I'm a pretty big fanboy of Obsidian, but I'm not sure if they would've been the right studio for this. There are a couple of reasons for this.


1. There hasn't ever been a time in Obsidian's lifetime where they can deliver fantastic gameplay AND storytelling, which a true BG2 sequel needs.
Firstly, the modern day Obsidian that currently exists (The Outerworlds, Deadfire), is quite a different beast from the older Obsidian (SW:KOTOR2, NWN2: MotB, Fallout: NV).

The older Obsidian were story-telling and world building geniuses. However, they always fumbled with gameplay design and game polishing. The current day Obsidian have improved on mechanics (although I find they trend too much towards "safe and balanced"), but seem to be weaker writing overall. Both the Outer Worlds and Deadfire struggled to deliver a truly gripping narrative. The world building is also still there, but somehow fails to draw you in like the previous titles. This is coming from someone who's a pretty die-hard fan of Deadfre (580 hours in game).



2. Obsidian are fantastic story-tellers, but possibly not the right ones for a BG3
Secondly, despite their story-telling brilliance, Obsidian seem to thrive in niche world/settings (in particular subverting the common ones), and seem to have trouble launching the "epic fantasy adventure" that a BG3 title would require.
  • Epic Fantasy Games by Obsidian: NWN2 (Base), POE 1, POE 2 - all of which suffer from major narrative and pacing issues IMO.
  • Niche, "Subversion" Games by Obsidian: KOTOR 2, NWN2 (MoTB), Fallout: NV - all brilliant, but built around taking a deep, philosophical view on an existing IP/Story/Trope

Note here, I'm not using Subversion as in "surprised, bet you never saw this coming!!", but more so as a deep philosophical dive into the assumptions of core tropes, and what may happen if you ask certain questions or re-contextualize certain events differently. That is "old" Obsidian's jam. All their best stories revolve around that.

However, I'm not sure if I'd want them to be the ones writing about how a derpy level 1 adventurer sets out on a grand adventure quest. It just doesn't seem like a story template they are comfortable flexing their narrative muscles in. They somewhat tried to merge the two in POE1, and IMO they struggled.



3. Obsidian's current RPG gameplay philosophy is counter-intuitive to the "feel" of the original BGs
The 2e ADnD system used in BG1/2 does A LOT to create the feel of its world, for better or worse. There is a level of inherent harsh unbalance in the rules that adds a lot immersion (at the expense of fairness) that newer, more balanced RPG system don't have. Magic users are just straight up better than others. Some classes/combos, are just straight up non-feasible (but presented as options). In many ways, these design choices creates a strong sense of world building, at the expense of balance. It's just like you can't have a "Jedi" class be balanced with a mundane troopers in SWs without breaking some level of immersion.

How does this relate to Obsidian? Look at what they did when given the opportunity to develop their own system in their BG spiritual successor:
  • Far more balanced classes and itemization
  • All class combos are viable (no trap options)
  • Far less RNG driven system (i.e. static skill checks)
  • Abolished the Vancian magic system, and other core D&D "feel" mechanics

Josh Sawyer (from Obsidian) has gone on the record many times on his issues with the overall DnD system, and his philosophy on balance. I'm not saying Josh is right or wrong to believe what he believes, but it's clear that his/Obsidian's fundamental approach to RPG mechanics will not give you the same BG feel as before.

This point extends similarly to D&D 5E (although I feel like it's a full topic all on its own). D&D 5e also follows a similar balance philosophy, meaning you essentially need to either go back to 2e ADnD or build a custom rule-set, to capture the feel of BG1/2 again in BG3. You simply won't get the classic BG feel from 5e or an Obsidian RPG system. E.g. you'll never have to engage in the complex BG2 mage duels with layers and layers of buffs/removals where the other party members just sit there and pretend they are contributing.



Now that I've finished writing this wall of text - does that mean I believe Larian will do a better job? Frankly, I don't know. Some of their decision making drives me up the wall (i.e. chain/unchain movement system... ARGH). Whereas, they also introduce a freshness to RPGs that most other BG imitators do not. Actual innovation (i.e. the physics, interactivity, player freedom), that others fantastic CRPG makers (Obsidian, Owlcat) do not.

For now, they done a decent job at adapting the tone in the EA, although it remains to be seen if it'll be enough. We're still missing too much of the world building, core conflict (including the villain), etc, to make a true judgement call IMO. I hate that the origin system seems to overtake our custom characters, but I love how much "agency" Larian instills in their companions.


Last edited by Topgoon; 15/12/20 10:45 PM.