Larian Studios
Posted By: kyrthorsen BG3, DOS and the D&D rule-set - 29/02/20 12:00 AM
Original title: This is not BG3 but DOS3

Hi,

I loved DoS1 and DoS2 and BG2 is best game I have ever played.

Simply put, this "BG3" is actually not a BG game, it is a reskin or updated version of DoS, and it should actually be called DoS3.

I know this might sound harsh or cruel to the devs that put so much effort in this game, but this is the sad truth.

If you really wanted to create an entirely new BG game, then using DoS2 as a template that will be tweaked and modified to be similair to BG, was a completely wrong move IMO.

However, probably the funding was low so this is the best we can get. I hope Larian will eventually move on from their DoS template and create a new original game.

All the best.


Edited to change title of merged thread to encompass several different viewpoints without making a statement in itself. -v
Posted By: Thrall Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 29/02/20 12:10 AM
Nah, it's not. You should look at those cloned games produced with infinity engines.
Posted By: Horrorscope Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 29/02/20 12:32 AM
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
Hi,

I loved DoS1 and DoS2 and BG2 is best game I have ever played.

Simply put, this "BG3" is actually not a BG game, it is a reskin or updated version of DoS, and it should actually be called DoS3.

I know this might sound harsh or cruel to the devs that put so much effort in this game, but this is the sad truth.

If you really wanted to create an entirely new BG game, then using DoS2 as a template that will be tweaked and modified to be similair to BG, was a completely wrong move IMO.

However, probably the funding was low so this is the best we can get. I hope Larian will eventually move on from their DoS template and create a new original game.

All the best.



I get it and maybe not even too late, just call up WotC, talk about it, find something else that's hot in their world and rename it. I don't think dollars are at risk, pride perhaps, but the word is out and will continue to be out there is a new high quality DnD game out true to the core table top game, made by Larain those things alone would have all it needs going for it, for success. They have the best engine for this, but just leave the name and RtwP crowd alone.
Posted By: Jiraeth Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 29/02/20 12:32 AM
I am impressed by what I've seen, but agree that it doesn't feel like BG, so I'd like to ask Larian what, apart from the setting (we've seen dozens of Forgotten Realms games) do they feel makes a BG game and why they think their effort counts as one.

I'd like to stress again, that I'm not hating, I'm just asking how they think this is BG3 rather than a new (and maybe incredible) FR game?
Posted By: kyrthorsen Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 29/02/20 12:46 AM
This is like taking a game like Dark Souls 3 by a new dev studio, tweaking the existing game mechanics, and then calling the "new" game Elder Scrolls 6, even thought actually the game should be called DS4.

This is similar to Bethesda taking Fallout franchise and building Fallout 3 and 4 on the existing Elders Scrolls 4 mechanics. The difference is that this BG3 will not work as intended because BG2 fans are very specific about what they like and why they like BG and BG2 so much.

A better fit would be is Wotc hired Obsidian because PoE is much more like BG then DoS.

My gut feeling is that Wotc simply didnt want to spend a lot of money on development of a new BG3, so they just said to Larian hey can you make BG3 from DoS2, and what would be the price.

The game has not really been in development a very long time, which means they are trying to make a some money by not investing a whole lot.

Hope for all the best for Larian, but this was a cheap move in my book.
Posted By: Melkyor95 Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 29/02/20 01:01 AM
The feeling that BG3 looks more like a DOS3 than a real D&D Baldur's Gate game seems to spread a lot on the web.
It is also mine.

I find that the artistic direction is quite good and the game looks really beautiful. From this point of view, this BG3 looks very good. Well done Larian!
Now, the way battles are represented and managed, movement, highlighted objects, interactions with objects and even the interface ... it all looks too much like DOS.
The character creation screen is even almost identical to that of DOS!

DOS made success for Larian. OK, that's very good.
Now, I think players expect something else from BG3. More like Baldur's Gate and less like DOS.
Posted By: Horrorscope Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 29/02/20 01:07 AM
Originally Posted by Melkyor95
The feeling that BG3 looks more like a DOS3 than a real D&D Baldur's Gate game seems to spread a lot on the web.
It is also mine.

I find that the artistic direction is quite good and the game looks really beautiful. From this point of view, this BG3 looks very good. Well done Larian!
Now, the way battles are represented and managed, movement, highlighted objects, interactions with objects and even the interface ... it all looks too much like DOS.
The character creation screen is even almost identical to that of DOS!

