they are. They didn't have access to what Larian has access to.
It has nothing to do with the resolution. And I am not even comparing to BG1/2.
It is about keeping the coherence they established on their own opening. And it is nothing really hard to fix or to achieve.
They are not doing (?yet) because they don't want to.
What in the name of John Cena are you even saying? "keeping the coherence they established on their own opening?" Wtf does that even mean?
Everyone that is harping on their writing, like it's not as good as BG1 and 2...you literally haven't seen anything yet, not even a tenth of a percent of the game's writing.
Obviously they either don't want to spoil the actual 'Baldur's Gate' of the game, or they aren't ready to show it off yet. All we have seen is what is going to teach us about how to play the game basics; a starting area, simple fights to learn the different mechanics in the game like verticality, etc.
Muh it's not dark light BG1 and 2 - yea, because they had comparatively shitty software and literally couldn't get the lighting that tech nowadays can. You see one short clip of sunlight and freak tf out, it's pathetic really. This is Baldur's Gate 3. You may not like the direction but it's obviously the direction that the CREATORS of Baldur's Gate and the FR want it to go. At least wait for EA gameplay on Youtube where you can actually see more of the world and mechanics, etc, before tossing this in the proverbial garbage.
>cashgrab bruh and here you people want to be taken seriously. yeah sure, lets hire an entire extra studio and take on a highly ambitious project the likes weve never done, also shackle oursleves to a highly restirctive IP despite having a successfull one of our own, you know, make some quick cash.
Maybe the fans of the old games are not the game target audience anymore for reasons known by the Sales department. I mean, they are using D&D5e Assets, they are advertising modules of WOTC together (Descent into Avernus, etc), they are doing interviews together with WOTC CEOs, working with D&D5e creators, using the ruleset and the setting...
But I dont´remember them referencing the old BG games in any interview unless asked first (In one interview even Sven Vincke and Mike Merle didn´t remember the canon ending of the baalspawn crises), they didn´t make videos of "Sven Vinke playing the old bg games", didnt´hire any of the original game screenwriters, musicians,... didn´t use images of the old games and characters to advertise the game (Owlcat, for example, included two of the iconic characters of Pathfinder in the videogames, Amiri and Seelah),... didn´t take people from Black isle into the game-cons,... and they do none of the things that the PR department use to do to rally the old game fans.
Just food for thought.
Target Audience by priority IMHO.
D&D 5e fans Forgotten Realms fans Divinity fans TBRPG fans Traditional Baldur's Gate fans.
As both a 5e fan and even more so an FR fan and a TB fan its shocking to be in the target demographic for once because that nevet seems to jappen to me.
Sorry, I think @_Vic_ has the right of it. For me it is abundantly clear the target audience by priority are:
They used their experience in divinity like a legacy for BG3 on the look, the assets (for now) etc.. And for some of us (we will see how much with the early access) it is hearthbreaking. It's hard to explain precisely why it doesn't fit, because it is a global feeling. It is not only the balance of exposure and usage of colors, or the turn by turn gameplay...
Which is why using BG3 as a marketing ploy might be considered impolite
Absolutely. I agree. Calling it BG3 is so obviously a marketing ploy. BG3 has no relationship whatsoever to the first two games other than the use of the namesake city.
And as for the game's imagery, just go take a look at videos and trailers for Solasta. Solasta looks very much like a game set in the Forgotten Realms even though it is in reality not. Solasta's budget is a tiny fraction of BG3's huge AAA budget, and yet looks so much better and so much more like a true D&D/FR game.
[quote=etonbears]Which is why using BG3 as a marketing ploy might be considered impolite
WoTC owns the Forgotten Realms and the fictitious city of Baldur's Gate, and they are working closely with Larian in all aspects of this game. Calling this a marketing ploy is an insult to every WoTC employee that is working with Larian to ensure that the game is true to D&D, Baldur's Gate, the Baldur's Gate story, etc.
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Absolutely. I agree. Calling it BG3 is so obviously a marketing ploy. BG3 has no relationship whatsoever to the first two games other than the use of the namesake city.
You haven't seen any of the story yet so you literally can't say there is no relationship to the first 2 games. All we know, literally, is that Swen confirmed that, in reality, there is deep and meaningful connections to both places and people from the first 2 games. It's set, what, one or two hundred years after BG2 so...a lot changes in the FR in that period of time. A lot.
Originally Posted by kanisatha
And as for the game's imagery, just go take a look at videos and trailers for Solasta. Solasta looks very much like a game set in the Forgotten Realms even though it is in reality not. Solasta's budget is a tiny fraction of BG3's huge AAA budget, and yet looks so much better and so much more like a true D&D/FR game.
Solasta, while I plan on following them and probably buying, looks no where near as clean as BG3. You can tell they have a much smaller budget. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing...but it most certainly does not look better than BG3 by any means.
