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

Look, I'm on board with most of what you guys are doing. Hell, I even PREFER some of the changes you guys are introducing to the series (like the added verticality and the turn based combat). So far my only genuine bummer is the recently confirmed lack of day/night cycle (that's a massive low blow on your par, let me tell you).

THAT SAID, let's be honest here: you guys aren't even TRYING to throw a bone to the old fans, are you?

The cartoonish animations, the controls with that awkward "chain/follow" mechanic, the (allegedly placeholder) UI, the core gameplay changes, the four men party, the indirect dialogues, the lack of a day/night cycle...
It's almost starting to feel like Larian is deliberately trying to ANTAGONIZE the old fanbase.

Even ignoring the fringe group of rabid grognards that will be unhappy no matter what... My worthless advice would be: maybe you guys should start considering that there could be some merit in some of the mixed feedback you are getting.
Don't turn this is another scenario like the armor system of DOS 2 or the shitty progression system/itemization of both the previous games, where people pointed out the flaws from the beginning but the studio ignored them entirely and chose to stick to their guns at all costs.

This isn not what you said... "people weren't really playing Baldur's Gate before they got re-released".

I play the games every years (or two years) for about 20 years and I can tell you I'm far to be the only one...
Now I'm trying the EE for the first time on my nintendo switch because I like playing in the train (I bought it last month, not interrested playing it on a computer).

Why are we talking about that ? Is that really interresting or is there a link with the previous messages ?

Yeah, people weren't really playing it much compared to say, now or especially when the EE's were just released. It had a good cult following for sure, and there was a small but loyal modding community. Still, it was the EE's that really reinvigorated the player base. The games were out of print and technically badly dated.

sources ? crystal ball ?
anyway that was not the discussion.

You don't need a crystal ball to know the past, buddy.

Cartoonish animations are a matter of taste, and I don't think they're that cartoony. Chain/follow mechanic is a lot better than BG2 style. UI is already better than BG2. Core gameplay is way better even at this stage. Four man party I agree with but I understand why they want to do it. Dialogues could be better. Lack of day/night cycle doesn't matter.

I also enjoyed the abundance of loot in DOS2. Even with that much, I often had some really old and bad equipment for a long time.

There are a lot of opinions and trying to pander to them all just changes which people are unhappy. Better stick to their vision and iterate on it, rather than trying to pander.

I too can be superficially dismissive of anything doesn't fit my narrative, without having to prove any of my claims!

Also, the chain thing is genuinely terrible no matter how I look at it.
To position my entire party in BG all it took was few clicks.
In OS2 I hade to fight the fucking interface to unchain characters one by one, THEN click to position them. THEN fight the UI again for several seconds to relink them.
If at very least they included an hotkey to instantly chain/unchain the entire party it could somewhat be more bearable.

What do you mean prove? Those are my opinions. My opinions aren't any better than your opinions, and your opinions aren't better than mine.

I'm assuming that's (perhaps indirectly) with reference to my comment as I seem to be the one who brought up the subject of a "Third Gaming Phase", as I put it, which is entirely personal to me. I mean most "golden ages" are, if we want to view it in those terms. In my case, the first one was a few years post-Pong when the 8-bit games were incredibly popular thanks to the Atari 2600 being well-established and the UK's home computer scene taking off with the likes of the VIC-20 and Spectrum at its vanguard; second phase was the 3D games of the early-mid '90s like Wolfenstein, Doom and a billion other 3D first-person games; third was the early 21st century with HL2, TES and so on.

Equally personally were my gaming low points: late '80s due to being broke, going to college and discovering the internet, which almost got me expelled (ahem); late '90s due to being Serious Homeowner and career girl and the then 3D games triggered my migraines; and I'm worried that the third is upon us as there seems to be a dearth of things I'm interested in thanks to the online fixation and move away from interesting, absorbing SP games. Which is where BG3 (hopefully) comes in.

As you can see from the many threads it is a very emotional issue.

Larian Studios anounnced "Baldur´s Gate III". Of course there is a lot of hype in two different camps:

1. D:OS fans who are simply looking forward to a new Larian game

2. Baldur´s Gate veterans who expect a real Baldur´s Gate game. I would even split the BG camp again into the hardcore fans (who hope for a game in the style of the original game) and the moderate fans, who also accept changes / innovations.

In each of the two BG veteran camps, everyone has their own ideas about a Baldur's Gate game.

There are different questions here:
1. What makes a Baldur's Gate III to a Baldurs Gate game and what is a Baldur's Gate game in general?
2. Why Larian Studios called it Baldur´s Gate III?
3. Is BG3 a successor or a sequel or nothing of it and just a D:OS clone?