DOS made success for Larian. OK, that's very good.
Now, I think players expect something else from BG3. More like Baldur's Gate and less like DOS.


This is the feedback I suspect they are hearing and can rectify in the final product.
Posted By: Delicieuxz Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 29/02/20 01:35 AM
This "BG3" definitely does not resemble a Baldur's Gate game but looks like D:OS 2.5. It doesn't look like they even tried one little bit to be anything other than the next D:OS game.
Posted By: Archaven Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 29/02/20 05:06 AM
Just chiming in. The looks and feel is exact DOS3. it's truly biggest letdown. It's quite obvious Larian doesn't seem to be the right developer to take on this franchise. Don't get me wrong. DOS2 was really great. I enjoyed alot on it. But I'm not expecting to play DOS3 with just a BG me tacked on it. Larian has completely ruined the franchise for me. I have no doubt on Larian capability to make fun and quality games but they failed to capture the feel and settings of baldurs gate. Keep throwing around the word D&D and table top couldn't cover the exact DOS clone. The UI, aesthetics, even the dancing animation were exact clone.

Baldurs Gate 3 no doubt will be a fun quality DOS3 but it's no baldurs gate. Maybe their art team is so accustomed to DOS that they couldnt capture the feel of forgotten realms. Maybe they should just hire a different art team.
Posted By: MadameStrangeluv Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 29/02/20 05:53 AM
I understand the sentiment of its not BG3, but i think there are some important things to note such as what BG1-2 ment to people. For me its the lore and setting and it being D&D. Not RTwP, infinity engine, and a tone/story we havent even gotten to see a ton of in BG3.

as for DOS3, i understand not wanting it to be BG3 but its not in ANY respect DOS3. DOS2 uses way different rule sets, different leveling, classes, combat etc. the main similarity they have is TB (which is the tabletop system) and its the same engine which of course it is. at best its a skin but its not DOS3. If you reskinned MTG to look like hearthstone it doesnt mean that its hearthstone now and if you told MTG fans it was they would be rightfully upset.

As i see it its Forgotten Realms: Baldurs Gate not DOS3
Posted By: kyrthorsen Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 29/02/20 08:03 AM
Originally Posted by MadameStrangeluv
I understand the sentiment of its not BG3, but i think there are some important things to note such as what BG1-2 ment to people. For me its the lore and setting and it being D&D. Not RTwP, infinity engine, and a tone/story we havent even gotten to see a ton of in BG3.

as for DOS3, i understand not wanting it to be BG3 but its not in ANY respect DOS3. DOS2 uses way different rule sets, different leveling, classes, combat etc. the main similarity they have is TB (which is the tabletop system) and its the same engine which of course it is. at best its a skin but its not DOS3. If you reskinned MTG to look like hearthstone it doesnt mean that its hearthstone now and if you told MTG fans it was they would be rightfully upset.

As i see it its Forgotten Realms: Baldurs Gate not DOS3


Wow, have you ever even played BG1 and 2?

Have you played DOS 1 and 2?

You are honestly saying that you do not see that BG3 is just a re-skin of DOS2?

It took me about 1 minute into the gameplay demo to see what this is all about. I think even Sven Vincke was kind of nervous because he knew he was actually trying to sell DOS3 as BG3, and thats kind of akward if you are trying to be an honest guy.

If Larian wants to be an honest studio they should just say - "listen guys, yea this is DOS3, but to make more money we are calling it BG3 because we got the franchise". If they did that I would respect them more then now, because currently they are just insulting my intelligence.

All BG and BG2 players are grown up people so you cant sell snake oil to us like we are some 15 year fan boy kids. It kind of rude of Larian and Wotc that they are actually trying to sell snake oil.

Best.

Posted By: korotama Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 29/02/20 08:06 AM
https://twitter.com/LarAtLarian/status/1233431915274870784

Max party size confirmed to be 4. What's wrong with more? Is it an engine limitation?
Posted By: 00zim00 Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 29/02/20 08:18 AM
Originally Posted by korotama
https://twitter.com/LarAtLarian/status/1233431915274870784

Max party size confirmed to be 4. What's wrong with more? Is it an engine limitation?



eek... another disappointing decision.
Posted By: Archaven Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 29/02/20 08:19 AM
Originally Posted by korotama
https://twitter.com/LarAtLarian/status/1233431915274870784

Max party size confirmed to be 4. What's wrong with more? Is it an engine limitation?


