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

I totally get what you're saying and I would prefer that too. Not only do you get to see yourself progress, but you could to see just how hard your task is. I'd my rogue is trying to pick a lock I might just need a 15, which isn't awful. But it was actually a dc25 wish is frickin tough, and would make me feel more accomplished.

If the randomness is adjustable with difficulty settings + stats, then gradually can go to both extremes: completely random vs. nothing random. Everything in-between is a matter of preference; what makes one tick, another hates it. The pendulum jump from a bridge is rightly crazy for some, and exciting for others.

I usually despise RNG, because it's just a cheap way to create "content", but properly used can create fun and realistic situations, though that is extremely rare in recent games, so I would rather have control over how much RNG and where that happens, through options and character stats.

In response to the first sentences of the original message.

Without an actual poll, I cannot conclude that "fans of BG are angry".

I can read a vocal bunch, many of which do not have arguments that are meaningful in my opinion.

I played BG2 and numerous old digital RPG, going back to the original ones like, for example, Pool of Radiance and The Bard's Tale on Commodore 64. And many modern ones like Pillars of Eternity 1-2 and Pathfinder: Kingmaker.

So as an old gamer (48), I do not feel represented by the whiners, haters and those who say it is like DoS which I find to be superficial nonsense. It is not an old-school BG either, but it is totally in the same universe, with the same lore, and I am totally supportive and excited for it. Likewise, the old gamers I know love D&D 5e and we are looking forward for video games like BG3 and Solasta for example.

When the game is released, the majority of us will need to actively up-vote the game on polling sites, as a minority will flood it with radical low votes initially. They do that for movies they hate: a few thousand guys vote 1, giving it a horrible score, and then 25K more people come along and give a fair vote.

EDIT: as noted wisely by others, what I meant is we will need to actively give it our fair vote to cancel those who radically vote unfairly (you know, those who vote 1 on 10 to bomb).

And that's why audience ratings are a completely worthless, and not worth paying attentiont to. Still, I honestly don't think there will be enough disgrunted BG1&2 fans to make much difference, especially that I also expect that not all of them will review bomb the game out of sheer spite.

I'll give it a good review if it deserves one. I suspect it probably will, but I don't discount the possibility. I also suspect there are more excited BG1 and 2 fans than there are disgruntled ones, the unhappy are more likely to go out of their way to speak their mind.

I think you should play the game for a while, decide what works for you and what what doesn't, write a short review outlining your experience, and give it a fair vote.

Just reflexively upvoting because you think others reflexively downvote doesn't exactly seem like the best way to help others decide if the game is for them.

Yes, true : good point/nuance ; that is what I meant :P
A fair vote based on our subjective appreciation.

Yes ! Older gamers (51 here) know where its at & we dont all moan & complain because its not a replica of BG1 & 2 - give it a rest its 20 years old !! enjoy it for what it was & look forward to a modern day classic.

Except for that this is all completely a straw man because nobody is moaning for a replica of the original BG games or for this game to be the same as games made twenty years ago. Some people here don't want to acknowledge the very real, meaningful, and legitimate criticisms that have been leveled at this game, so they conveniently hide behind the completely false claim that the critics just want a replica of the old games.

Sure let’s have a debate about the pros and contras of the new BG entry…

Though, I admit sometimes it is very hard to distinguish genuine criticism from bad faith trolling.

Like, you mentioned “very real, meaningful, and legitimate criticism” of a game we have only seen around two hours pre-alpha footage of. For me, from these two separate gameplay streams, the only thing I have taken away is Larian’s will and ability to improve their product by listening to their consumers.

I have no actual idea what the final product will look like (as it is not even EA yet), or about the writing and the story (which is the major focus for me). About the Origins PCs revealed, we only have suggestions, sneak peaks of dialogue so again sounding the death squad on their character writing seems a bit hasty for me (something I have seen both here and on reddit).

For full disclosure, I am a younger guy (mid-twenties) who is a huge fan of the original games. I didn’t play much the former Larian games (my issue with them was always that they weren’t DnD-esque enough). I am excited about the title and like almost everything from what we have seen (only I have a bit of a bone to pick with origin character mechanic, something I have raved about on this topic). I plan to join EA in the winter (I need to update some stuff on my pc before jumping in) and this is a first for me (this kinda shows how intrigued I am by this title).

So, I shall just address some of the criticisms of the game I have seen here so far (for fun):

- “Larian’s writing is silly and not serious enough for a Baldurs Gate game”: I mean, really? The original series is filled with silly humour and pop cultural references (In BG1, you can meet an actual gay porn star). From the very first moment, it is clear that this is going to be a darker story where it is hard to be a good guy and much more rewarding to do bad things to get ahead (the whole tadpole temptation). And, even though I really dig the whole eldritch horror vibe of the mindflayer main plot (I think Mindflayers are one of the single most unexploited gold mines of DnD lore story-wise), I hope there will be levity and silly humour also. I mean, in the original series we had Jan Jansen, Korgan, Minsc and Boo, et cetera, none of them series or sombre figures, yet they didn’t break the narrative immersion. They were harbours in the storm.
- “You guys cannot like the game, because we know so little so far, but I can already loathe it with every fibre of my being”: this is a return to my original point that we have really limited information about the game, and if these little pieces gave you a bad vibe and you want to rant about that is cool, that is the purpose of the forum. But to say, that “those f-ing Larian fanboys” cannot be excited about the title because you have a bad feeling about it, that is just childish. A lot of critiques came in with a stone-hard negative opinion: for instance, Larian is a bad faith developer (which is laughable, they are really the best when it comes to their corporate attitude) and other malicious non-sense that just doesn’t hold up to empirical reality.
- “This is a Divinity Clone”: The game is using the same engine but already developing its own unique visual identity. We have seen it from the second gameplay already. Look at the first showings of Divinity 2, it looks nothing like the finished product. I don’t even want to engage this further.
- “This cannot be a good game, it is turn-based”: let’s not even go there.

