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

Agreed, and I misunderstood the gist of your post. Apologies.

If you need to do this, than there is in
camp 2 in addition this 'BG isn't just about DnD-movement, this is based too much on the DnD rule'-movement

and you completely left out
camp 3. 'This isn't close enough to the current 5e rules' - camp, so the DnD-purists.

and then, and then....
What a conflict of goals, alone 2 & 3? Is it?
Seen from that perspective, let's just hope that Larian sticks true to their vision, since everybody's darling is everybody's bit*h.
And really no one would like that.

Anyway, I am pretty sure, that nobody ever intended BG or DnD or cRPGs to be something that splits people into camps fight each other personally.

In my handbook of the original saga, right on page 3, within the introduction by David Cook, he says about the game (translated from german):


I can't find a remark that means to become nasty from playing.
There's an adventure waiting.
This should bring us together.
Camps need a bonfire.

It's just evidence that your broken record shtick beguiles me into teasing you.

I loved BG I & II and presumably did put more hours into RTwP games than any other forum user here (unless there's QA folks for RTwP games here - I know they put humongous amounts of hours into their games). But still: I don't play the fanatic RTwP zealot because TB games can be great, too. D:OS I & II I didn't like that much unfortunately.

I just felt like throwing this in, when I read your sentence:


It's from page 40 in the Original Manual

Hey, really appreciate your post.

To cut it short, innovation in games YES - always, but copy/pasting 90% DOS2 mechanics while totally ignoring BG vibe, look, gameplay, and calling the game BG3 - HELL NO!

This is really not about the engine. But to make the game practically IDENTICAL to DOS2??

I mean - if you didnt know that BG3 was coming out and you saw the gameplay demo - would you guest it was a BG game or a DOS game. Enough said.

I have nothing against Larian using their engine - but if they are doing that then obviously they should AT LEAST make the game look and feel different than DOS.

This.

Incoming people to say you're wrong because it obviously look and feel totally different than DoS

It was not made to look like D:OS 2, and there are significant differences. During development, games don't start off looking like the final state. The first presentations of D:OS 2 looked like D:OS 1 in a lot of respects, as well. As the core components / systems get finished, and assets are created, they get added to the game.
The save system wasn't added yet in the build used in the presentation, so why do you assume the lighting and camera systems, character models, et al, are finished?

Ok so please, can you then inform us on "how it was made to look like BG" according to the first view we had with the game ?
(assuming "visual" things are not done yet and we don't know much about story).

And please don't answer with what's only from D&D. Of course D&D is (an important) part of a BG game but every games using D&D aren't BG.
(This game is named Baldur's Gate 3, not NWN3, Tales of the Sword Coast 2,..... and not D&D video game).

What does looking like BG mean? There have been several topics related to this, and I don't know. A small minority of people mean an isometric camera with 2D graphics. The area around the riverbank in BG3 was too bright and colourful to be BG, despite bright and colourful areas in the first 2 games, and dark areas in the presentation.
I'm not the person to ask about the graphics design for BG3, though, not being involved in the design or development.

I really find interresting Larian Studio ask "what does looking like BG means" according you decided to create a game named Baldur's Gate 3... Can't you explain why you choose this name and convince players that find this name important ?
Is it me that has to explain why this new game had this name ?

I can also answer questions with questions...
(EDIT : that's why I didnt answer here, but Darkatarn do it quiete well under)

What you showed looks nothing like a BG game and Swen nearly didn't mention anything about it.

You can answer without talking about anything "visual" (such as isometric camera with 2D graphics).
I agree with you, it's too early to talk about that.

TY for your presence, it is always interesting to feel listened to and to be able to participate in a real feedback.

I think the main plot is doing a Baldur's Gate game and not just a DD5 game ( Baldur's Gate identity before Dungeons and Dragons identity). It's an important nuance.

I propose a small list to answer your question:

- Incantations for spell!!!!!! Not just click and KABOOM FIRE EFFECT!

- A little less colorful ambiance, BG universe is more realistic and less shiny and high fantasy than Divinity.