WoTC owns the Forgotten Realms and the fictitious city of Baldur's Gate, and they are working closely with Larian in all aspects of this game. Calling this a marketing ploy is an insult to every WoTC employee that is working with Larian to ensure that the game is true to D&D, Baldur's Gate, the Baldur's Gate story, etc.
Well, WotC has been insulting me for years now, with what they have done with the 4e and 5e versions of D&D, slashing and burning the FR setting, killing the FR novels, etc. So I have zero concern about insulting WotC right back. They are free to try and earn back my trust and my support, but going by BG3 I don't see this happening. They have written off all of their old(er) fans and now care only about their new fans (even though we older fans are the ones with any real money). So be it. I just hope I live to see the day when today's new fans are tomorrow's old fans who get to enjoy their turn getting thrown under the bus.
WoTC owns the Forgotten Realms and the fictitious city of Baldur's Gate, and they are working closely with Larian in all aspects of this game. Calling this a marketing ploy is an insult to every WoTC employee that is working with Larian to ensure that the game is true to D&D, Baldur's Gate, the Baldur's Gate story, etc.
Well, WotC has been insulting me for years now, with what they have done with the 4e and 5e versions of D&D, slashing and burning the FR setting, killing the FR novels, etc. So I have zero concern about insulting WotC right back. They are free to try and earn back my trust and my support, but going by BG3 I don't see this happening. They have written off all of their old(er) fans and now care only about their new fans (even though we older fans are the ones with any real money). So be it. I just hope I live to see the day when today's new fans are tomorrow's old fans who get to enjoy their turn getting thrown under the bus.
lLol. 5E is by far their best financial edition. By far. And if you are such a disenfranchised fan wtf are you doing here
BG1/2 and Planescape Torment even with limited technology were able to create a very detailed, believable and "mature" world. 3D games already existed at their time and they wisely chose what would fit best to portray their universe. In my view, they still (artistically) look good today.
Originally Posted by deathidge
Originally Posted by IrenicusBG3
Originally Posted by deathidge
Originally Posted by IrenicusBG3
Just look at the BG 3 opening cinematic and the current gameplay and you can see the discrepancy.
No game has ever looked like a cinematic trailer.
You seriously cannot compare BG1 and 2 to BG3 in terms of aesthetic. The resolution alone kills any comparison that you might try to make. I bet if they had today's tech 20+ years ago, BG1 and 2 would have been A LOT different, probably unrecognizable from what they are. They didn't have access to what Larian has access to.
It has nothing to do with the resolution. And I am not even comparing to BG1/2.
It is about keeping the coherence they established on their own opening. And it is nothing really hard to fix or to achieve.
They are not doing (?yet) because they don't want to.
What in the name of John Cena are you even saying? "keeping the coherence they established on their own opening?" Wtf does that even mean?
Visual and atmosphere coherence. You can see that BG2 cutscenes/cinematics (even if they were awkward) are coherent both in atmosphere and color palette. BG3 instead, you go from a believable and mature representation of FR on the cinematic to an artificial colorful, shinning, unrealistic FR.
And regarding this last trailer, Larian clearly doesn't have any quality threshold to release materials. Hopefully by Saturday we will have a better sense which direction BG3 is going. Enough of this discussion and will see what else content they have.
Maybe the fans of the old games are not the game target audience anymore for reasons known by the Sales department. I mean, they are using D&D5e Assets, they are advertising modules of WOTC together (Descent into Avernus, etc), they are doing interviews together with WOTC CEOs, working with D&D5e creators, using the ruleset and the setting...
But I dont´remember them referencing the old BG games in any interview unless asked first (In one interview even Sven Vincke and Mike Merle didn´t remember the canon ending of the baalspawn crises), they didn´t make videos of "Sven Vinke playing the old bg games", didnt´hire any of the original game screenwriters, musicians,... didn´t use images of the old games and characters to advertise the game (Owlcat, for example, included two of the iconic characters of Pathfinder in the videogames, Amiri and Seelah),... didn´t take people from Black isle into the game-cons,... and they do none of the things that the PR department use to do to rally the old game fans.
Just food for thought.
Target Audience by priority IMHO.
D&D 5e fans Forgotten Realms fans Divinity fans TBRPG fans Traditional Baldur's Gate fans.
As both a 5e fan and even more so an FR fan and a TB fan its shocking to be in the target demographic for once because that nevet seems to jappen to me.
Sorry, I think @_Vic_ has the right of it. For me it is abundantly clear the target audience by priority are:
BG1/2 and Planescape Torment even with limited technology were able to create a very detailed, believable and "mature" world. 3D games already existed at their time and they wisely chose what would fit best to portray their universe. In my view, they still (artistically) look good today.
BG1+2 are standart fantasy stories, but they are done very well. Calling them mature (whatever this means) is a bit of a stretch. The most famous companion is a guy who talks to his hamster. The game uses many known fantasy tropes. The main story of BG2 ( bad mage kidnaps my girlfriend) has been told countless times. The games are done very well and I enjoy them a lot, but if you ask me for a very good mature RPG, I tell you to play the witcher series.
