Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Can i as a old dnd gamer enjoy bg3?

I kinda feel the same.
It feels like i wanna force myself like this game.

When EA first launched there were a lot of hard core Baldur's gate fans on the forums. If you are one of those then no, you will not like this game. Just like most of the hard core Baldur's gate fans that were here.

Truthfully you probably are the only one can answer this question since its about you.

Wtf I'm as hardcore a BG1+2 fan as could be ? I own the original CDs and I own the GoG version so I can easily play it on computers without CD drive (which is now most of my computers), too, as well.

And I love BG3.

Its in many ways even better than BG1+2, too. Like they may finally have a satisfying way to play evil. Something you could technically do in BG1+2, sure, but it was a PITA to keep your reputation in the tolerable range and it really wasnt that enjoyable compared to going all out goody two shoes.

And yes its not perfect, for example romances kind of suck, but well they havent been that great in BG2 either, so whatever.

Proposing a general rule that if you like BG1+2 you wont like BG3 is definitely completely absurd.

It's true that there were a number of fans of the first two games active on the forums in early access who decided that BG3 wasn't for them, and therefore understandably moved on. But there are also plenty of fans of the old games, myself included, who did enjoy BG3 and so stuck around. Whether the OP would turn out to be one of the fans of the old games who doesn't like BG3, or one who does, as you say only they can tell, and possibly only if they play the game.

I do think there's an extent to which we should trust our instincts, though, and if the game isn't grabbing someone after they've watched streaming and they've not enjoyed playing games with similar mechanics before, there's unfortunately a decent possibility that they won't get along with BG3. Given a love of the old games, if I were them I'd probably still buy the game on sale and give it a go to see if it could win them over. But then I was blown away by the first look at the game and bought it on the first day of early access, so I'm clearly not in the same position

It has been a while, it's just what I remember the forums being, pretty toxic and a lot of hate towards the direction at that time. Well that and the dead silence from devs, if I remember correctly they did the first patch after Christmas or new years and EA launched roughly around Sept-oct...something like that.

That's fair and yeah, hitting a sale is always nice. Same, bought the game and been on the forums off and on for a while. Never played bg series though it was DOS and NwNs series for me : /

Personally I've never posted a, should I buy this game? question on any forums before. I've always stuck to my own opinion based on gameplay trailers and such if I wanted to pick the game up or not. I've had some hits and misses, but there mine to make. Threads like this are nice for convos but truthfully like i said on the second line. He's the only one that can answer that question, we already did a long time ago.

My biggest gripe with BG3 and Larian is that feels, at least to me, that they are pissing on the old fans. Lets just grab the IP and make it in a way that it doesn't resemble the original title in any way.
When lotro was made, the developers decided that it would focus on the books rather on the movies. It was rather a bold move. Instead to cater to movie fans they decided to cater to hardcore audience. When blizzard made wow they decided that the game should look similar to warcraft 3.
So yeah, if someone makes a game and name it like a game from 20 years ago, i expect to have at least some resemblance to the original product.
I didn't mind it if they made a game in forgotten realms named different, i take offense that they named it baldurs gate 3.
I wouldn't if it would name it differently. Naming products this way suggests that it is a continuation of original series.


The problem is that this game feels, at least from youtube, like dragon age origins in 2024.
I love some aspects of it and hate other aspects.
I wouldn't be so angry about it, if it was named differently.
I do not know, call it differently trap of the mindflyers or some other name.
For example, icewind dale I and icewind dale II share the same name despite one game has nothing to do with the second game.
I do not mind because gameplay and focus of the both games are the same aka hack and slash in dnd setting.
Same goes with nwn 1 and nwn 2. Games are totally different; Yet the core reminds the same. Focus on module building and character progression.
The problem i have with bg3 that it has nothing in common with the original title.


I kinda lost of bg1&bg2 original discs and own original bg1&2 on gog and EE on steam and gog.

Back to the topic.
What are you saying? How can you play evil in this game, they is one evil companion aka Minthara companion and she join you in act 2. In bg1 you had Eldoth, Xzar, Viconia, Shar-teel, Edwyn.

Strange that you say that since from what i have found on youtube people like the romances.

My anger towards this game comes from the fact it is named bg3 and has nothing to do with its predecessors.

Well, as we've said it's totally your call whether to play or not and if you feel that it's not your BG that's fine, though your initial question was whether an old time fan of the original games could enjoy the game and the answer to that is yes as many do. But of course whether you will or not is a different question, and if you're already angry at the game without even having played it that's not a good sign.

But I am going to put my moderator hat on here and say that, while I'm sure folk who have played all the games would be happy to talk about similarities and differences between the games and answer your questions, we will need to take the heat down to have a constructive debate Our forum rules request that we don't use excessive language and "pissing on the old fans" qualifies, and seems particularly inflammatory when more than one old fan here has said they've enjoyed the game. You may want to take a cue from your signature

???
One Evil Companion? There is a horde of them ...
Astarion CE, Lae'zel LE, Shadowheart NE, Durge CE

Holy, ROFL this is a blast from the past. Yeah, this is what I was talking about, a lot of people used to call the game Divinity Original Sin 3.

I can see the comparison for DAO, in some aspects at least. Teen/young adult me would probably make fun of you for even saying that ( I was a hard core DAO fan, owned the game on xbox, ps, and now pc). NwN1 was based on d&d 3rd edition and made by Bioware. NwN2 was based on 3.5 and was made by Obsidian (which is the edition I grew up on). Yeah its going to share some aspects (it is based on the city of Neverwinter in forgotten realms) but, not the same company nor same edition.