- Of course the UI is too close of Divinity. We want an UI with wood and stone, a little more gloomy and traditional.

- "Ahh, the Child of Bhaal has awoken."

A VERY VERY BADASS MAIN VILAIN! Sarevok and Irenicus was deep and very iconic, like Hitchcock said "A good story is a story with a good vilain". I hope Illithid Master isn't the real final boss. I have big hope with Cult of the Dead Three (a very good connexion with the Bhaal Legacy and the new context of DD5).

- BG Music' style or remix! Even today the first notes of the main theme of BG1 or BG2 still very iconic.

- One map for one location to visit with a big world map and the possibility of returning from former areas. The system of ONE BIG Map for one Act in Divinity isn't BG friendly and it's an immersion breaker.

- Custom portrait and real character sheet.

- A LOT of charismatic NPC Companions and not just 5 or 6 Origin Divinity' style NPC.... And please true ROMANCES and a lot of PARTY BANTERS.

- A very good and long adventure with local issues and not just ultra epic and cosmic issue, it's an other immersion breacker imo. Less epic for epicness and more coherent and realistic background. Less High Fantasy and more MEDIEVAL fantasy with historic soul and deep conflicts.

In summary, a good glass of old-fashioned wiskhy in front of a crackling fireplace, an old library and a hunting trophy. Not a smooth and clean atmosphere like the design of the latest iphone.

- Of course, a lot of easter eggs with the BG series (Viconia, Sarevok, events, locations, ...).

- Less WTF moments and jokes than Divinity, BG universe is serious and deep with subtle touches of humor like Jan Jansen and Minsc quotes.

An attack of shoes is fun but it's also useless and not the spirit of the licence.

- A true group of 6 adventurers ( During the demo I have seen only 4 slots of characters...). ( we can make a concession with this point I think...)

Whilst you’re list includes good points, I have to ask whether you realised that what you saw was a demo right? That means copied assets, missing animations, incomplete voices and effects and lighting and and and.

The showcase was to highlight the TB system and the kind of things you can do with it within the 5e rules. What we are yet to see other than the cinematic sand some early plot devices is, well, the entire game! We are no where near release.

People should be cautious about getting too precious about this until much later on. Not that I disapprove of poking and asking difficult questions!

I'm agree with you but it's the goal of a preview to have a feedback and this is my feedback: "Prevention is better than cure".

Yeah that’s fair...
In fact a lot of the criticism is fair, it’s just not always very constructively put (aimed at the forum in general, not You)

Is this game being made first and foremost for those who hold BG1 & 2 as the apex of computer RPGs? If not, there is no reason to be so beholden to the original (in whatever way the aforementioned group thinks that should or even can be achieved).

Do you care about the name of this new game ?
No ? so please stay open minded with those waiting it as the messiah for about 20 years and that are really really dissapointed.

(Im' not saying those have all the same opinions, and I really don't want to open new discussions, they are all somewhere on the forum)

I was going to include something on this, but I figured I would wait for it to be asked (as I knew it would). So, to answer, no really I don't care. I know it does to the BG1 &2 devotees. But again, unless this game is being made first and foremost for that group, the doesn't matter. "Baldur's Gate" means nothing to newer gamers, and it doesn't mean to plenty of others (if not a massive majority of others) what it means to the niche group that holds the game so high.

That's right, I think (and you seem to be agree) using another name than Baldur's Gate "3" wouldn't have changed a thing for them.

That's the exact reason why many people think Larian spit on them (and why discussions are so hard and emotional)

They have the rights, WoTC blabla, I know those things of course.

We don't know what their marketing research told them, so we cannot say if it would or would not have changed anything for them. It is certainly possible that using BG3 is a marketing tactic (not a "cash grab" as some others have said), and that's fine if so. It's a business too.

You're disappointed the game isn't going to be the way you envisioned. I get it and I'm not unsympathetic. But, that doesn't mean it won't come. And I am sure the name doesn't mean as much to the other side either. If Larian was making a game to suite the BG1&2 devotees, but called it something other than BG "3", I doubt there would be much discussion on the matter.