At this point I don't really care how many characters anymore. It's really on fact just a DOS reskin with Baldurs Gate theme and D&D ruleset.

Aside from this, 4 characters in turn based is already very slow. Adding more will even make it worst.
Posted By: kyrthorsen Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 29/02/20 08:19 AM
this is just getting more and more ridiculous.

the game is so obviously DOS3 that I'm embarrased for Larian.
Posted By: korotama Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 29/02/20 08:47 AM
Originally Posted by Archaven
Originally Posted by korotama
https://twitter.com/LarAtLarian/status/1233431915274870784

Max party size confirmed to be 4. What's wrong with more? Is it an engine limitation?


At this point I don't really care how many characters anymore. It's really on fact just a DOS reskin with Baldurs Gate theme and D&D ruleset.

Aside from this, 4 characters in turn based is already very slow. Adding more will even make it worst.


Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
this is just getting more and more ridiculous.

the game is so obviously DOS3 that I'm embarrased for Larian.


I'm starting to think Beamdog are a company with integrity. There were plans for DLC that would have taken place in the second game but got scrapped. Some(!) parts of SoD weren't half-bad.
Posted By: dlux Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 29/02/20 09:08 AM
Originally Posted by korotama
https://twitter.com/LarAtLarian/status/1233431915274870784

Max party size confirmed to be 4. What's wrong with more? Is it an engine limitation?

Hopefully you weren't expecting a party size of six from a D:OS 2 clone. horsey
Posted By: korotama Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 29/02/20 09:20 AM
Originally Posted by dlux
Originally Posted by korotama
https://twitter.com/LarAtLarian/status/1233431915274870784

Max party size confirmed to be 4. What's wrong with more? Is it an engine limitation?

Hopefully you weren't expecting a party size of six from a D:OS 2 clone. horsey


Part of me was expecting something akin to this: https://www.facebook.com/BaldursGateReloaded
I guess IWD-in-EET is the closest thing I'll ever get to a third game.
Posted By: MadameStrangeluv Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 29/02/20 09:32 AM
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
Originally Posted by MadameStrangeluv
I understand the sentiment of its not BG3, but i think there are some important things to note such as what BG1-2 ment to people. For me its the lore and setting and it being D&D. Not RTwP, infinity engine, and a tone/story we havent even gotten to see a ton of in BG3.

as for DOS3, i understand not wanting it to be BG3 but its not in ANY respect DOS3. DOS2 uses way different rule sets, different leveling, classes, combat etc. the main similarity they have is TB (which is the tabletop system) and its the same engine which of course it is. at best its a skin but its not DOS3. If you reskinned MTG to look like hearthstone it doesnt mean that its hearthstone now and if you told MTG fans it was they would be rightfully upset.

As i see it its Forgotten Realms: Baldurs Gate not DOS3


Wow, have you ever even played BG1 and 2?

Have you played DOS 1 and 2?

You are honestly saying that you do not see that BG3 is just a re-skin of DOS2?

It took me about 1 minute into the gameplay demo to see what this is all about. I think even Sven Vincke was kind of nervous because he knew he was actually trying to sell DOS3 as BG3, and thats kind of akward if you are trying to be an honest guy.

If Larian wants to be an honest studio they should just say - "listen guys, yea this is DOS3, but to make more money we are calling it BG3 because we got the franchise". If they did that I would respect them more then now, because currently they are just insulting my intelligence.

All BG and BG2 players are grown up people so you cant sell snake oil to us like we are some 15 year fan boy kids. It kind of rude of Larian and Wotc that they are actually trying to sell snake oil.

Best.



I grew up with BG1 and 2. they were my way of playing D&D because i didnt have many friends and only sometimes got to play with my brother in little solo games. BG3 is not a reskin of DOS2 its a D&D game wearing the skin of DOS2. This is a super important difference because while i may look like DOS2 its core, the rule set, systems, lore, world, etc are NOT DOS2. Thats what my point is. Just because you recolor a game to look like another game doesnt mean its that other game. A game is a GAME the rule set, systems, and all the things that effect gameplay are part of it. DOS3 would not all of a sudden get rid of AP pool, open class system and its whole lore and setting. Thats why it doesnt make sense to call it just DOS3
Posted By: Melkyor95 Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 29/02/20 11:59 AM
Originally Posted by MadameStrangeluv

BG3 is not a reskin of DOS2 its a D&D game wearing the skin of DOS2.

