This video highlights the problems around the name in the first place and looks at why Larian can justify calling it Baldur's Gate 3 instead of some other generic DND title.
He's not a troll, he's a serious gamer and youtuber. Just because his opinion isn't yours (or mine) doesn't make him a troll/
I thought his comment was in response to his readying the approaching trolls coming to flood this comment section. Truthfully might be mistaken, though.
HarbsNarbs is someone who has taken a deep dive into the lore and I usually enjoy his videos. This one is just bad because it misrepresents the views of people who believe that BG3 has too many DOS elements.
Were it someone else I'd call it a strawman and click bait. But because I've enjoyed the rest I'm just calling it one off bad video.
HarbsNarbs is someone who has taken a deep dive into the lore and I usually enjoy his videos. This one is just bad because it misrepresents the views of people who believe that BG3 has too many DOS elements.
Were it someone else I'd call it a strawman and click bait. But because I've enjoyed the rest I'm just calling it one off bad video.
Yes, this will cause a divide. However, I'm happy I made a video expressing my opinion. I won't be making many controversial videos as I usually like to focus on the lore. But, as I said at the start of the video, I respect the opinion of those that think it should be genuinely named something different. The opening joke was going after the trolls specifically.
Thanks. I'm glad you are going to focus on lore. I offered my critique on reddit and won't repost it but my critique boils down to that the position of the trolls had too much influence throughout the videos and the views of people who are raising concerns about aspects of DOS gameplay -- like surfaces -- and people who are focusing on the decision to start with an evil party (and not say the loyal ranger and best friend) aren't represented in the video.
Gameplay and characters are very important to me. If I play it and it feels more like DOS2 and the characters feel like they belong in DOS2, I'll call it DOS3. If it feels closer to BG and the characters feel like they belong in BG, I'll call it BG3. I know that's probably not a popular opinion, but that's how I see it. it's totally subjective of course lol.
Ho wow ! I watched that video on Wednesday, before the thread on the forum here. I guess that makes me a cool kid. Except that I'm not a kid anymore, so I suppose I'm just cool and trendy and stuff.
I've been watching that channel with parsimony. The series on the various editions of DnD is what made me discover it. I found it really good. There are a number of videos I have also watched, and some that I have avoided. Party because reading "conspiracy!", "hidden XYZ!" usually repel me more than it attracts me (but new channel have to look nice to the YouTube algo, and I guess enough viewers click on these types of titles). Party because some are plot theories videos. I'm afraid someone digging in the lore and small details will, for good or bad reasons, get some plot points right. And if that's how things actually turn out, I won't we as much in awe as if I had not heard of the theory in the first place. Other than that, I think the lore videos are really nice (especially the evolution of DnD series).
I can't say this particular video was bad. I think the listing of the main arguments of people saying that BG3 should not be called BG3 was about right : (1) it doesn't look like the immediate continuation of BG2, (2) it is not in the style of BG1-2, (3) you can't continue a franchise started by another studio. Actually, the video doesn't so much address these criticisms, as it discusses why BG2 should not have been called BG2 in the first place, and the pressure implications of Larian choosing to call this BG3. So, yeah, maybe the structure isn't stellar.
Anyway, at the end of the day, the name of the game isn't that important a topic to me. We now all know it's the next big Forgotten Realms video game. And how much it is "like DOS" doesn't speak to me, since I haven't played either of the DOS games. The only important things to me are that it feels like DnD and that it's a good game (and well, it's pretty much guaranteed to be at least good, but it has the potential to be great, so good won't be good enough, and Larian has a long way to go to turn this greatness potential into actuality).
Gameplay and characters are very important to me. If I play it and it feels more like DOS2 and the characters feel like they belong in DOS2, I'll call it DOS3. If it feels closer to BG and the characters feel like they belong in BG, I'll call it BG3. I know that's probably not a popular opinion, but that's how I see it. it's totally subjective of course lol.
Genuinely curious if you would stop calling game series GTA after GTA 2?
Sequels can be taken loosely, Final Fantasy main number names hasn't been set in the same universe, some games are reboots like Mortal Kombat 9, or take place in an entirely different universe with same lore and species like Mass Effect Andromeda. Just because a game doesn't fit into someone's definition of a sequel doesn't mean that it's not a sequel. There are things people need to take into consideration: first, it's a really long break between 2 and 3, they need to make it accessable for mainstream, so it shouldn't be a direct continuation. Things like lore dump like with Pillar Eternity and things like that confuse new players. Gameplay style has to evolve as well. Some old fans complain a lot about Final Fantasy 7 remake, but really, the turn based style of old JRPG isn't popular anymore. Developers want to make games, but they also need to pay bills. When it comes to big budget games, they want a return on their investment. No one intentionally wants their game to fail, if the old real time style of Baldur's Gate is something most people would want, they would have gone with it.
If Rockstar had given the game over to Ubisoft to make and the gameplay and characters more closely resembled a Ubisoft game, then yes, I would think it's not "really" gta (obviously the name would still be GTA). as it was, GTA developed organically from the same developer. Was there ever a lot of talk how GTA 3 was actually another game instead? I don't remember, I just remember thinking it was GTA 3d, which i loved.
I would say, if someone were to see the gameplay/characters without seeing the title of the game, what game would they most closely connect with it? I've played POE I and II, Pathfinder and DOS2 (among other unknown modern crpgs) and Baldur's Gate 3 currently resembles DOS2 the most to me. The game IS Baldur's Gate 3, there's no denying that however.
Sequels can be taken loosely, Final Fantasy main number names hasn't been set in the same universe, some games are reboots like Mortal Kombat 9, or take place in an entirely different universe with same lore and species like Mass Effect Andromeda. Just because a game doesn't fit into someone's definition of a sequel doesn't mean that it's not a sequel. There are things people need to take into consideration: first, it's a really long break between 2 and 3, they need to make it accessable for mainstream, so it shouldn't be a direct continuation. Things like lore dump like with Pillar Eternity and things like that confuse new players. Gameplay style has to evolve as well. Some old fans complain a lot about Final Fantasy 7 remake, but really, the turn based style of old JRPG isn't popular anymore. Developers want to make games, but they also need to pay bills. When it comes to big budget games, they want a return on their investment. No one intentionally wants their game to fail, if the old real time style of Baldur's Gate is something most people would want, they would have gone with it.
double post, but i totally agree with this. I played FFVII when it first came out and the new one feels like a pretty version of a Nomura bastardized Final Fantasy game to me. things do change, and not everyone will always be happy about it.
If these standards were used on Fallout...we would have no Fallout 3, Fallout 4 (and Fallout 76 and that is perhaps a good thing lol). Indeed, if this standard was even used on Dragon Age, the series would have ended with Origins. All of these deviates significantly further from the original works than BG3 does.
I actually found this video on youtube a couple days ago. Still, I don't think that "because BG2" is a good argument. Most complaints are about setting and rule implementation, not specifically the the city of Baldurs Gate.
He's not a troll, he's a serious gamer and youtuber. Just because his opinion isn't yours (or mine) doesn't make him a troll/
Very true but I am sick of people whining that BG3 is not, in their considerably important opinion, BG3. If its not the game you wanted it to be, then move on. life is too short to wring your hands over what could have been..
EA is time to offer critiques and ask for changes. Saying that the game doesn't feel like a true sequel is part of that process. If the process of critiquing and requesting changes is starting to feel like whining to you perhaps the physician should take his own medicine and move on until the official release?