The graphics of BG1+2 are good and I still like to play them. 3D graphics existed at that time, but they were huge polygon blocks. Old 3D games look terrible today while old games in 2D or cartoon style still look relatively good today. I played NWN1 some time ago and in the beginning I had to force myself to play because the huge polygons are so ugly. On the other hand, I still like chrone trigger, for example. Another example is Alundra for PS1. The first game looked like Zelda for SNES and it was great, I wish I could play it again. They used 3D for the second game and it looked terrible. Regarding BG1+2 the devs did the right choice. The games are huge. Making a 3D game at this time was lots of efford and the result was still ugly. Having a good looking and easy to make 2D game (You just have to paint the background instead of building the world out of many polygons when number, size and color of them was limited) was better than doing an ugly 3D game.
Today, nobody make a huge 2D RPG unless they call it pixel art. A modern large scale RPG needs good full 3D graphics, so any new game will look different than BG1+2.
As for PST, regarding characters, story and setting it is one of the best games ever. Game mechanics wise it was terrible. They used a combat focussed system for a story focussed game. From my current point of view, the gameplay system of Disco Elysium ( which I consider the best true successor of PST) is much better for such a game than DnD 2E.
I honestly fail to see why anyone would care about you as a demographic. You cannot be satiated, youll never be happy and you willl whine and seethe at the slightest misconduct agaisnt your perfect product that only exists in your head and that is seperate from the same "perfect product" in the head of every other one of you.
you did this to yourselves.
But yeah keep going on about your "mature" artstyle, which also only exists in your nostalgia poisoned brain.
I honestly fail to see why anyone would care about you as a demographic. You cannot be satiated, youll never be happy and you willl whine and seethe at the slightest misconduct agaisnt your perfect product that only exists in your head and that is seperate from the same "perfect product" in the head of every other one of you.
I think this is demonstrably false, given that a lot of people are bringing up more or less consistent objections repeatedly. It's annoying when, just because you liked something a long time ago, someone dismisses any objection to a new imagining as invalid because of nostalgia. And since most of us played the games as adults too it doesn't really seem to hold water.
I don't think anyone's dissatisfied because the product on offer as we've seen it so far isn't perfect, I think we're dissatisfied because it's not checking many, if any, of the boxes for a faithful sequel of an established series. As I've said, I'd be willing to overlook a lot of flaws or changes if there were just a few things done right.
>consistent objections half of which are parroting somehting that so far has not proven to be an actual thing. such as the much parroted Colour palette or artstyle thing, which i have disproven twice now and nobody actually bothers to back it up.
the other thing is RTWP combat, which lets be frank, isnt happening.
And on anything else you cannot actually agree on. Some of you want it to be "dark and mature", but somehow you still want it to look like BG1 and 2, some want it to be a 2D game, some want it to be a 3D game, some dont want larian developing it at all. some want to stick to 2E rules, some are fine with 5E but dont want rules alterations at all. Some of you explode at the thought of multiplayer while others want it cause BG1 and 2 had it.
You fundamentally cannot actually boil down your vision beyonda nything that is "RTWP and stroking my nostalgia boner" But you forget that nostalgia is different for every person and things are interpreted differently.
For a personal example, im disatisifed with many reimaginings of morrowind because they keep making the landscape lush. for many people the "imaginary" morrowind always had tons of foliage because there were tree modles in morrowind, only they looked very barren due to graphical limitations. For me, morrowind always looked barren and almost desert like because i took said graphical limitations as an intention of design (which it might have been) So whose right now? Whose vision is correct? Nobodys is, because your brain interprets what you see differently.
I mean for crying out loud, so many of you somehow look at the ye olde england bright green garden landscapes of BG1 and somehow see "gritty dark" fantasy. Because thats how your brain imagined it. You cannot win against imagination.
all those boxes you want checked dont exist. Theres only one you can agree on, and that ones basically a sacred cow
[quote=Sordak I mean for crying out loud, so many of you somehow look at the ye olde england bright green garden landscapes of BG1 and somehow see "gritty dark" fantasy. Because thats how your brain imagined it. You cannot win against imagination. [/quote]
Those things aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, though. You can have just as much darkness and grit, or just as much of a lack, in the DOS style's brighter areas or in BG's, but the resulting impression of the style from each combination is bound to differ.
I know what you're saying, of course people have varying expectations and they're not all going to be satisfied, but this isn't justification for simply throwing out everything and doing whatever you want with no regard to any of the pre-existing hallmarks. The check boxes do exist, some are simply more easily defined than others.
There is an objective list of criteria (including things like RTwP as you say, UI, number of party members, resemblance across the board to DOS) mixed in with more subjective aspects like the atmosphere and lighting and how they affect the game. The difficulty being that people prioritise that list according to their own views, and also the fact that pretty much none of these boxes have been checked at all makes people far more critical across the board and with reference to aspects that are harder to quantify and define.
