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

Not sure you understand what a leap of logic is... because you didn't quote one.

Yes, sacrificing integrity and honesty for the purpose of making money is a cash-grab. Yes, making a game that has not even a 1% association in any of its components or designs to the series it is labelled under, but labelling it as a part of that series exclusively for the purpose of exploiting the series' fans and making money from the marketing hype of that series name is literally betraying the series and is literally a cash-grab.

Is there any other very basic understanding that you wish to have confirmed?

Your leap of logic astounds me... because they know they're good at TB and will do that and not RTwP they're cash-grabbing and somehow betraying Baldur's Gate brand? What?![/quote]

Even if you put aside the TB vs RTwP thing the point still stands.

Which point?
[/quote]

That the game does not look at all like a game of the series and they're just using the name to make more money.

Ah, yes. I got what you were saying after I made that post, so I deleted it before this next post of yours showed up. My bad.

Yes please, explain to me how RTwP is such a big part of the story and lore that it is the sole quality by which you claim something is or is not a BG game. They have experience with TB combat and would like to do that instead, to make sure fans are not disappointed by a half-assed combat system - I think that's a good thing

Would you like Larian to straight up show the entire story of BG 3 (as in, spoilers for the entire game, making it totally pointless to play through) to ease your mind it is somehow linked into the story of Bhaal? Maybe it should say at the start of BG 1 that you are one of the sons of Bhaal and that you will be fighting Sarevok at the end of the game, that is also a son of Bhaal and therefore making it pointless to call the game "Baldur's Gate" but should be called "The Bhaalspawn" instead?

Oh, of course, how could I forget, RTwP is the only way this can be a BG game. Yes please, do give more "very basic understanding" that is obviously missed by a whole truckload of people. I'm looking forward to hearing this.

If you ignore the RTwP thing the point still stands

''Yes, sacrificing integrity and honesty for the purpose of making money is a cash-grab. Yes, making a game that has not even a 1% association in any of its components or designs to the series it is labelled''

I think he's being pretty clear.

Yeah really hope so but actually doubt it.

You're following-up one completely-failed non-argument with another.

Would you also like me to explain to you how RTwP is a big part of the artwork, or how the game options menu is a big part of the narrative, or how which shoes Swen is wearing today is a big part of the fact that Larian's upcoming D&D RPG isn't in any way a Baldur's Gate series game?



You say that because you don't care about the Baldur's Gate series and you just want more D:OS2. So, you're being selfish and not considerate of what Baldur's Gate is and what those who love the series expect from a game with that title. Whether or not Larian have experience with TB doesn't explain why they would call a non Baldur's Gate series game "Baldur's Gate 3". They could make their D&D D:OS2 clone under any name they wish.

And further, I didn't say that RTwP is the defining trait of Baldur's Gate - I specifically stated that Larian's D&D RPG has literally no association with the Baldur's Gate series in any of its components - not its story, not its gameplay, not its narrative, not its characters, not its style and tone, and not is visual look. It is not even a sequel to anything in the Baldur's Gate series but is a sequel to Descent Into Avernus. There is not even a slight semblance of the Baldur's Gate series in Larian's demoed game.

So, why in the world are you pigeonholing a false argument of 'making a TB games doesn't make a studio a sell-out and the game a cash-grab'? What makes a studio a sell-out is taking on a project but abandoning creative integrity and just rehashing their previous work because they're afraid to take a risk and they want more money - if they weren't willing to do the project justice they shouldn't have asked to do it. And what makes a move a cash-grab is doing it exclusively for money while being entirely disregarding of what responsibilities come with the action.

To be clear, Larian has sold-out and is doing a cash-grab move by calling their non Baldur's Gate game part of the Baldur's Gate series. And Larian's selling-out and betrayal of the Baldur's Gate series and its fans is in no way limited to the type of combat system the game has, but extends to every other presented aspect of Larian's D&D D:OS2-clone RPG.


No, it's missed primarily by just you. You have constructed an absurd strawman argument that obviously was made either having not read what I wrote, or out of a raging fanboyism that utterly blocked everything I wrote out from your mind so that you could only react to a figment of your imagination.

My entire post has gone over your head. And this shows that there is no objectivity and integrity behind Larian's sell-out and cash-grab move and that it is only defended by fanboys of D:OS2 who don't even care about Baldur's Gate and don't even know what the series is. Larian also clearly don't care about Baldur's Gate beyond the ability for its name to boost sales of their non Baldur's Gate D&D D:OS2 clone.

Interesting. Apart from ignoring the fact that I did in fact play both BG 1&2, you've went on to claim I'm a fanboy that wants nothing more than a D:OS 2 copy. Ignoring these interesting "facts", please tell me how you know the story has nothing to do with the narrative and/or characters in those 2 games. Oh you don't? OK.

Style and tone wise, BG 1 and 2 were very diverse games (not in between each other but in between each area you were in), meaning you made that entire claim based on approximately 1 hours worth of gameplay in the prologue where your main objective is to get the tadpole out of your head before you die (yes, very light-hearted that).

