What is especially astonishing for me is that Larian themselves (Swen and other senior devs), unprompted, went out of their way back when the game was first announced to emphasize repeatedly that this is a D&D game and not a D:OS gave with a D&D skin and that they understand that D&D is very different from D:OS and so this game should not be anything like D:OS2. They said this. So why the disconnect?
They also repeatedly claimed that they understand what BG is and that BG3 will be a "proper sequel". Well.
Originally Posted by Tuco
I remember reading Swen Vincke's personal blog for years, way before they had their first "hit" with DOS1. I'm talking about this one: http://www.lar.net/
Back then the man was going on and on about how much he loved Ultima VII, BG2, how their set of features and their complexity made them what they were, and how his dream was to build "the big RPG to dwarf them all". Something clearly changed over time. Aside for the fact that he stopped posting there in 2015, in recent times he went often back to dismiss most of the "awesome features" he used to praise (like day/night cycle and the detailed NPC scheduling of Ultima VII) like something absolutely pointless and not worth bothering with.
That makes me really sad. I didn't know Larian before BG3 announcement and was immediately sold on the company when I saw that these people are passionate nerds and not some soulless suits... and yet, here we are, with BG3 being neither a good Baldur's Gate game nor a good D&D game. What went wrong? Hubris, as you say? My impression is that Larian have their own "vision" of what BG3 should be that is "superior" to being faithful to the original saga and D&D. It's not that they lack the ability (as far as I can tell), they're not even trying. That or they still haven't taken a step back and looked at their game at a wider perspective.
Originally Posted by Wormerine
One can point to things in U7 and BG2 that BG3 doesn’t have, but I am sure there is stuff BG3 has that is lacking in the other two. Larian has its own template to build and develop and that’s a good thing. Whenever it’s a good template for BG IP is another matter.
That is my problem right there. If you take like 80% of characteristic features of BG1&2 and replace them with something else... should you call the resulting game BG3? I would be much less critical if this was a new IP. Or even a spin-off, like the original Dark Alliance games. (Though, to be fair, many of the problems I have with BG3 I'd also consider problems in "Faerun Adventure: Illithid Menace" or whatever original IP.)
