Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Some People Don't Seem To Want A BG3

What if making Diablo 4 turn based makes it better?

People seem to be losing the plot here. They're fighting over details that have little to no bearing on the quality of the final game, and instead are religiously arguing about the canonicity of every minute feature.

Guess what — you can make a grimdark, real-time-with-pause, 6 member party pile of crap. *And*, you can make a sequel that's different (!!!) from the original in some aspects, and still get a great game.

I get that it might not be the game everyone wants, but buying a game 20 years ago does not entitle you to make creative decisions based on narrow subjective taste, questionably accurate memories and non-existent game development experience.

and who is making decisions? ppl are just voicing their opinions, and you are angry you don't like them.

Several minutes passed.

What is things?

You and You and You. How?

Man this is fun

Was is not my TURN? :P

Quit with the insults. Not just you, though you must be aware on some level that the quoted text is not acceptable. There is nothing wrong with debate but there is everything wrong with immediately resorting to personal attacks. That behaviour is not welcome here.

I have felt it necessary to point out this most basic requirement repeatedly over the past few days and the same names keep on coming up. People need to clean up their act or risk being banned.

I hope I've made myself clear.

You know that's partially true of me. I want isometric. I want painted backgrounds. I want the story to develop similar themes -- charname's struggle against herself, do you see those who follow you as friends or tools . . .

But Beamdog never got its act together and the first version of the PoE engine wasn't so great so here we are. (but I do like the turn based PoE engine)

I see things I like -- multiple ways to complete quests, throwing ordinary objects, shadows and sneaking. And I'm also seeing things I don't like but I'm going to buy the game and make my decision on that basis. I can forgive a great deal if the writing is good enough.

And I think WoTC would be wise to make an isometric game using a different engine altogether. Which I think would make the RTwP people happy and the isometic / painted background fans happy . . .

exactly this. i'm really sure larian needs many people like the OP who can defend them. heck the internet is so brilliant. i'm thinking of doing my own business. and when i make bad decision.. i'm looking to employ OP!

he can help to attack and defend me against other customers who dislike my services *chuckle*.. that made me LOL

You are over-exaggerating what people are upset at, as my observations (as well as being one of the people you are talking about) do not actually seem to want what you claim to think they do...I can't speak for everyone, so I will speak for myself.


I do not want "the same combat," in terms of a 1:1 translation over from the old games. They can update aspects of the combat, they can implement the changes that 5e brings, but keep the core of how it plays out, which is rtwp.


Isn't this typically how graphics are handled in a sequel? Keep the same overall look/feel and just update them? Add more polygons, more details, go from 2d to 3d, etc. The key here is "keep the same overall look/feel," which was not the case in that reveal. I honestly don't think most people were expecting a sprite-based, 2D game, so the move to 3D was expected. At worst, I saw some people expecting it to be like Pillars of Eternity, with 2D backgrounds and 3D characters. It's not the change in graphics that is the disappointment, it's the change in aesthetics.


I have seen nobody say they wanted this. I've seen people say they want a continuation or have the story somehow tie into the story of original games, and that is completely reasonable, as this is supposed to be sequel. If you want a completely new, original story, then make a completely new, original game or at least call it "Baldur's Gate: such and such" and not "Baldur's Gate 3."


I don't want it to be the same game I played 20 years ago. I want a game that when I turn it on I can say, "Yes. That is baldur's gate," regardless if it's full 3D, virtual reality or on the holodeck of the Enterprise. The reveal didn't look like BG, didn't give the feeling of BG and didn't play like BG. The dialogue was cringey and even the UI was completely different. Sure, they are only in pre-alpha and are using placeholder graphics, but they decided to show the game as it is in it's current state. People can't go off of what it might look like 6 months or a year from now - they go off of what is shown, so what they showed is what gets the criticism.



Not only is rtwp combat a defining feature of the series, it is the way combat was handled in all of the Infinity Engine games, and also both NWN games. So even outside of BG, growing up over the last 20 years involved playing DnD-based crpg's games with rtwp combat. The way I see it, since BG is rtwp and DnD is turn-based, just have the option to choose how you want to play, because this issue is one that will and is dividing the community and playerbase.