Do we really know if we can call it a D&D game? Not yet.
There will inevitably be D & D5 rules that will be interpreted, rearranged or even ignored.
I also look forward to being told exactly what it will be to comply with D & D5 rules for class, races, skills, attributes, feats, spells, abilities, fights and many other things. .

On the other hand, the general appearance of this BG3 is undeniably very (too!) close to DOS.
In any case, I think that many players - especially those who knew the first BGs - expect something else from the Baldur's Gate license and from a truly D&D game.

And I also think Larian should take this very seriously.
Posted By: Torque Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 29/02/20 12:08 PM
Originally Posted by korotama
https://twitter.com/LarAtLarian/status/1233431915274870784

Max party size confirmed to be 4. What's wrong with more? Is it an engine limitation?


This seems to be a FAQ so I hope we'll get a official answer on the matter.

My two cents? Its simply easier to balance the game with less variables. But I agree with the sentiment, the larger the party size the better.
Posted By: MadameStrangeluv Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 29/02/20 12:31 PM
Originally Posted by Melkyor95
Originally Posted by MadameStrangeluv

BG3 is not a reskin of DOS2 its a D&D game wearing the skin of DOS2.

Do we really know if we can call it a D&D game? Not yet.
There will inevitably be D & D5 rules that will be interpreted, rearranged or even ignored.
I also look forward to being told exactly what it will be to comply with D & D5 rules for class, races, skills, attributes, feats, spells, abilities, fights and many other things. .

On the other hand, the general appearance of this BG3 is undeniably very (too!) close to DOS.
In any case, I think that many players - especially those who knew the first BGs - expect something else from the Baldur's Gate license and from a truly D&D game.

And I also think Larian should take this very seriously.


Everything we have seen screams D&D, there are been very few things ive seen that are not D&D and that mostly comes down to certain things being Bonus actions over standard actions something not in DOS2

As i said the look of its fairly divinity, im not disputing that. Im disputing that graphics, style and UI are what make a game DOS2. I think there are a lot of players who are fans of BG1/2 who expected something different but D&D fans seem pretty happy about this over all. Maybe not expect it though because they havent gotten a TB D&D game offically supported since TOEE if im correct. I can confidently say every D&D fan i know who plays video games is excited for this
Posted By: Wiborg Sturmfels Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 29/02/20 01:31 PM
Well, not sure but as far as i know WotC is only the licensors and not a sponsor. WotC gave the license to be able to use the Forgotten Realms and make corresponding specifications (e.g. implementation of the 5th edition of D&D).

My 5 cent:
It was a somewhat unfortunate decision to name this game "Baldur´s Gate III". It was totally clear what all the Baldur´s Gate Fans expect when they are reading PART 3. I think the problems are not
-using the Divine-Engine instead a similar Infinity-Engine (like in games: Pillars of Eternity, Black Geyser: Couriers of Darkness or Realms Beyond: Ashes of the Fallen)
-the similar gameplay to Divine Original Sin
-turn based fights with regard to the 5 edition of D&D
BUT the only common ground to the predecessors is the setting in the Forgotten Realms in and around the city of Baldur´s Gate. Unfortunaly nothing from the predecessors will be continued but what the title "III" implies. In reality Baldur´s Gate III is "just" a new campaign. The big outcry of many fans could have been avoided if the game had been called "Baldur´s Gate: NamedItWhateverYouLike" but not Baldur´s Gate III.

It is no accident that WotC released a new campaign for the Dungeons & Dragons tabletop game: Baldur's Gate: Descent in Avernus last year when Baldur´s Gate III was announced. It tells what's happened since Baldur's Gate II and plays 100 years after Baldur´s Gate II. The problem is that the story of the tabletop game must fit into Baldur´s Gate III. It was certainly a mandatory requirement for BG 3 from WotC.


For me personally, my character in BG3 will be the son of my character from BG1, SoD + BG2 and Jaheira.


Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
This is like taking a game like Dark Souls 3 by a new dev studio, tweaking the existing game mechanics, and then calling the "new" game Elder Scrolls 6, even thought actually the game should be called DS4.

This is similar to Bethesda taking Fallout franchise and building Fallout 3 and 4 on the existing Elders Scrolls 4 mechanics. The difference is that this BG3 will not work as intended because BG2 fans are very specific about what they like and why they like BG and BG2 so much.

A better fit would be is Wotc hired Obsidian because PoE is much more like BG then DoS.

