I'd rather BG4 be given to a company that, while not perfect nor tend to release non-buggy games from the offset, seem to actually draw from and respect cRPG roots enough to make some of the most old-school feeling modernized cRPGs I've played to date: Owlcat Studios.
My drink almost went outa my nose.
owlcat has got to be the most toxic, scammy developer there is. They have Superbad rep among russian-speaking community for extremely toxic backlashes against youtubers/bloggers who dare to criticise their “games” and point out countless bugs and failures. Their games are actually alpha versions on release and after years of patches they achieved “current” bg3-level of stability. Both kingmaker and wotr had 50% of items and 25% of rules/abilities/mechanics straight up not working as intended. Console versions of both are literally unplayable until now. Among Russian community there’s a joke that owlcat does not have bug testing team, only bug development team.
They’re hiring mostly talented voice actors and their music is nice, but that’s it. After years of patches, the actual pathfinder system is playable, but what about story, writing, needles tedious bugged flak like “kingdom management” etc? Only a hardcore dnd fan can stomach a playthrough of their pathfinder games.
owlcat needs to go.
Let’s just wait for their latest bugfest that is coming in december and compare to BG3 on release
Once again - I care little about what the company does or doesn't do, until it becomes actual criminal stuff or disgusting. I care about the games they make; and while it's a rule of thumb to play their games after a half year or so of patches and bug fixes, at the end of the day, they still craft excellent stories and characters. I know I sure do play WotR more than I have or will play BG3, considering the latter falls apart under even a little bit of scrutiny or with a timeline written out for it.
Kingmaker was a bit rough, but they definitely learned from it, and I happen to look forward to their upcoming WH40K game - despite not having any familiarity with the setting or game whatsoever. But they've shown that even if their games start out rough, they care enough to keep working on it after the fact - and care enough about the settings or ttrpgs they're adapting to at least know how to create a compelling narrative with at least a good amount of deep characters, without having to make everything into a movie-type spectacle or sell their games off of the romances alone.
So while you are entitled to your own opinion on the company, I don't entirely think throwing what amounts to an overdramatized rant at me is the best way to discuss it. Especially when I'm speaking purely from a position of "do they make good narrative-focused games?". And the answer to that is yes, they do. And that's all I care about - not whatever beef Russians have with them.
Larian has shown that they hate D&D and all its restrictions and only made BG3 for name recognition.
So why would they make another D&D game and why should we want them to?
I don't feel this strongly about it, though I do think it's obvious they aren't the biggest fans of 5e (at least) and prefer working with their own settings, rather than established ones like the Forgotten Realms.
IIRC, didn't Larian have to buy the Baldur's Gate License? I guess the plan was (or is, I guess) to recreate a real life DnD campaign using BG3 as name recognition and then replace/ignore mechanics/lore they don't care about or like.
I don't know if they bought it, or were approached by WotC after the success of DOS2. Either way, it definitely is obvious that while there may be some enjoyment of D&D at a base level, they most certainly aren't super fond of 5e. I think a lot of system improvements to the adaptation of it only happened due to EA feedback, at that, so... take that as you will.
People have pointed out often on the story forum that it feels as if they took all negative consequences from using the tadpole powers away, simply because they wanted people to use them more, seemingly due to a distaste for 5e by itself? Whatever the reason, it certainly didn't help matters in the story department, considering the mess of rewrites and the absolutely insane timeline of the game's events.
*On that note, I find it strange that WOTC is so unsupportive/restrictive of official games and Solasta seems to be the game to show off DnD 5e's mechanics (At least from someone who hasn't touched DnD)
That's WotC for you. They're a genuinely awful company, so the approach they take to official games vs. games made in the spirit of D&D doesn't surprise me at all.
The ironic thing is they'd make a killing from working with devs like Owlcat or Tactical Adventures, but apparently just... don't want to? Maybe WotC wants "bigger" names behind their games, who knows.
Same with companions I doubt any BG3 companion will become as iconic as the Pathfinder ones, including Astarion whos claim to fame is 90% thirst and nothing else.
Regil or Daeran are far more interesting than anything Larian made and even characters like Harrim or Camilla are easily equal to Astarion or Shadowheart.
While I disagree that BG3's companions are unmemorable... I do agree that some are just sort of there.
I'll remember Astarion and Lae'zel, as I feel they overall have some of the best writing. Shart was also good, but the
character assassination of a beloved BG1/2 companion
during the course of her story ended up ruining her entire character for me. While I love Gale/Wyll/Karlach, they're very... mundane? In terms of character writing. I may recall them here and there, but I doubt I'll look back and fondly remember their dialogue and character growth the way I do with Daeran, Regill, or Ember (or Aloth and Eder, in Pillars, just to name a few).
In terms of antagonists, though, yeah... BG3 mostly makes them memorable via character design more than anything. Gortash, much as I like him, feels more like a JRPG villain who got awkwardly shoved into a cRPG, lmao.