But however you look at it there's a certain degree of fidelity that people expect when you seek to continue a series and it just doesn't seem to be there in any aspect of it.
Maybe the fans of the old games are not the game target audience anymore for reasons known by the Sales department. I mean, they are using D&D5e Assets, they are advertising modules of WOTC together (Descent into Avernus, etc), they are doing interviews together with WOTC CEOs, working with D&D5e creators, using the ruleset and the setting...
But I dont´remember them referencing the old BG games in any interview unless asked first (In one interview even Sven Vincke and Mike Merle didn´t remember the canon ending of the baalspawn crises), they didn´t make videos of "Sven Vinke playing the old bg games", didnt´hire any of the original game screenwriters, musicians,... didn´t use images of the old games and characters to advertise the game (Owlcat, for example, included two of the iconic characters of Pathfinder in the videogames, Amiri and Seelah),... didn´t take people from Black isle into the game-cons,... and they do none of the things that the PR department use to do to rally the old game fans.
Just food for thought.
Target Audience by priority IMHO.
D&D 5e fans Forgotten Realms fans Divinity fans TBRPG fans Traditional Baldur's Gate fans.
As both a 5e fan and even more so an FR fan and a TB fan its shocking to be in the target demographic for once because that nevet seems to jappen to me.
Sorry, I think @_Vic_ has the right of it. For me it is abundantly clear the target audience by priority are:
[There is an objective list of criteria (including things like RTwP as you say, UI, number of party members, resemblance across the board to DOS) mixed in with more subjective aspects like the atmosphere and lighting and how they affect the game. The difficulty being that people prioritise that list according to their own views, and also the fact that pretty much none of these boxes have been checked at all makes people far more critical across the board and with reference to aspects that are harder to quantify and define.
But however you look at it there's a certain degree of fidelity that people expect when you seek to continue a series and it just doesn't seem to be there in any aspect of it.
Again, for the umpteenth time, you literally haven't seen any of the game beyond an intro area that teaches you about the game and it's basic mechanics. You haven't seen the darker and grittier parts of the game. You haven't seen 99% of the world and the feel of it. You haven't seen the areas, like Baldur's Gate, that may actually align more to what you are expecting to see. You haven't seen the people and stories that actually connect this game and storyline to BG1 and 2. Swen said he literally played through both BG1 and 2 in preparation for making this game.
All you complainers literally haven't seen anything to complain about yet when it comes to the look and feel of the game, the story, etc. The only complaints you have a leg to stand on about are the reduced party size (which I agree, I'd like it to be at least 6) and that's about it. Everything has a 'realistic' look compared to the 2D, lower resolution of the first games.
Again, for the umpteenth time, you literally haven't seen any of the game beyond an intro area that teaches you about the game and it's basic mechanics. You haven't seen the darker and grittier parts of the game. You haven't seen 99% of the world and the feel of it. You haven't seen the areas, like Baldur's Gate, that may actually align more to what you are expecting to see. You haven't seen the people and stories that actually connect this game and storyline to BG1 and 2. Swen said he literally played through both BG1 and 2 in preparation for making this game.
All you complainers literally haven't seen anything to complain about yet when it comes to the look and feel of the game, the story, etc. The only complaints you have a leg to stand on about are the reduced party size (which I agree, I'd like it to be at least 6) and that's about it. Everything has a 'realistic' look compared to the 2D, lower resolution of the first games.
Apart from the obvious mechanical differences in gameplay the fact that it looks so undeniably similar to DOS in visual terms can be gleaned from what we've seen so far, and that alone is very annoying. I don't have any expectations that it would remain in a 20-year graphical stasis necessitated by foolhardy allegiance to a certain outdated aesthetic but it should definitely have its own visual identity rather than piggybacking on that of another.
The main thing I can tell from what I've seen so far, though, is that I don't like it.
Anyway I'm done with this debate as I've registered my discontent and I shall merely vote with my wallet when the time comes, as will we all. I hope it turns out to be great in the end and the concerns fall away in the face of RPG excellence, but I shall not be optimistic.
It looks simmilar to OS because its made by larian. none of the things youve seen are typical for original sin, they are typical for Fantasy RPGs. Does Dragon Age also look like Original sin? by your definition it probably does since the BG3 screenshots remind me of dragon age inquisition a lot.
>own visual identiy such as? Such as ye olde england?
And yes, by all means, vote with your wallet. All 3 of you.
Hi, I´m the ghost of Posts past, just giving a friendly reminder that the gameplay trailers and design look exactly like the original source material of WotC`s Forgotten realms D&D5e, so the game trailer looks exactly like Baldur´s gate, It´s just (DND5e) Baldur´s gate.
Originally Posted by _Vic_
To be fair, the art of the D&D5e Forgotten Realms is what I assume you call "cartoonish" (Just make a search online) so I do not think Larian is to fully blame here. It would be different if the setting is Eberron or Ravenloft, I suppose.