Basically just keep the overall aesthetic and core features of the originals. Add in the 5e ruleset and update the graphics to present day. Yes, much of it should remain the same or at least same-y, as it is a sequel, not a spinoff. It being 20 years later isn't an excuse to entirely detract from it's roots. The people you seem to be referencing are diehard purists, which is not an accurate representation of what most of the people with criticisms (at least that I have seen) actually want.

I will add my 2 cents.

I am fine with Larian doings their new game in DnD setting. Them using Baldur’s Gate3 IP, doesn’t kill me, but it is not BG3.

My problem isn’t with 3D engine, graphical aesthetic and turn based combat. My problem is that BG1&2 and BG3 don’t belong to the same genre.

BG1&2 were singleplayer, story driven RPGs build using DnD engine. Larian’s games are multiplayer, system driven, sandbox RPGs. None of those are not bad by definition, but they are different and they appeal to different audience.

If Uncharted5 were released and it was multiplayer hero shooter, people would be pissed. It might be a great game, but people who waited for Uncharted5 would undoubtedly be disappointed.

I had a great time playing D:OS1 with a friend, and I am looking forward to booting up D:OS2 this summer, when my gaming friend visits. BG3 is something we will add to the list of trying out. But for people wanting BG3 - it is not it. It a multiplayer Larian RPG set in Baldur’s Gate setting, potentially using some inspiration from those legendary series... but in the last 20 years what RPG didn’t do that.

It looks fantastic BTW.

BG1 and 2 had multiplayer and they were somewhat non-linear, not entirely story driven but not quite sandbox either. I don't know what you mean by system driven?

The only difference between the originals and BG3 (based on the small amount of info we have) is that BG3 will be entirely turn based, which doesn't exactly make it a completely different genre from the old ones, but is admittedly a big difference.

They had multiplayer, but games weren’t designed for it: story was about singular protagonist, and game systems supported mainly singleplayer experience.

It was completely story driven. The fact that one could tackle multiple linear adventures in any order he wished, didn’t mean they weren’t story driven. I am mostly referring to BG2, which I think, is in people minds the Baldur’s Gate2. Shadowrun: Dragonfall used BG2 structure more resently: and overarching plot for which we need to make money for, and multiple world-and-character building adventures to do that. For a more AAA example: Witcher3 - openworld adventure, which in the end, is just bunch of linear stories cleverly woven together. They just have more intertwined stories, allowing for the feel of freedom.

All games mentioned above use systems very carefully for storytelling - combat encounters, puzzles, dialogues are there placed and for narrative sake, players are pushed to engage with them in certain order. When one has a choice it is a predesigned choice, usually with a narrative impact. D:OS1&2 had little to no story, they would give players objectives, and they would give you tools and you would play with tools until you solved problem. I consider Fallout1&2 or Arcanum to be more system driven as well: if there is a door you can pickpocket key for it, pick the lock, or destroy it. Narrative games will often artificially block the progress for story reason.

I will agree, that BG1&2 does allow to mess with the system a bit more then games that follow after it. But companions with personal stories and personalities, well paced and engaging story, heroic adventure with themes well tied to the gameplay loop - this is the legacy of BG1&2, not tacked on multiplayer, or being able to pickpocket random items from peoples pockets.

I disagree, the multiplayer part worked quite well for its time and was fun, if a bit chaotic. I finished the game once with a friend with both controlling a single character.



Well the first game surely wasn't. It was as close to a sandbox you could get with the IE engine. The second one was a bit more story driven, mainly that there were areas you could only access by advancing the story but it was still very open ended regarding everything else. Completely story driven would mean a game like a JRPG.



I'm not sure we played the same games. I just maybe don't understand this distinction between system driven and non-system driven. I'm sure you had a few ways to complete many quests in IE games as well, altho Fallouts did do meaningful choice a lot better.

I do however wonder, isn't adding meaningful choice to an RPG a good thing? That's kind of what I always found IE games lacking as opposed to Fallouts 1 and 2: both were story driven and had pretty good writing for games back then, but Fallout was just miles ahead when it came to actual role playing.

