Originally Posted by Taril
The scale of what Larian is delivering isn't particularly noteworthy. Nor is it necessarily relevant to "A BG game"

The only difference is as a AAA developer, Larian can spend more time on the graphics so instead of being the typical isometric view with low poly models,
I suppose it depends what you mean by “BG game”. I suspect for most BG3 is a “BG game” and WotC and a big chunk of audience will expect similar scale and features.

And graphics is not the only thing that Larian delivers (and even if it was it is an important thing for a potential BG4 project) - the systemic freedom the game allows for, high interactivity, ability to solve any problem in unorthodox ways - that requires robust base and testing that a smaller title won’t be able to support. Making a smaller scale Baldurs Gate game would be inviting comparisons, and in eyes of many it would come up short.


Originally Posted by Taril
Yes. But it's not necessary for a game to be a AAA title in order to be good. In order to be a BG game. In order to be a successor in the series.
I agree, but you will be creating much less successful game as a result.

What I have learned by chatting online is that people have very, very different views on what a “BG game” has to be. For some it’s a D&D system, for some it’s multiplayer, for some it’s RTWP, for some it’s Bhallspawn plot and characters, for some it’s the Infinity Engine feel, story, tone etc. With BG3 departing quite a bit from what BG1&2 were there will be even more divisive opinions on what makes a BG game a BG game.

I can definitely imagine smaller scale BG game that I would enjoy immensely. I am just not sure it is the game you would enjoy, or many other players who enjoyed BG3.

In other words, I don’t expect to see BG4. I won’t complain if we do though (who am I kidding I am sure I will complain 😄).