If you are making a game based in a franchise, It´s usual to follow the design guidelines of the franchise, like in Mordheim and W40k. Mostly because WOTC will want his brand to be recognizable.
Originally Posted by IrenicusBG3
Originally Posted by _Vic_
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Everything continues to look exactly like a D:OS game and nothing like a Forgotten Realms game.
Taking a look at the WoTC official material from D&D beyond and the monsters manual anyone can see that they made a pretty good depiction of the creatures
I sometimes wonder if people do know how D&D5E´s creatures, uniforms and the city of Baldur´s gate actually look like before making comparisons...
The problem is the color pallette that makes very unrealistic, unlike BG2. The demons are very cartoonish in BG3
I suppose It´s a matter of tastes. I kinda like it the comic vibe. And as I said, the videogame versions of the creatures really look like the D&D5e counterparts.
>consistent objections half of which are parroting somehting that so far has not proven to be an actual thing. such as the much parroted Colour palette or artstyle thing, which i have disproven twice now and nobody actually bothers to back it up.
the other thing is RTWP combat, which lets be frank, isnt happening.
And on anything else you cannot actually agree on. Some of you want it to be "dark and mature", but somehow you still want it to look like BG1 and 2, some want it to be a 2D game, some want it to be a 3D game, some dont want larian developing it at all. some want to stick to 2E rules, some are fine with 5E but dont want rules alterations at all. Some of you explode at the thought of multiplayer while others want it cause BG1 and 2 had it.
You fundamentally cannot actually boil down your vision beyonda nything that is "RTWP and stroking my nostalgia boner" But you forget that nostalgia is different for every person and things are interpreted differently.
For a personal example, im disatisifed with many reimaginings of morrowind because they keep making the landscape lush. for many people the "imaginary" morrowind always had tons of foliage because there were tree modles in morrowind, only they looked very barren due to graphical limitations. For me, morrowind always looked barren and almost desert like because i took said graphical limitations as an intention of design (which it might have been) So whose right now? Whose vision is correct? Nobodys is, because your brain interprets what you see differently.
I mean for crying out loud, so many of you somehow look at the ye olde england bright green garden landscapes of BG1 and somehow see "gritty dark" fantasy. Because thats how your brain imagined it. You cannot win against imagination.
all those boxes you want checked dont exist. Theres only one you can agree on, and that ones basically a sacred cow
"I mean for crying out loud, so many of you somehow look at the ye olde england bright green garden landscapes of BG1 and somehow see "gritty dark" fantasy. Because thats how your brain imagined it." I guess BG2 is the one people remember and I think it is more appropriate to compare BG3 with BG2 not BG1.
"all those boxes you want checked dont exist." For now it seems, that they are unchecked. Some of those boxes are the similarities to the original series.
I think what most of us would mean under dark, that it should present itself a bit more serious. No it does not have to be diablo 4... Enjoy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-155if8cDHU
Hi, I´m the ghost of Posts past, just coming to remember that the gameplay trailers and design look exactly like the original source material of WotC`s Forgotten realms D&D5e, so the game trailer looks exactly like Baldur´s gate, It´s just (DND5e) Baldur´s gate.
Tielfing looks good, if you switch the background with hell. Githyanki is very well done, maybe one of the best of the origin characters.
D&D 5e fans Forgotten Realms fans Divinity fans TBRPG fans Traditional Baldur's Gate fans.
As both a 5e fan and even more so an FR fan and a TB fan its shocking to be in the target demographic for once because that nevet seems to jappen to me.
Sorry, I think @_Vic_ has the right of it. For me it is abundantly clear the target audience by priority are:
with the last two groups not really important to the BG3 devs at all.
A Venn diagram of these groups would basically be one big circle. Yes, I'm exaggerating, but not that much, there is far more overlap than outliers.
The whole point of the lists was *priority*, so a Venn diagram wouldn't make any sense.
My point is that these groups and what they want out of a game are overwhelmingly similar. There is no "priority," since all of these fan groups are basically the same people with the same expectations. I get that you are arguing that what appeals to D:OS fans is not the same as what appeals to you as a BG fan, but you are certainly in a small minority in liking one but not the other. I think the overwhelming majority of D:OS fans would, do, or did love BG, and vice versa.
BG1/2 and Planescape Torment even with limited technology were able to create a very detailed, believable and "mature" world. 3D games already existed at their time and they wisely chose what would fit best to portray their universe. In my view, they still (artistically) look good today.
BG1+2 are standart fantasy stories, but they are done very well. Calling them mature (whatever this means) is a bit of a stretch. The most famous companion is a guy who talks to his hamster. The game uses many known fantasy tropes. The main story of BG2 ( bad mage kidnaps my girlfriend) has been told countless times. The games are done very well and I enjoy them a lot, but if you ask me for a very good mature RPG, I tell you to play the witcher series.