My gut feeling is that Wotc simply didnt want to spend a lot of money on development of a new BG3, so they just said to Larian hey can you make BG3 from DoS2, and what would be the price.

The game has not really been in development a very long time, which means they are trying to make a some money by not investing a whole lot.

Hope for all the best for Larian, but this was a cheap move in my book.

Posted By: Trynvae Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 29/02/20 01:57 PM
The UI (Which let’s face it is probably the main reason people’re calling this a OS clone) is borrowing the D:OS2 skin because it’s pre alpha. The environments and lighting are also borrowed because it’s pre alpha. The combat ruleset, setting, lore, characters, story, non-combat scenarios won’t be anything like D:OS2

Pre-alpha means that the majority of assets are placeholder. Some companies even use assets from other games that they don’t even own during the pre alpha phase to serve as placeholders so they know where to put stuff later. The game will look drastically different upon release. A few lighting, UI and model tweaks and it’ll be Baldur’s Gate with combat that’s actually faithful to the source material and doesn’t suck.
Posted By: Erwin Smith Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 29/02/20 03:58 PM
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
This is like taking a game like Dark Souls 3 by a new dev studio, tweaking the existing game mechanics, and then calling the "new" game Elder Scrolls 6, even thought actually the game should be called DS4.

This is similar to Bethesda taking Fallout franchise and building Fallout 3 and 4 on the existing Elders Scrolls 4 mechanics. The difference is that this BG3 will not work as intended because BG2 fans are very specific about what they like and why they like BG and BG2 so much.

A better fit would be is Wotc hired Obsidian because PoE is much more like BG then DoS.

My gut feeling is that Wotc simply didnt want to spend a lot of money on development of a new BG3, so they just said to Larian hey can you make BG3 from DoS2, and what would be the price.

The game has not really been in development a very long time, which means they are trying to make a some money by not investing a whole lot.

Hope for all the best for Larian, but this was a cheap move in my book.

Perfect comment
I always imagined BG3 similar to Obsidian games frown
Posted By: Sordak Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 29/02/20 04:38 PM
This stuff just boggles my mind.
Why on earth would you want BG3 to be made by obsidian?

If you want RTWP then maybe go with owlcat.
but obsidian has shown qutie well that they are incapeable of making good games and they are out of touch with the CRPG audience.
Laud them as much as you want for beeing conservative in mechanics, their writing isnt winning any awards with the fan base.

and cheap? you realy think this is cheap? Do you even understand how much the larian team has expanded for this?

Why am i even typing this. This is bait.
Posted By: kanisatha Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 29/02/20 04:55 PM
Originally Posted by Delicieuxz
This "BG3" definitely does not resemble a Baldur's Gate game but looks like D:OS 2.5. It doesn't look like they even tried one little bit to be anything other than the next D:OS game.

I agree. For D:OS fans, they consider the D:OS-style graphics and artwork to be beautiful, and as such are happy to see that replicated in this game. For me, one of the main reasons I hated the D:OS games was precisely because I found their style of graphics and artwork to be horribly ugly and even amateurish. So obviously for me, I hate that they have imported that style into this game.
Posted By: kanisatha Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 29/02/20 05:00 PM
Originally Posted by korotama
https://twitter.com/LarAtLarian/status/1233431915274870784

Max party size confirmed to be 4. What's wrong with more? Is it an engine limitation?

No it is because the game is made to be played multiplayer. That's what it has been designed for from the ground up, as a multiplayer tabletop simulator. Of course someone can play it single player if they want, but that's not what the game is designed for. All the game design choices, party size, combat system, dialog system, very little control over what characters you can play and how your companions can develop, are all clearly design choices favoring a multiplayer TT sim model for the game.
Posted By: Sordak Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 29/02/20 05:09 PM
Good.
Multiplayer is a better expirience.
How is this an argument against the game?

>graphics
see, theres the part that reeks of lies.
I admit, the game looks a lot like OS2.
But youre gonna tell me the characters do? The equipment does?
That stuff looks exactly like the art from the Players Handbook and the Monster manual, especialy the goblins

But sure, Photoshop airburshed pictures of stock art models are fine art arent they?
Dont kid yourself, thats what over half of the portraits in BG1 and 2 were
Posted By: kanisatha Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 29/02/20 08:03 PM
I've been browsing the many reviews that have been written by the gaming news media since the reveal and they ALL say the exact same thing, that this game looks and feels like the Divinity games. Of course for these reviewers, given that they are all Larian sycophants, this is a very good thing and is how it should be. I suppose they would probably even go so far as to say every RPG that is ever made in the future should look and feel like the Divinity games. So it's not just us critics on this forum but even the so-called pro reviewers who are saying the game looks and feels exactly like the Divinity games but with a Forgotten Realms 'skin' on it.
Posted By: Sordak Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 29/02/20 08:55 PM
ive been asking this in another thread too.
give me a direct screenshot comparison.