Some BG-fans expected a game in the spirit of Baldur´s Gate like Pillars of Eternity, Reals Beyond: Ashes of the Fallen, Black Geyser: Couriers of Darkness or Pathfinder: Kingmaker etc. Others are hoping for changes and innovations. When you see the improvement from Elder Scrolls: Arena to Elder Scrolls Skyrim you can see a lot of improvement and changes to to gameplay. Changes are generally not a bad thing.

Unlike the original games BG3 going to be TB and not RTwP. I don´t want to discuss this pro/contra because there is a own big Thread for it. Of course you have to note that the RTwP has already decisively determined the gameplay in the original Baldur´s Gate games.

Well, the decision was made that Baldur's Gate III is a TB game now. Honestly I personally could live with it. Maybe i will LOVE it because it reminds me of the old "Das Schwarze Auge" games by Attic. They were released outside of Germany as Realms of Arkania / Northlands Trilogy. The Lady, the Mage and the Knight should be a successor. Of course, I could just as easily have lived with RTwP. But the question is now is Baldur´s Gate III still a Baldur´s Gate game because it has another combat system or is it now a D:OS clone because of TB?

It is clear that with the decision TB some fans are offended but the decision was just made. However, it is not understandable for me to tell such a "very questionable" story as a reason for the decision. Larian's "BG3" senior designer and main combat designer, Edouard Imbert said this in an interview:

“I’m critical of real-time-with-pause because I think that it looks messy. It’s like a miss, pause, give three orders, a miss, pause. Also, I don’t believe that sticking to the old system can expand to a greater audience. The thing with turn-based logic is that everybody understands it. It’s my turn, it’s your turn."

In the original french interview he mentioned:

"I played BG2 at the time, but it goes back a long way. I went back to the main fights but it´s very very vague...Me, at the time, i was rather on Final Fantasy *laugh*."

So, the senior designer and main combat designer who hasn't played BG1, who barely remembers BG 2, and who prefers Final Fantasy is saying that RTwP is

a mess

hard to understand (for the D:OS Players?)

he think Larian Studios can´t reach a greater audience with it.

Ok, i just replayed Baldur´s Gate EE, SoD and Baldur´s Gate II EE. In over 350 hours I never thought it was a mess. The combat system was also very easy to understand and I don't have a high school diploma. Yes, i read the manual, maybe that was my advantage. Again, i don´t want to discuss TB vs. RTwP, i accept the decision but I am bothered by the way that is used as a reason. I don't really see any constructive basics here, but rather arguments that are pulled by the hair.

But what worries me most: If you don´t have a clue what the game, not just the name, "Baldur´s Gate" mean then you are the blind man who speaks of the color. Then you can’t understand what the others are talking about and you don´t have any passion of making a Baldur´s Gate III! If you are going for a "Dungeons&Dragons: New Adventure in Baldur´s Gate" game be my guest but not a "Baldur´s Gate III". Don´t get me wrong. Of course, many things have to be redone. For example, a bear looks different in Baldur's Gate 1 than it will be look in Baldur's Gate 3. For the graphic designer it is therefore irrelevant what the bear looked like in the original games. But if you make a decision without being able to identify yourself with the game whose sequel you should make then I think it’s wrong.

So if the combat system has been changed, how does Larian Studios think that old Baldur's Gate veterans recognize Baldur's Gate in a third part?
Larian's David Walgrave, executive producer said in this interview:

"So, I think that in spirit it's still the successor of Baldur's Gate 1 and 2. Because there are so many things that people who did play and like Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 will still recognise in the new one. It's still about your party. It's still about big personalities clashing with each other and relationships. It's still a party-based game, you still need to do combat, you will recognise a lot of D&D rules - even if you haven't played D&D in 20 years. You will still recognise all the spells, et cetera. So, to me it's a true sequel*, but we are bringing it into the 21st century by saying, "Look, it's glorious 3D."

Can we define a Baldur´s Gate game by these above key-features or are these also D:OS features? Will we have with the TB system but the above features still a Baldur´s Gate game?

Baldur's Gate III, a spiritual successor (not a real successor, so I would call it a sequel), can and must then be differentiated through the story! In the same interview David Walgrave mentioned that Larian Studios don´t have any Baldur´s Gate writers like Chris Avellones on board. I was expecting some help from driving D&D experts but Larian Studios also got good writers, so i guess we can looking forward to the story, the lore, the books etc. I´m sure that Adam Smith and his team will dive deep into the D&D Lore an will surprise us.