To address previous points properly would require deeper game analysis: how story and characters are designed with single protagonist in mind, and how levels smartly guide a progression, and how the game is not nearly as open as it seems (BG1 is, but it is easily the lesser of the two).

As to final point - one can improve on BG1&2, certainly. Witcher3 did just that. When I was young, I did think that Bioware did a mistake by not expanding the RPGness of their games. Something I understood recently, is that wasn’t the point. BG achievement wasn’t creating the most reactive and responsive world - it was giving a memorable adventure, with likeable companions, engaging setpieces and well presented villain. What people remember of Baldur’s Gate are Minsc, Jaheira, Irenicus, exploring keep taken by trolls. Those are things I don’t expect Larian to deliver on, as their focus so far has been on multiplayer interaction, and.... well... D:OS strength wasn’t in writing or characters.

If all Larian did was move toward more reactive RPG I would welcome it - in recent years I developed taste for those kind of RPGs where I can define my character, over Imposed “Child of Bhaal” storyline of BGs. But just because the game use top down camera, doesn’t mean it belongs to the same genre.

I am pretty sure Josh S. from Obsidian said, they they got data from Swen that playerbase for PoE and D:OS had very little overlap. That wouldn’t surprise me. Singleplayer RPGs are my thing. I must have played almost every single one. D:OSs land in situational bucket, due to their lack of appeal when played singleplayer.

Thanks for quoting me as if I was "the bad guy" + the"same name".
"He's dumb" is not more enjoyable that "you're brain is not healthy".
I didn't deserve more ban than the other because I don't start this and it really looks unfair you're pointing me with this quote.

This was to clarify things, not to start another useless discussion.

It was an escalation, not a clarification.
If the statements made are not an accurate representation of what you think was being referred to, it would have been much more constructive to ask for specifics, than make assumptions. FWIW I have seen multiple people demand the game be changed because it wasn't designed to their standards of what BG3 should be, including changing to RTwP; I don't know about the 'right' to speak, but opinions have absolutely been dismissed by some if they came from someone deemed not a real BG1+2 fan (though such dismissiveness, or just arguing past one another in general, is not exclusive to any particular side, or topic).

Such a scenario is so implausible and absurd that it made me chuckle.

The turn-based-only "I ❤️ slow combat" crew would obviously love that, but Diablo fans would hate it and revolt. Rightly so too.

Not to mention that a turn-based game could never sell over 30 million copies like Diablo 3 did. A turn-based game has not and never will come even close to such figures.

Bonus trivia: Diablo was originally a turn-based RPG, but the developers adopted a realtime combat system rather late in development.

I love how you act like people who enjoy turn-based combat CLEARLY would just approve ANY idea if it was turn-based. I mean, you RTwP people only approve of GOOD games with your big brains that we turn-based plebs don't have, right?

Diablo would suck with turn-based comabt.
Guess what? Diablo only has you controlling ONE person, not a party, which makes it easier, MUCH easier, to handle.
It also lacks jumping, dodging, grapple rules, and an overlarge skill-bar.

All of which is easier to use when I'm not trying to command a party of 5 in real time.

What's that? Pause every 5 seconds to give orders?

Welcome to a more clunky, less useful, turn-based system called real time w/ pause. May as well just be turn-based..Oh, it IS!

To be honest I played very good games in TB and in RTwP but I´ve never been able to fathom why so many people think that TB games do not sell well.. I mean, many of the top-selling videogame RPG franchises are TB games. Dragon Quest franchise, a japanese TB games, sold over 76 millions world-wide, it doubles the figures of the witcher, diablo or Elder scrolls franchise. And I do not even want to tell you the sales of the Shin megami tensei Persona, Tales of, Dragon quest or final fantasy (the best sales went to the TB games of the franchise), all with more than 10 million sales.
TB RPG games always sold well, history-wise.

https://vgsales.fandom.com/wiki/Best_selling_RPG_games


And I didn´t even refer until now to the second-best´ selling videogame franchise of all times (Of any category), they are turn-based games (Yeah, It´s Pokemon) with 346 million worldwide,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_game_franchises

I agree _Vic_, but this game is being developed for the PC market to my understanding.

Well, the game will be released on Stadia, so I do not think it´s exactly PC market per se.