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

Well, if "Baldur´s Gate" means nothing to newer games then they can log out of the forum and wait until the game is out because it doesn't matter what it looks like anyway.

Because you saying this, are you able to quantify the "plenty of others" or "niche group"?




Are you an official Larian Studios employee who makes decisions about the game or is that just a personal "guess" of you?

Wow, you are such a business person arent you.

So what you are actually saying is that DOS1 and DOS2 were a success, and that Larian should just make DOS3, but call it BG3? That is what they are doing right?

Making a game called Baldurs gate THREE and ignoring the COMPLETE fanbase of BG ONE and TWO sounds like a pretty dumb business idea to me.

But who knows, maybe old BG fans will play the new BG3/DOS3 and realize how great the new game is, and how the old games just had to be completely thrown out the window (Dont fix what aint broken right!).

Haha, but they revealed a lot more that that!

For instance, they revealed its a game based on DOS2 that looks and feels exactly like DOS2 (should make the DOS fanboys very happy)

Next time, if they ONLY want to reveal what the combat system is like, maybe it would be better if they just say or write it...no need to show the demo just for that, especially if the combat system is exactly the same as DOS2 combat (because we already seen that)

It's called knowing, roughly, how much of a game is complete for various Builds (Beta, pre-alpha, Alpha, etc). It's called using my brain to realize that a game in a pre-alpha state is nowhere near playable, because that's what it means to BE in a pre-alpha state.

Therefor, I can infer, again; using my logic, that many, MANY things were not yet in the game in that state they showed us. That pre-alpha state, if you will.

And yelling that a game is a copy/paste, or demanding the devs 'get back to work' or 'get on (their) art team, NOW' is not 'constructive feedback' because it's not constructive.

It's the yelling of a person angry he's not getting what he wants.

The second quote was not mine. As to the first...

I suspect an overwhelming number of those who find BG2 the apex of RPGs are roughly 32-38 years of age (born between 82-88), based on a premise (which certainly could be wrong) that our formative years (roughly 10-16) are the most impactful. Most (by a large margin I suspect) born after 88 probably never even played BG1&2, with there being so many more 'modern' alternatives like EverQuest. Most (by a large margin I suspect) born before 82 had plenty of previous games to fill the sacred slot of 'best game ever' (e.g. table top D&D). So, if the range of possible gamers who might play BG is (say) 10 to 70, that 7 year range of 32-38 are a small minority. I could certainly be off by these figures a bit, but I see no reason to suspect that many gamers younger than 32 or older than 38 hold BG1&2 so high. Hence, the niche.

I'm saying that fanbase doesn't matter nearly as much as you think it does.

Gods, it shows the mentality of those who are upset:

They literally make demands and snide comments about 'better GET WORKING!' and 'this is a lazy copy/paste!' and think it's 'constructive criticism' instead of what it is; outright insults and childish demands.

Do you think younger folks have more money to spend on luxury products, video games, computers etc. than those in their thirties and forties? I don't see what's wrong with being a niche as long as you can make money off them.

Okay, now I understand, you are such an expert that you already know how the game will look when it releases. Good for you.

Me, I just want the game not to look like DOS2 and to look...maybe...a bit similar to BG1and2.

And I disagree...demanding that the devs go back to work is constructive, because only by working can they make the game better.

Okay, now I understand, you are such an expert that you already know how the game will look when it releases. Good for you.

Me, I just want the game not to look like DOS2 and to look...maybe...a bit similar to BG1and2.

And I disagree...demanding that the devs go back to work is constructive, because only by working can they make the game better.[/quote]

I'm saying I can use logic to know that a game in PRE ALPHA is usually changed, allot, before release into early, or even full, access.

You, on the other hand, are screaming about a game in PRE ALPHA, which, AGAIN, by the standard of every videogame to do pre alpha before this one, means it has allot of work to go.

You are whining to the chefs that the eggs & milk & sugar they just put down don't look like that delicious $500 wedding cake you ordered.

You need to calm down and freaking wait to see what it looks like in early access.

Eguzky I insulted nobody and demand nothing.

Im just giving suggestions to the devs if they even want my humble opinion.

They have the BG franchise and nothing can stop them from making another DOS game under the BG3 name.

It their legal right and I respect that.

Every time you comment how it 'looks like DOS3' you are showing how little you know of game making to have your 'humble opinion'.

You can HAVE that opinion, but it can be wrong. You know why I don't give my opinion on art & drawings? Because I can't draw, so I know better than to stomp around demanding artists change their art style to cater to my uninformed opinion.

Teen $ + 20s $ + 40s $ + 50s $+ 60s $ > 30s$

Okay, now I understand, you are such an expert that you already know how the game will look when it releases. Good for you.

Me, I just want the game not to look like DOS2 and to look...maybe...a bit similar to BG1and2.

And I disagree...demanding that the devs go back to work is constructive, because only by working can they make the game better.[/quote]

I'm saying I can use logic to know that a game in PRE ALPHA is usually changed, allot, before release into early, or even full, access.

You, on the other hand, are screaming about a game in PRE ALPHA, which, AGAIN, by the standard of every videogame to do pre alpha before this one, means it has allot of work to go.