In this interview also David Walgrave said:

"We wanted to make Baldur’s Gate 3D and we wanted to make sure it was not just a nostalgia trip...There’s a whole new audience out there and they don’t want to play stuff made in the 80s and 90s. They want to play modern stuff that appeals to them... I don’t know how we keep old-school fans happy [laughs]. They’re hard to please. We noticed a lot of our player-base is people in their teens and 20s..."

Ok, Larian Studios player base are people in their teens and 20s and spent their pocket money on their games and Baldur´s Gate III will not just be a nostalgia trip because of a new audience (teens and 20s). This new audience wasn´t even born when Baldur´s Gate 1 or 2 were released. They don´t care about the "Baldur´s Gate" because they don´t know it. Are many decisions just made to make this new audience so enjoyable? So can Larian Studios make a Baldur's Gate III that satisfies all sides? You will not be able to satisfy all camps. You will have to compromise like in a marriage. But you also have to be ready for that - from all sites.

So, Larian Studios call Baldur´s Gate III a spirital successor and sequel. Is that justified?

Let´s have a closer look at these Baldur´s Gate:

Baldur´s Gate is a city at the Sword Coast in Faerûn in the Forgotten Realms. It´s been revisited in other medias too.

Let´s have a closer look to the games because we are talking about a video game here called Baldur´s Gate III and not a novel, a comic, a pen&paper game or any other media:

Baldur´s Gate is playing in and around the city of Baldur´s Gate.

Baldur´s Gate: Tales of the Sword Coast like the name said it´s playing around the city of Baldur´s Gate.

Baldur´s Gate: Siege of Dragonspear is also playing in and around Baldur´s Gate.

Baldur´s Gate II: Shadow of Amn is playing in the city of Athkatla in the country of Amn and it´s playing in the country of Tethyr.

Baldur´s Gate II: Throne of Bhaal is playing also in Tethyr aswell the planar.

As we see the games Baldur´s Gate II: Shadow of Amn and Baldur´s Gate II: Throne of Bhaal are not playing in or around Baldur´s Gate, so why are they used the name Baldur´s Gate II? Well, i can import my savegame from BG to BG:TotSC to BG:SoD to BGII:SoA to BG:ToB and continue the story about the Maincharacter. It has a reference, something continues. So we can call the respective parts - i guess - as real successors and aswell sequels. At the cover of "Baldur´s Gate II: Throne of Bhaal" you can read "The final chapter" because it´s ending the Bhaalspawn-Story. In the outro of BG II:ToB, however, it is said that THIS adventure is over, but more will follow. That´s interesting.

If we take a quick look at other D&D games, e.g. Eye of the Beholder, we will see something similar:

Eye of the Beholder I

Eye of the Beholder II: The Legend of Darkmoon

Eye of the Beholder III: Assault on Myth Drannor

In each part I can transfer my character / group into the next adventure which always connects to the previous adventure. So we can call the respective parts also as successors and the numbering I, II, III make sense.

But there other D&D game series like

Pool of Radiance Vol. 1

Curse of the Azure Bonds Vol. 2

Secret of the Silver Blades Vol. III

Pools of Darkness Vol. IV

The story always continued of the events from the respective predecessor. You could always import your characters from the predecessor. As you can see the names were always different but the numbering was continuous and make sense.

But if we look at

Icewind Dale

Icewind Dale II

we only have a sequel and not a successor. We can´t transfer any characters or continue a story. Part II it´s just a game in the same setting. The same is at Neverwinter Nights after the first expansion.

Just a nice sidenote:
Black Isle themselves, the creators of the Baldur's Gate series, wasn't willing to call their game "Baldur´s Gate 3: The Black Hound" (which should play in the Dalelands like Curse of the Azure Bonds)

I personally would have liked a real successor for Baldur's Gate III. But you can´t transfer your save game from Baldur´s Gate II: Throne of Bhaal to Baldur´s Gate 3. Because you can’t directly import your old save file you could do it like in the Witcher games and choose your decisions before starting the game or something similar like Dragon Age, to transfer it to the DA Keep or just get forced for a decision by the game. Of course the chapter of the Bhaalspawn is closed but i personally hoped for some connection, like e.g. the Maincharacter is having a romance (or did it like Bhaal did back then), a child is born, as an adult he is kidnapped, INTRO BG3. The story could have been continued considering Baldur's Gate: Descent in Avernus. To the different endings in BG2 it make sense to go further with the hero's descendant and so you having the directly connection to BG 2. Unfortunaly none of this will happen but the good at a RPG is, you could write your own background story

After these personal wishes, we come back to the question "Why call it a sequel"?