I'm guessing its called Baldur's gate 3, because, in some way the stories are linked. Someone else that beat the game and played the previous games would have to answer this one.

Anyway, I actually just came back because the kit came out finally and plan on playing a Dark Urge run, hopefully reach act 3 this time : /

take it easy

I some how missed this reply, my comment was about the early days, late 2020, not all bg fans.

I created my signature around 20 years ago. I changed a lot during that period. I was very chill person when i was 15 or 20, now i am not.

I am just experessing my emotions without calling names, I am trying to express how i feel about this in most peacefull way i can manage. I do not offended or attacked anyone. It is already hard to control my emotions when talking about this subject.

Balduirs 1&2 have a dear place in my heart so cannot be emotionless about it. Sorry that you feel that broke some rules.

When i observe how people behave on twich, youtube and other social media. It is hard to compare level of discussion to what we present here.

I thought about whether the statement "pissing on the old fans" is inflammatory. Re-phrasing this to "dispensing lant upon the historical clientele" would probably soften the blow, but I guess in either case perhaps the inflammation comes from making an implication that Larian decided to offend fans of the older BG series? Or, perhaps it is a cry against the entertainment industry's general predilection for over-extending a brand name long after the thematic coherence with the original art has been lost (cf. Star Trek franchise)?

BG III does have a few thematic tie-ins with the older series. The "coin on edge" theme for the protagonist is still there to a degree, but I felt the BG III dialogs could have been a little more explicit about it. I also wonder if The Emperor in BG III = The Hidden in BG II, and in that way the BG III story is rooted in one of the enigmas left behind by the older games. And finally, the ending of BG III leads in to what might be a resolution to the tale of the Dead Three. There is enough material here for a BG IV !

You're allowed to publish a tract claiming Larian deliberately offended BG1&2 fans. It's the evocation of urine (however worded) that's inflammatory. Believe me, mods don't want to deal with an inflamed urinary tract.

Magnificent pun aside, let's move on from this aspect of the conversation.

I am a fan of Baldur's Gate 1 and Baldur's Gate 2. I am also 54 years old (I *think* that qualifies as "old") and I enjoyed Baldur's Gate 3 as well.

It probably should have been called something other than "Baldur's Gate 3" but I can understand why they went with the big juicy market signal, and it did at least involve more time in the city Baldur's Gate than Baldur's Gate 2 did. As long as you let Larian's game be Larian's game (and don't try to shoehorn it into a direct sequel to BG2) its fun.

LOL!
Dwig wrote 100% what I could have, only difference being my 56 years

Heh I have you both beat at 57 years!

I agree that bg2 have nothing to do with baldurs gate itself, as a city I mean, at least it was a continuation of bhallspawn story. That is why it had a subtitle shadows of amn.
When spellbound released a game in gothic universe they named it Arcania: A gothic tale. They didn't name it Gothic 4 because it has nothing to do with older gothic games, in terms of game design, gameplay, etc., despite being the same universe.
I have nothing against the idea of using an existing IP to create your own story. Looking how much flack beamdog got for siege of dragonspear because they changed behavior of original baldurs gate companions.
If the game story takes you to baldurs gate, you have the right to use it in your game title but naming it bg3 suggests it is the continuation of original games.
I do not know what angered me more the fact it is turned based or the misleading title.
Normally I wouldn't give 2 cents about it, if it was any other game but I am very emotional about it because I was raised on baldurs gate 1&2.
There are 3 games that I get very emotional : baldurs gate, civilisation and heroes of might and magic. Civilisation I was the first game I played and bg1 was the game that most of geeks in my school were talking about ; since I was the only guy on my block that had PC and this game caused that many guys from my class was coming to my house to play it. It has very special place in my heart.
That is why I am very emotional about this topic. Probably too emotional. Getting too excited is bad for me.

Plenty of evil options BTW. I just played my first evil playthrough and my party included my evil Tav, Lae'zel, SH, Astarion, and Minthara. While it's true Wyll he was evil enough early on to kill Karlach at my behest (I really wanted for my Tav). I never bothered with Gale because I didn't need him but I'm confident I could have corrupted him to at least be a useful idiot for my schemes.

I must say the moment was quite dramatic and satisfying in a role-playing way. It really was an impulsive decision. I think they did a very good job with evil routes all things considered.

Yes, the game has, from the very beginning, gone to great lengths to cater to the evil side. We know this. It's the good side that has been consistently screwed over. Fewer good companions, and they're the lamest of the companions. No good equivalent to the Dark Urge concept. And most of all, poor and weak (and sometimes downright horrible) good endings for the game. It's very clear to me that Larian wanted this game to be their gift to evil players.

I am definitely an old player. Played the DND White Box back in the day. I enjoy BG1 more than BG2 and any of the other IE games. That said BG3 may be one of my favorite games of all time. I really enjoy the turn based combat, though. They really went far in making the combat encounters unique. The fights at first are interesting, and then they add wrinkles to them; i.e. enemies that teleport your characters away from each other, enemies that disguise themselves, enemies that turn invisible, etc., etc. My first playthrough did have a number of bugs, but the thing now plays really well on consoles all the way down to a Steam Deck, which is quite amazing. I would imagine that people that are not familiar with the game could be overwhelmed, but if you are familiar with RPGs that learning curve would be shortened. I love it and wish Larian would continue with DND in the future but alas…

Most of my playthroughs are "good" and I have found them to be very satisfying. I certainly wouldn't call any of them "lame". The Dark urge good playthrough is terrific and very rewarding. Currently playing my first Origin as MC as Wyll and I love it.