So yeah, I reckon it is hard sometimes to take these kinds of non-arguments seriously.

And for the counterpoint coming in that our hype is equally unjustified, yes it is, that is the point of hype, to be irrationally excited for something.

But this hype is the exact reason why I spend time reading and posting on this forum, to talk about something I am really excited about with people who might share my interest.

There are many games where each part of the series changed a lot, even if the devs were mostly the same.

What will really matter in the end is: it's the game fun? Including system X and repeating anything done years ago wouldn't guarantee success. The expectations today are beyond what was fine 20 years ago. Innovation means taking risks, and blending old with new it's always a complicated process, making it fit and somehow work together.

If we really want to look as "experts", at least those of us expecting things done in a certain way, then we should know that failure is a real option. Careful with putting too much pressure when things can go wrong anyway.

Firstly, let's be clear that whatever criticisms from people you are trying to paraphrase here are not necessarily things I have said. Given that you are directly responding to my post, this incorrectly gives the impression that all those things you've put into your post are things I have literally said.

As for the issues themselves, some of these I agree with and others I don't. And there are several more that you have not touched on. But the bottom line is, if your attitude is to just dismiss all the criticisms as "non-arguments," then what is there to even talk about? Why even bother talking to someone like me? You should just limit yourself to only interacting with those posters who gush about the game and ignore posters like me who are not happy with the game.

I am actually not worried about the story. Everything so far looks promising and DOS2's story is not that light either, it has a lot of dark elements. I think both the narrative and characters development will be far superior than DOS2. And it looks like that side quests will be deeper too.

The gameplay mechanics, though, concerns me. It is heavily inspired by DOS2 and I am afraid it will carry all the major flaws like limited exploration, lack of immersive cities, repetitive scenarios/art design (the ones they showed on demos remind me a lot of DOS2 art design), lack of day/night cycle, overly animated UI and poor physics etc...

it also isn't called Oblivion 2, or Morrowind 3, or Daggerfall 4. It's "The Elder Scrolls 5: Skyrim"

All of those are called "The Elder Scrolls" + word(s). Dragon Age: Origins same case, DA + numbers/words. Mass Effect and Witcher are closer to naming used by Baldur's Gate. They all have something in common, but also enough difference.The Star Wars RPG series, Final Fantasy and even Divinity Original Sin 1 vs. 2 are very different. All these are more different than alike, except the Assassin Creed series or something like FIFA.

Thanks for saying the same thing I just did?

Sorry, it's a long thread, a lot to read (or skip)

Really, BG3 can become a great game, despite being different to BG 2 & 1. Being an exact replica wouldn't help either. I hope will be good enough to follow with a BG 4 after, though calling it something else would set less expectations.

I think that the only real issue is the expectations set by that number 3 in the title.

Everyone wants a new D&D game.

Everyone is excited about a new Baldur's Gate game.

But the 3 on that title sets certain expectations that are never going to be met (nor should they be, necessarily).

Wizards forced this on Larian, but Larian is still running with it.

Wasn't Larian signed precisely to make BG3? Whenever it was Wizards who approached Larian, or Larian who approached Wiz (I remember as the 2nd, but I can't remember if they wanted DnD or BG IP). Either way, both parties believe that Larian way is appropriate for BG IP.

Which I see a sense in it. As far as translating table-top to PC Larian has developed quite a novel and effective way of doing it. It's no wonder WotSC wants them to revive their most valuable PC IP.

The conflict comes from subset of fans who liked BG for being BG, and never wanted it to be more table-top-like multiplayer experience. And that player base is irrelevant. We are unlikely to generate more income then theotherBG/DnD/Divinity fanbase, Larian has their own design ideals, so they might not be the best fit to make BG-like BG3 in the first place, and if Wizards were interested in continuing BG IP more in line with what it was - they would have done so.

[shrug] I guess I am in the "I DON'T EVEN CARE ANYMORE" mood today.

This is it exactly, at least for me. Everything else about the game could have been exactly the same as it is today, but just with a title that had nothing to do with the original BG games. Heck, it could even have had the words 'BG' in the title, something like 'BG: The New Generation,' or whatever, and that would've clearly signaled this was a new franchise that was not part of the old BG franchise.

The irony for me is that had this game not gone the route of using the BG3 title (or in any way being a sequel to the old BG games), I would be quite open to this game and even be interested in playing it. Yes of course I would still have the same criticisms I have of the game right now, but the big difference being that I would not be anywhere near as passionate about it and could dispassionately just accept the game for what it is, namely a new D&D 5e RPG that is not quite to my liking but as a D&D fan I'll go ahead and give it a shot. Something like how I approached SCL, or am currently approaching Solasta and Realms Beyond. But the moment the game took on the BG3 title, along with all the implications of being a sequel to BG1 & 2, my expectations of the game fundamentally and radically changed.