Two simmilar locations from what weve seen in BG3.
Show me the differences, show me a screenshot from BG1 or 2, or hell, dark alliance if youre that bored, and tell me where the "Baldurs gate" essenece is, and then show me where it lacks in BG3.

I genuinly want to know.
Because yeah , it looks and feels like OS2, because its the same engine and the combat certainly looks simmilar.
but from the character models?
The enemies? realy? i certainly didnt see any teleporting crocodiles..
Posted By: Braveheart Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 29/02/20 10:36 PM
Originally Posted by MadameStrangeluv
Originally Posted by Melkyor95
Originally Posted by MadameStrangeluv

BG3 is not a reskin of DOS2 its a D&D game wearing the skin of DOS2.

Do we really know if we can call it a D&D game? Not yet.
There will inevitably be D & D5 rules that will be interpreted, rearranged or even ignored.
I also look forward to being told exactly what it will be to comply with D & D5 rules for class, races, skills, attributes, feats, spells, abilities, fights and many other things. .

On the other hand, the general appearance of this BG3 is undeniably very (too!) close to DOS.
In any case, I think that many players - especially those who knew the first BGs - expect something else from the Baldur's Gate license and from a truly D&D game.

And I also think Larian should take this very seriously.


Everything we have seen screams D&D, there are been very few things ive seen that are not D&D and that mostly comes down to certain things being Bonus actions over standard actions something not in DOS2

As i said the look of its fairly divinity, im not disputing that. Im disputing that graphics, style and UI are what make a game DOS2. I think there are a lot of players who are fans of BG1/2 who expected something different but D&D fans seem pretty happy about this over all. Maybe not expect it though because they havent gotten a TB D&D game offically supported since TOEE if im correct. I can confidently say every D&D fan i know who plays video games is excited for this


Exactly, we all knew it was going to look like DOS but facts dont change their using 5th edition DnD rules and now it's becoming childish that some people dont even want to acknowledge that this is a DnD game because they feel their losing an argument. Also if they omit a rule.or 2 it doesn't mean it's not a DnD game either. I'm sure most of the game will be faithfull to 5th edition rules.
Posted By: Adgaroth BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 12:15 AM
It's sad to see so much anger and frustration generated by the fans and antifans of the next
installment of one of my favourite games of all time (SoA)

Let me start saying: Take a second to look at this situation and realize that both sides of this coin are right in their own way (The mature people who tries to be civil and talk about things at least)

Fans of Larian and D&D are very happy,and why wouldn't they? This game is perfect for them.

Fans of BG are mad,some because of the combat system,a bit extreme in my book,but hey,they are right,changing the combat system is a big deal on a franchise.

But maybe more moderated people who has been playing all kind of games and systems through the years for hours to no end are just complaining because whenever you look at this new BG game there is NOTHING that vaguely resembles the name it carries. Is that so crazy? No. Is that something to go and insult us for being rational and expecting some BG in a BG game? No

Why don't you try to stop being childish and stop fighting for what is best or what is worst? BG2 sold almost 2 million copies only on PC on a time where players where just ''freaks'' repudiated by society most of the time. You can say whatever you want but BG has been an inspiration for more than 20 years to a lot of developers and a lot of games has been made thanks to BG's influence.

The fact is this: When you look at this game,you recognize it as an impoved version of DOS2 with 5e ruleset or at the very least another Larian game based on DOS2. You would never,in all your life think ''Hey!,is this a new Baldur's Gate?'' AND THIS is where all the problems really come from,and let me tell you one think,they where aware of that and it was a fear inside the studio,I'll look for the interview later and edit this to provide a source.

I know Swen Vincke has a VERY particular vision of how this game should be and I know he wants this game to be the closer you can get on a videogame to the paper D&D and let me tell you,that sounds fantastic but,have you hear me mention BG? No,because their concern is more about D&D than paying homage to the saga and you can argue that BG is a D&D based game so its fine BUT you're using the name of a beloved franchise,a jewel lost in time so you can at least have some amount of respect for that and try to show that this game is indeed Baldur's Gate 3.