In this interview Adam Smith said:

"One of the questions that comes up again and again is, 'why is it called Baldur's Gate 3?' and it's because it is a true sequel. All the events of the past games, we studied thoroughly and what their impact in the world was...We're on the Sword Coast. So we start 200 miles east of Baldur's Gate. You're not gonna travel the whole 200 miles, but you're going to see a lot of stuff on the way there. Then when you get there, there's going to be things that are recognized within the city, there'll be specific places, and taverns. You'll see things and say "I recognize that. Oh, that's changed a little bit", or "what's happened here", and you can dig into that. Some of it will just be visual, some of it will be in dialogue.We're on the Sword Coast. So we start 200 miles east of Baldur's Gate. You're not gonna travel the whole 200 miles, but you're going to see a lot of stuff on the way there."

Have we now found the Baldur's Gate ingredients through the lore and story?

But Adam also said in the interview:
"I think the Origin characters are something that Divinity did incredibly well, we took that further...So there's a lot of things where there are elements of Divinity that you will see. But a lot of that is in terms of how we treat the environment. And a lot of the reasons that stuff works in Divinity is because that's how the world works...We want to make our own story...That's important to us, that we say we know the core values of what the name Baldur's Gate means: to do something innovative and to do something that feels fresh"

Everyone has to decide for himself how he feels about the game. BUT it should be borne in mind that we are still at the very beginning.

Even though I may be a bit critical of some things i´m still looking forward to the development this game (like the last 20 years). I´m looking forward to a new adventure. I hope that Larian Studios will continue the old traditions of D&D games and then make a whole series. A series of games in which I can import my character / group into the following game for a new adventure. I hope Larian Studios succeeds in creating an independent game, Baldur's Gate III and not just a D:OS III in D&D guise.
I hope that Larian´s employees will play the complete Baldur´s Gate series themselves, so that they know what they are working on. It's different whether I see a Star Wars movie in the cinema or just someone telling me the story about it.

There are people who are not interested in the whole Baldur's Gate thing and are only looking forward to a new Larian game. There are the hardcore Baldur´s Gate fans who prefer an infinity game and who like me, who are also looking forward to innovations but who want to connect to Baldur´s Gate 1+2 or want to see the III deserved.

This wholesale rejection of anything to do with BG1&2 except setting because "times change" is absolutely ludicrous.

Should we turn all RT games into TB games?

In a better world.
But once again that's not the topic here, is it?

Great idea, let's roll with it. Who's "we" though?

Right, more evidence that this game is actually being made for people who never liked BG to begin with.

Hey now I agree with many of the things you've said but I don't think you can boil down BG2 to RTwP. I always played BG as if it were a turn based game. I literally have a place on my space bar that is worn away from all the times I hit pause. RTwP was always a way of splitting the difference between fans. Real time fans could play fastest reflex, turn based fans could agonize over strategy.

One of the reasons I didn't like the *first* version of the PoE engine was that it leaned so heavily towards the "real time" -- it was really an engine for real time fans who liked to pause from time to time.

Now Obsidian got it's act together and gave turn based fans a great engine. I really hope it's used to make a new BG game in the future. (bring back painted backgrounds!)

For me, to be BG it needs good character development, epic story, to be loaded down with side quests and to be "kitchen sink" like. Bioware threw *everything*, *everything* it could find in the rulebooks at BG2 and I think Larian needs to do the same.

BG3 needs to have high replay value, multiple ways to complete tasks . . . so many things other than combat

Here we go with the 'you're not a real fan unless you agree with me' mentality so many RTwP defenders have.

People can like the old BG and still be happy with the changes to the new one, you know.

People need to bloody wait until the game comes out and is playable. THAT is the point in which Larian has said 'This is what we feel is a good enough BG3 to show the world'.

Anything right now is complaining about 'might be' and 'probably will be'. Both of which are as solid as smoke.

Funny thing is that a lot of people are complaining about how BG3 looking like DOS2 but this does not bother me why it does not bother is that it means there can forces on the story more than making a new engine for BG3 do you lot have any idea how long it takes to make a new engine and story Dragon Age Origins take six years to come out why make a new engine when you already have a good engine to bring with?

engine is just "the core" of the game... At least they said they only took 20 to 30% of the DoS2 engine... so....

Yes and no. the Unity 'engine' and Unreal Engine have made everything from FPS's to RPGs.

The engine has nothing to do with the assets, story, voice acting, or such. It's just a framework for what can be done to make a game.
So people should not get so angry over 'the DoS Engine' because it has nothing to do with DoS except having been made FOR DoS, and thus the name.

The Unreal Engine was first made for Unreal, then Unreal Tournament, and now has games like Ace Combat and Adventure Pinball: Forgotten Island. Which is as far from Unreal as you can get.

So the name of the engine means little other than the games potential, in a VERY loose sense.

Wow, first time I agree with you.
This was the meanings of my message : engine is not enough to define what a game is.