The graphics of BG1+2 are good and I still like to play them. 3D graphics existed at that time, but they were huge polygon blocks. Old 3D games look terrible today while old games in 2D or cartoon style still look relatively good today. I played NWN1 some time ago and in the beginning I had to force myself to play because the huge polygons are so ugly. On the other hand, I still like chrone trigger, for example. Another example is Alundra for PS1. The first game looked like Zelda for SNES and it was great, I wish I could play it again. They used 3D for the second game and it looked terrible. Regarding BG1+2 the devs did the right choice. The games are huge. Making a 3D game at this time was lots of efford and the result was still ugly. Having a good looking and easy to make 2D game (You just have to paint the background instead of building the world out of many polygons when number, size and color of them was limited) was better than doing an ugly 3D game.
Today, nobody make a huge 2D RPG unless they call it pixel art. A modern large scale RPG needs good full 3D graphics, so any new game will look different than BG1+2.
As for PST, regarding characters, story and setting it is one of the best games ever. Game mechanics wise it was terrible. They used a combat focussed system for a story focussed game. From my current point of view, the gameplay system of Disco Elysium ( which I consider the best true successor of PST) is much better for such a game than DnD 2E.
Bioware chose wisely with the technology they had. "Mature" is mature for video game level, not beyond that. It is a game with attention to detail and reality.
BG2 was a masterpiece because of the attention to details and immersion. Larian conceptually says in the interviews that they will take to the next level, but so far I've only seen compromises. But I really hope they do. BG2 is a very challenging game to replicate (in quality) and Larian knew that. So far they are using DOS with different lore and it is not enough. I hope they prove me wrong this Saturday, otherwise I would not be losing time here . We complain because Larian is (partially) open to feedback and these things are easy to fix. This is the time to complain.
Originally Posted by _Vic_
Hi, I´m the ghost of Posts past, just giving a friendly reminder that the gameplay trailers and design look exactly like the original source material of WotC`s Forgotten realms D&D5e, so the game trailer looks exactly like Baldur´s gate, It´s just (DND5e) Baldur´s gate.
This is VERY fallacious. Just look at the mindflayer that you posted and the one in the BG3 cinematic. Same for the Dragon. And no. Has nothing to do with resolution. I am not expecting the same level of details as the cinematics, but the same approach. And they showed that they know how to portrait a realistic version of FR.
Complaining only for feedback purposes. Once the game is final I don't care anymore.
Hi, I´m the ghost of Posts past, just giving a friendly reminder that the gameplay trailers and design look exactly like the original source material of WotC`s Forgotten realms D&D5e, so the game trailer looks exactly like Baldur´s gate, It´s just (DND5e) Baldur´s gate.
This is VERY fallacious. Just look at the mindflayer that you posted and the one in the BG3 cinematic. Same for the Dragon. And no. Has nothing to do with resolution. I am not expecting the same level of details as the cinematics, but the same approach. And they showed that they know how to portrait a realistic version of FR.
Complaining only for feedback purposes. Once the game is final I don't care anymore.
Uh, If we are talking about fallacious, maybe we could talk about the fact that I´ve never posted a picture of a dragon. That´s a made-up quote created by you XDD
This is what I posted. No dragons. And as you can see, the githyanki or the tiefling looks exactly the same. Those are images from the game, not the intro movie. In the WOTC D&D5e module "Descent into Avernus" you start in Baldur´s gate and in that adventure you start in Baldur´s gate. I am not going to post images because I do not think that is SRD material but If anyone could take a look at the source material of the book it´s pretty clear that the architecture, the landscape and even the uniforms of the flaming fist are fairly bright and colourful.
Originally Posted by _Vic_
To be fair, the art of the D&D5e Forgotten Realms is what I assume you call "cartoonish" (Just make a search online) so I do not think Larian is to fully blame here. It would be different if the setting is Eberron or Ravenloft, I suppose.
If you are making a game based in a franchise, It´s usual to follow the design guidelines of the franchise, like in Mordheim and W40k. Mostly because WOTC will want his brand to be recognizable.
Taking a look at the WoTC official material from D&D beyond and the monsters manual anyone can see that they made a pretty good depiction of the creatures
I suppose It´s a matter of tastes. I kinda like it the comic vibe. And as I said, the videogame versions of the creatures really look like the D&D5e counterparts.
And no, no videogame looks like the cinematic intro movie, no matter how many times you claim the opposite.
ED:
This is an ilithid from the monster´s manual, I think the similarities with the one depicted in the game are fairly obvious.
Wow that new sizzle really brought all the salt out of the cabinet 😕. Nah but fr I didn't like much about the new trailer myself but then I had to remind myself that the gameplay reveal was amazing, an Larians previous games were amazing. Will it feel exactly like BG 1 or 2? of course not but Larian is making their own version and WOTC gave them that right, as its theirs to give.
The problem with animation and spell effects is not the quality, it's the style. The animation has a cartoonish touch. Mostly not noticable but in some areas it really breaks immersion. The bow shooting animation for example, the arrow should not draw an arc at all at short distance. Right now it looks like there is no power behind it, as if the arrow is shot by a child and would bounce off on any surface.
