Can't none of you understand that some expected to see... BG when you see the first gameplay video of... BG3 ? If the first thing you show don't highlight "BG-like" elements,, then why is the game named BG3 ?
Of course things can still change, and of course we didn't see anything...
So please, can you explain me what specific elements of BG you saw or read until now ?
The opening cinematic screams Baldur's Gate and has zip to do with Larian's previous games.
Really ? With 3 dragons and fire and explosions and the destruction of a city ? Is this screaming Baldur's Gate to you ? In my memory it was a little bit less "spectacular". I can't deny it was about the lore, which is not really specific to BG, it's more about D&D and The Forgotten Realms...
Originally Posted by Eguzky
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Well, that still doesn't mean we saw anything about it... whatever you talk about visual, gameplay,... Maybe they should have shown more BG and less D&D rules or lore, just to see your faces now
Larian apparently overestimated the fanbase's intelligence. They expected us all to realize a game without a working save function was not meant to do more than let us know they're making it. Yet everyone is screaming like this game was sold in this state for $60.
I can't really see the point here... You're answer and the "early access" argument looks something like : they didn't show BG because there is still no BG in BG3. But don't worry, it's coming. Is that what you mean ?
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Can't none of you understand that some expected to see... BG when you see the first gameplay video of... BG3 ?
Yeah, sure. The first response to that, though, was "what does that mean?" (took a while to get an idea of what that might mean, but best I can do so far is that a game more similar to PoE or P:K was expected by some). Then it could be asked why that was expected, considering Larian was making it (BG3 is looking like I expected it to). Then it can be asked if that would have been a good idea to do, considering DOS2's success and PoE's and P:K's lack of it (relatively speaking).
The topic keeps shifting a bit, though. My most recent responses have been to the reiterated claim that BG3 is DOS3, which is a subject related to, but not the same as the subject of what some expected to see.
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Or please, can you explain me why specific alements of BG you saw or read until now ?
I'm in the middle of writing this response, so I cannot check easily, but I believe it was said that familiar faces would be in the game. That's a tenuous link, but it is something. Will there be more? I would be surprised if that's it. I expect the stories to connect somehow.
I don't think it was going to be easy to satisfy the BG devotees with the demo. The game looks and plays differently; that does not mean there are not other elements that can connect the two. Should they have thrown you a bone (e.g. an aged npc from BG1 or 2)? Possibly. I don't think a few story elements or characters would have precluded the uproar over the different look and play of the game, though.
I'm playing BG1 now. First time I try the EE on switch, so it's probably easier to "remember" what it could means (even if it's probably not the same for everyone). Similar to PoE and P:K, probably on some points, but not on everything. I find really cool elements in what I see, and only Larian could have done this. As I already said I was really hyped when I learn Larian took the game.
The story and the familiar faces yea, but that's only about the specific lore of BG, not about anything else. Obviously it's a part of the sucess, but I really don't think it's only about that. That's why I agree with you again, more story elements or characters wouldn't have changed a thing.
What I am saying is half that.
What they showed us was supposed to do 2 things: 1) Show how the 5E rules are being implemented so far. 2) Pique our interest in the game as a concept.
What it was NOT supposed to do: 1) Sell the game. 2) Showcase the graphics/UI/etc
When a game is in pre-alpha, it's not only far form finished, it's barely gotten started, when you put it on a time-scale. They're more firmly in the 'beginning' part than the midway or end. Everything most people are complaining about? The UI, reused assets, etc? Those are what are called 'placeholder assets'. IE: They are NOT going to be in the finished game. Or, in some cases, will be more polished before release. They were used because the proper UI, monsters, characters, skill icons, whatever were not created yet.
Did Larian jump the gun and show us the game a little too early? Maybe, sure. But they can't have forseen just how badly people would miss the point of the pre-alpha video. We were not meant to expect most of what we saw to make it into the game on launch. That video was just to say 'Hey! We're making BG3! Check out how we're using the 5E ruleset! If you like the 5E rules; you should be happy!'
But instead, people looked at the demo and started acting like the game was going to be released the next day!
Again, to put it another way: You paid a guy to scratch-build you an old-model car. You then went by a week later, saw the unpainted, unfinished FRAME and started acting like he was trying to give you that as the finished product while he was in the process of ordering more parts.
The game is nowhere near close to finished. Every complaint about how it looks, or the STORY for Nurgle's sake, from a pre-alpha, is baseless at this point in time. (And yes, I've seen people claim the story is not BG3 as if they somehow time-traveled into the future)