The ONLY 2 things that are true from your entire rant you've just thrown at me is that the gameplay is different (TB vs RTwP) and it's visual look (thank god for that, I for one don't like counting pixels). If you didn't believe so much in the RTwP style you wouldn't have gone through the trouble of providing irrelevant sales statistics of RTwP vs TB games (in which you're basically showing RTwP is better for sales, which undermines your point of them being cash-grabbers even more)

But please, feel free to cut up my entire super long three-paragraph post some more and counter any points you think you should by personally attacking me and/or anyone else that disagrees with your logic, I'm sure that'll do wonders to vindicate your point of view.

You stuck your foot in your mouth by coming at me with a strawman argument. Now you're trying to obfuscate your mistake by ranting about other things - things which are just as absurd as your previous arguments.


Wrong. We know that Larian's game's story has nothing to do with the story and characters of BG1 and BG2 because Larian have stated so. And because what's known of the story for Larian's "BG3" game is completely unrelated to the Baldur's Gate series. Because WotC marketed Descent Into Avernus (which has nothing to do with the Baldur's Gate series) as the prequel to Larian's "BG3". You speak out of sheer ignorance at every turn.


Instead of heaping on layer upon layer of efforts to hide your multiplying mistakes and fanboy hubris, you should do what you obviously didn't do from the beginning and actually read the post that I made and which you responded to with nothing that is relevant to it:

For me, it's enough for them to remove the '3' from the title and add a subtitle.

If the only connection(s) this game will have to BG1/2 are whatever lingering effects of the time of Bhaalspawn saga (100 years prior to this), or a few non-human NPCs, a name drop or two or what have you....then the game doesn't need (or deserve) the '3'. It only really needs it if it is in some fashion carrying on the narrative of the Bhaalspawn saga (which, far as I understand, it is not). Thematic similarities do not justify it being claimed as a sequel.

The Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance games existed and the world didn't fall down. This is certainly more akin to BG1/2 than those games were, but it's still not part of that story. Using the name works for me, but that '3' is the stone around its neck for many.

Will it stop me from buying it upon final release? No. It's still a D&D 5e based single-player game. Something I'd like to play (since Sword Coast Legends spectacularly failed to deliver that and I've been waiting since Neverwinter Nights 2 for another D&D rules based single player game).

To me, this is not Baldur's Gate 3. This is Baldur's Gate: Something Else.

Not going to quote,text is way to big.

''tell me how you know the story has nothing to do with the narrative and/or characters in those 2 games.'' Game director Swen Vincke has said it multiple times.
''your main objective is to get the tadpole out of your head before you die (yes, very light-hearted that).'' Fort Joy was suposed to be a crude place but it felt like a shiny and colorfull summer camp (only the dungeons felt more obscure but still too colorfull and cartoony for a bg series setting)
You can tell a story of murder and anihilation but the art style has to reflect it to really show it,no matter the engine or the graphics.

Just like you decided to ignore everything out of your favor so shall I. Can I get a source on that please?

Nor is there anything of issue with it.


Literally 0 search engine results for that phrase or anything resembling it.


And yet, Larian's D&D DOS2 clone has all the visual style including light-hearted histrionical animations of DOS2. So...

Don't lie to me and to everybody else here. I have answered and refuted everything you claimed. And you have only heaped absurdity upon absurdity. If I come across that comment being made by Larian again, I will post it. But Larian have confirmed that their D&D DOS2 clone doesn't involve BG1 and 2's story or characters.

It's supposed to be a crude place, yes. I missed some "clutter" and murder in the fort joy camp (there was only 1 straight up murder for no reason, count me disappointed) but apart from the dungeons and the internment camp itself it's not really supposed to be crude and dark. If you don't like the art-style that's one thing, but claiming the game has the incorrect tone based on a sunny beach is like claiming there are no sunny beaches in the world. Besides, if you've ever actually seen a horrible scene IRL, you can appreciate how odd it is to see a pristine forest or a sunny beach after that. The mental shock that disconnect brings is... something special.

Sorry dude but you are just being mean and insulting people.

It is an objective fact that Larian has been marketing DOS3 under the name of BG3.

People have the right to complain, not everybody is a fanboy, some of us have critical minds.

I see, now I'm a liar as well and you're incapable of providing a shred of proof to the last argument you're clinging to. Claiming something is absurd does not make it absurd.
You, sir, have the vocabulary that allows you to make any point you wish in a sentence so short you'd make pretty much anyone impressed - instead you're using it to obfuscate any meaningful points with long words and even longer sentences.
I think I'm done with this debate with you since your modus operandi is personal attacks without actually backing up a single statement.

You are a liar because you lie. That's how words work - for someone who uses them truthfully, anyway, which you don't.

Larian have said that their D&D DOS2 clone doesn't carry on the story of BG2 and doesn't include its characters. And I have pointed out that Larian's D&D DOS2 clone is a sequel to Descent Into Avernus which doesn't relate to the story of BG1 and BG2 and takes place hundreds of years after BG2. And I have said that if I come across Larian mentioning it again, I will post it here.

Your every attempt to cover your ongoing mistakes is to further peddle absurdity, strawman arguments, and disinformation. From the beginning you stuck your foot into your mouth and proceeded to do the same thing over and over, being refuted at every turn. You were done here before you started.

And you still show no signs of having actually read my post that you tripped and fell over:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjnv1nxA-rA
1:30 (Not the one I'm looking for but for now that's it)