The spell effects have the same problem. Extremely over the top blurry flashes, no variation, very uninspiring. They look like they belong to a cartoon action game. I was expecting something more sophisticated.
IrenicusBg3 daid: "And they showed that they know how to portrait a realistic version of FR."
OK, so you know how a realistic dragon looks like? We talk about a fantasy game based on DnD 5E, wotc have the rights for it and Larian makes creatures that look like the source material. DnD is also turn based because you cannot have real time combat in PnP. We could discuss about group initiative, some rule changes and how exactly this or that ability is animated ( please not here ), but the general art direction is very good. Personally I think the intro movie is fantastic, very "dark and mature" and the style also fits the intro movie of BG2.
Please remember that all we have seen so far is a pre alpha demo. They showed us some characters and some basics of gameplay. Almost everything will change, for example the UI. They took lots of stuff from D:OS to show us a (more or less) playable demo.
I will wait two more days to see what they show us next.
My point is that these groups and what they want out of a game are overwhelmingly similar. There is no "priority," since all of these fan groups are basically the same people with the same expectations. I get that you are arguing that what appeals to D:OS fans is not the same as what appeals to you as a BG fan, but you are certainly in a small minority in liking one but not the other. I think the overwhelming majority of D:OS fans would, do, or did love BG, and vice versa.
No they are not the same people and so the idea of Larian choosing to prioritize some groups of fans over others completely makes sense. I don't see any evidence in support of your claim that there is significant overlap between D:OS fans and BG fans. It is merely your opinion that there is such overlap, and my opinion that there is very little overlap. But I get that you want to marginalize me by dismissing me as being "a small minority" to justify you getting what you want, namely D:OS3 pretending to be BG3.
with the last two groups not really important to the BG3 devs at all.
A Venn diagram of these groups would basically be one big circle. Yes, I'm exaggerating, but not that much, there is far more overlap than outliers.
Discussing this is kinda pointess, as neigher of us has a data to support our claim and any evidence provided would be an anecdotal evidence.
I don't think it is an outlandish statement, that people who enjoyed singleplayer focused, story and character driven game wouldn't want the sequel to be coop focused, gameplaydriven turn-based game. Anecdotal evidence - I have met quite a few people who loved BG2. None of them were table-top players. I have met couple people who played table-top - they didn't play cRPGs. I am a big RPG fan - played pretty much every major release, and I am always on a lookout for something new. Neverplayed table-top in my life, and have little interest in coop feature. What RPG is to me, as defined by Baldur's Gate2 and Fallout. What Larian is doing is really cool. It is something different. It's not something I found much enjoyement when played by myself. It is cool. It's not a cRPG as I know it, it's a coop RPG, with different goals, priorities and appeals.
I am sure there is an overlap. A vocal portion of the fan will be the ones who are unsatisfied/worried. However, I believe Swen himself said to Obsidian that according to his data there was little overlap between D:OS players and Pillars of Eternity players. I personally always thought that D:OS vs. Pillars of Eternity was a silly idea as those were two very different games... just as BG1&2 and it seems BG3 are two different genres of RPGs. Which is not necessarly bad in itself - Baldur's Gate saga is complete. But it is disappointing for those who were hoping for more Baldur's Gate.
Even if XCOM: Bureau ended up being good, there is no denying that it is not XCOM. It might be a more extreme example, but I just don't believe that Larian RPG design has much to do with what Infinity games were. It might change for BG3, it might not. So far it seems it is a Larian RPG in DnD setting and fans of BG might not automatically be inclined towards liking it.
Bioware might have wanted to create a rich multiplayer sandbox, with adventure editing, coop focus, turn-based combat when they set out to adapt DnD into a cRPG. But that's not what they did, nor what fans of BG fell in love with.
... None of them were table-top players. I have met couple people who played table-top - they didn't play cRPGs.
That's pretty much the case with us and the couple we're friendly with over the road. I play lots of video game RPGs, they love tabletop, but neither of us has shown any interest in the other's preferred gaming medium. Then there's the gf who doesn't play either but is showing more inclination to join them!
Uh, If we are talking about fallacious, maybe we could talk about the fact that I´ve never posted a picture of a dragon. That´s a made-up quote created by you XDD
This is what I posted. No dragons. And as you can see, the githyanki or the tiefling looks exactly the same. Those are images from the game, not the intro movie. In the WOTC D&D5e module "Descent into Avernus" you start in Baldur´s gate and in that adventure you start in Baldur´s gate. I am not going to post images because I do not think that is SRD material but If anyone could take a look at the source material of the book it´s pretty clear that the architecture, the landscape and even the uniforms of the flaming fist are fairly bright and colourful.
And no, no videogame looks like the cinematic intro movie, no matter how many times you claim the opposite.
ED:
This is an ilithid from the monster´s manual, I think the similarities with the one depicted in the game are fairly obvious.