You are whining to the chefs that the eggs & milk & sugar they just put down don't look like that delicious $500 wedding cake you ordered.

You need to calm down and freaking wait to see what it looks like in early access.

[/quote]

I can also use logic and memory.

I remember the games that Larian did before DOS.

They were all ok games, but never did good commercially.

Now Larian/Swen Vincke think they have the GOLDEN FORMULA so they want to milk it as much as they can with BG3.

The only problem is that it can backfire in a way that critics and fans realize that what was sold to them was not BG3 but DOS3.

I do hope that does not happen.

It's all a string of unfounded claims and speculation so it's best not to dwell on this topic anymore.

Those are quite a lot assumptions.

I would say:
- A lot of people know about BG1+2 or have even played it, at least among those who are interested in computer RPGs at all, no matter how old they are.
When players are interested in this genre and they are not completely blind, they will find lots of people who will say that BG1+2 are the best games ever. It does not matter if this is true or if those people are a small minority, all that matters is that it is impossible not to hear them for example if you look at any forum, such as this one. Every new game is compared to them and some people will always say that BG1+2 are better than anything else. You can buy the original games or the EE editions, they are often on sale and there is lots of advertisement for them.
So if you can get the games for a few bucks and several people say its the best game ever, many people will buy them and most of those probably like them.

I have absolutely no idea how large is the group of "fanboys" among all BG players, but I guess its rather small. One reason is that only a small number of players is very active in forums anyway.

my opinion:
BG1+2 were games that defined the genre and they are very good, but they are not perfect.
It is absolutely needed that devs try something new from time to time and it is absolutely normal that a game made now will look very different than a game made 20 years ago. It uses a different rule set (there is absolutely no reason to use DnD 2E now, alone the concept thaco is hard to understand for new players for example).
The technical limitation are completely different now. In BG you could not kick an enemy off a cliff or throw random items at them, but you could definitely do it in a PnP session. It is fine that devs include stuff when they think it looks cool, at least it makes at least some sense in this context.

my prediction:
- Larian will make lots of money with this game.
- The press and players reviews will be very good in general
- Some people will say that BG1+2 were the best games ever, until the end of time.
- Some players will not like it (which is totally normal) and some of those will find the most absurd reasons why it is junk.

Because you asked...

Running long jump (with a run of 10 feet) distance is your Strength score in feet, half if there is no running. Gear weight and height doesn't matter. Someone with 20 of Strength will cover 20 feet (that's 6.096 meters) on a running long jump. The male world record is 8.95 meters (1991) and that's was done with 131 feets of railway to sprint on and basically naked. Some classes have feature that increase jump distance as well.

Someone amused themselves at making the perfect D&D jumper character : https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/4uz53d/the_ultimate_guide_to_the_highest_jumping/

And there is a funny calculator too: https://fexlabs.com/5ejump/

In the BG3 gameplay we have seen, movement was consumed by jumping as per the rule, but the distance was a few feet longer than it should be for the characters. Swen said that was because of the tadpole.

So, another entirely subjective criteria, then. People can not even agree on what the original games look like (see the grimdark discussions), and extrapolating 20 years from that is suppose to be useful?



I'm not sure you know what the word exact means.



How do you? At least changes and updates are a reasonable position for a pre-alpha build of the game where the save system hadn't been implemented yet.



Complete? Except of course the BG fans that have posted in various topics that they approve of the current direction, are ok with it, on the fence or would have done things differently but it isn't quite time to get the torches and pitchforks.

Also, given that it is literally impossible to please everyone, any features not to your particular preference does not mean you were ignored. The people making the game are gamers, and like any group have various preferences and opinions. With D:OS 1 and 2, various features and design decisions were debated internally before showing up in public sometimes to be echoed in forums, and points raised in forums have triggered internal debates. That will likely be the case when Early Access starts for BG3, as well.

This is really an unexpected anwer again...
If first is because it's the project, what came next ? What looks like BG in the "general gameplay overview" we had ?

PS : Sorry if you look "to be" Larian, you're the only one with their name here



You'll probably pleased Larian's fanbase, you'll probably please D&D fanbase... But I still never see any "only" BG video game fan that is happy wherever I read discussions about BG3.

Some BG fans are only video games players. They aren't fans of D&D and neither fans of your games. (Or maybe they are, but they consider BG as BG, no as D&D. Larian's game is something else)
It looks you completely forget them or don't care about them and spit on them.

If this was your intention to pleased them while creating this new game as it is, you would probably just haven't named this BG3.... because it's probably only us that cares about the name of this game. Of course it's impossible to pleased everyone, but here you won't please (m)any video game players that waited BG3 for years.

That's why nearly each thread everywhere arround the world talking about BG3 sucks at the moment.

Admittedly. But, I do give what I think are legitimate grounds for those assumptions. To put it differently, with the explosion of 3D rpgs around 1999, I suspect many rpg fans born after 88 wouldn't even give a game like BG the time of day; it very quickly looked archaic compared to the likes of Everquest. On the other side, by the time BG was released, those born before 82 likely had the pedestal reserved for something else (most likely D&D itself). BG just couldn't rival the substance of what came before it (D&D) nor the technology that quickly came after it (FF7, Everquest, Zelda Ocarina, Ultima 9).