The dragon in the intro movie have a similar design too
Honestly, I think you´re just entrenched in your position in the discussion and don´t see beyond that.
Ok let me say that for the last time.
No, I never accused you of posting the dragon (which is from the monster manual), I just edited for ease of quoting. You and others have been ceaselessly posting pictures of source material (maybe I am not the one to be entrenched in a point of view) to "prove" that Larian is doing a faithful representation of FR.
The point is how you adapt an artwork for a certain media. You can use the same source with a more realistic approach (fantastic BG3 cinematic) or you can use in a literal adaptation (actual gameplay). Both forms are close to the source but they differ significantly (mostly notable on the unquestionable color palette difference, environment/characters matching, lightening among other things) on the final impression. The vast majority of these things you don't need a cinematic resolution to achieve it. It is actually fairly easy to implement. You need to keep the overall cohesion. Doesn't matter if individual pieces are faithful (The githyanki indeed look good and I give you that. The others need a lot of work) if your overall artwork is lacking. For some people are ok, for others it breaks the immersion. And again is an easy fix. That's why Larian releases Early Access to get feedback and this forum is the best channel to convey that. And many people have complained about this. This is just an opinion for Larian, I don't have hope to convince you that there is "a more realistic" way to portray BG3. BG2 did this 20 years ago, many games since then accomplished that and even Larian did in the cinematics. So, I am not asking for much.
"WoTC is supervising the game" Well, there were many other games under the WoTC that did not achieve the same overall success including NWN. So this is not a stamp for quality.
Originally Posted by Madscientist
IrenicusBg3 daid: "And they showed that they know how to portrait a realistic version of FR."
OK, so you know how a realistic dragon looks like? We talk about a fantasy game based on DnD 5E, wotc have the rights for it and Larian makes creatures that look like the source material. DnD is also turn based because you cannot have real time combat in PnP. We could discuss about group initiative, some rule changes and how exactly this or that ability is animated ( please not here ), but the general art direction is very good. Personally I think the intro movie is fantastic, very "dark and mature" and the style also fits the intro movie of BG2.
Please remember that all we have seen so far is a pre alpha demo. They showed us some characters and some basics of gameplay. Almost everything will change, for example the UI. They took lots of stuff from D:OS to show us a (more or less) playable demo.
I will wait two more days to see what they show us next.
You can infer how they could be realistic very, very easily. And just to clarify: I am not saying that the dragon in the cinematic looks different than the books. I am saying they took the template and made it believable (for instance they are not super red as in the book, etc...) something you don't see in general gameplay for many other things beyond. And I agree with you that the intro movie is fantastic and captures the essence the BG2 as I said earlier.
And yes, I am looking forward to Guerrilla collective. But this recent gametrailer "sizzle" was even worse than original gameplay they had.
I agree with you that the Intro trailer is very high quality, and visually more pleasing than the gameplay. Unfortunately, there is no easy way to replicate this in their gameplay engine.
The intro movie was outsourced to Unit Image to make a movie-quality sequence. They would probably have used a completely different set of tools to Larian, and would have pre-rendered and stored the image sequence. Larian might have provided the high-poly geometry for the models, but the materials and lighting technology are clearly different, and likely the whole sequence was hand-animated and illuminated to display everything to best effect.
The gamplay engine must perform the rendering in real-time on moderate hardware with whatever data is thrown at it. Lower-poly models must be used, with the detail simulated through techniques such as displacement/parallax/normal mapping, lighting and shadow models must be simplified, and material interactions with light reduced in complexity. To mitigate the reduction in visual quality, and simulate volumetric behaviour of fluids a selection of post-processing is applied to each frame. The result will never be as good.
Larian clearly had engine tech and some generic assets from D:OS2 that form the basis of BG3, so the colours reflect that to some extent, as well as using published images for 5e. I would definitely prefer the intro look and feel, of course, but at this point I'll just be happy for it not to white-out as much as this teaser trailer.
The Guerrilla Collective event was postponed, due to current events in the US. There was a press release and tweets about this, etc, and someone posted this in the forum before there was an official post.
![[Linked Image]](https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/infiniteisles/images/6/64/Tiefling.png)
![[Linked Image]](https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/powerlisting/images/3/34/Mind_flayer.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://oldschoolroleplaying.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/devourer-one-1500x1200.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/forgottenrealms/images/3/3d/Monster_Manual_5e_-_Githyanki_-_p160.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://i.imgur.com/drYBkxb.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://i.imgur.com/PM2ysZc.jpg)
: People complain about the art style even though the game uses exactly the style of the source material.![[Linked Image]](https://media-waterdeep.cursecdn.com/avatars/thumbnails/0/28/1000/1000/636238971817119794.jpeg)
![[Linked Image]](https://image.isu.pub/160316145445-bf60af89f73e787ee74dafa75918d411/jpg/page_223.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Screenshot-3298-760x380.png)