Sven Vincke's vision of this game is TOTALLY compatible with making the game more Baldur's Gate,I'm of course not saying change the system,change the game engine,change the graphics etc, but there's A LOT of things they can do to make BG3 appealing to ''almost'' everyone. Colors,effects,assets like cursors for looting,voiced spellcasting,animations,illumination,music,etc. Granted,I know it's apha (a REAL alpha) and a lot of thing are bound to change,a lot of what we've seen could be placeholders,some other things are really easy to tweak and change,but the reality of the situation is that we can only judge what we've seen and that is why so much people is angry (some more than others)

Both sides of this coin,please,I implore you,not for me of for Larian or WotC but for the sake of the BG franchise,see reason, accept that for good or ill,games are bound to change,specially under different developers.

Larian and D&D fans,I ask of you to try to understand the pain and frustracion the original BG fans feel at this moment after 20 years of waiting for the next installment of one of the best crpg's ever made.

And you,Larian and Swen Vincke,if any of you read this someday,I know what you want to do with the game,I know you're hyped and I know you have a very specific vision for this game but please, acknowledge the fact that you can reach that goal without hurting other avid gamers in the process. The game as it is now is going to appeal to D&D and DOS2 fans alike,so please work to appeal to BG fans too and prove that you're not only using Baldur's Gate as a cheap way to get more fans and money.

I understand and respect all parts of this conflict and the only thing I want is to look and this new game while proudly thinking ''This is Baldur's Gate 3''

Thank you all for reading.

English is not my first language so if you have any doubt or something doesn't make sense feel free to let me know.

EDIT: Link to he interview but if you don't want to look for the actual phrase :

"We were afraid that people would say that it was just Divinity: Original Sin 2 with a skin on top of it. We want no one to think that when they see it,"

https://www.usgamer.net/articles/baldurs-gate-3-preview
Posted By: Jiraeth Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 12:37 AM
Thanks, great post - I agree...

EDIT: To clarify, I believe this will be an amazing game, I just don't think it will be BG3 except in name alone...
Posted By: Delicieuxz Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 12:45 AM
Originally Posted by Adgaroth
"We were afraid that people would say that it was just Divinity: Original Sin 2 with a skin on top of it. We want no one to think that when they see it,"

https://www.usgamer.net/articles/baldurs-gate-3-preview

Wow. They were conscious of it, and yet that's precisely what happened and everybody is saying it looks like a D:OS2 clone because it really does. Larian's "BG3" even uses the D:OS2 mouse cursors, text font, and goofyish movement animation style, so it looks and feels all the more like playing D:OS2. It really doesn't give an impression that it's a different game.
Posted By: Melkyor95 Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 01:31 AM
"We were afraid that people would say that it was just Divinity: Original Sin 2 with a skin on top of it. We want no one to think that when they see it,"
FAIL!

Look "Solasta: Crown of the magister" and you will see a game which is not called Baldur's Gate but which is much closer to it than Larian's Baldur's Gate 3. I would even add that the D&D spirit seems to me to be much more respected with Solasta than with BG3.

If Larian persists in this path, I fear that the name Baldur's Gate will end up turning against him and his game; when I can be convinced that if Larian had called it: DOS3, it would have been a real success.

Likewise, if players find that the name Baldur's Gate was only used to boost sales, it will clearly tarnish Larian's image.

Larian must be aware of where he is setting foot with the Baldur's Gate license.
Baldur's Gate has become the property of the players; with their nostalgia, their wonder, their epic battles, their discoveries, their stories, their pain and their thousands of hours spent. All of this went far beyond the borders of Bioware, TSR (before WotC) and Black Isles Studios.

And so, it is the players who will now decide what is and what is not Baldur's Gate.
This power has not been in the hands of a video game development studio for a long time. Nor is it in the hands of WotC.

There is a much greater chance that Larian will crash rather than succeed in this crazy bet.
A little selfishly, however, I wish them success. Because that will mean that I will have found the feeling of having returned home and reliving emotions like those that I experienced on the greatest cRPGs of all time, that are Baldur's Gate and Planescape Torment.
Fans of Baldur's Gate expect nothing less than that...
Posted By: Adgaroth Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 01:37 AM
Those could be placeholders but I haven't yet seen any interview addressing this stuff so...that's what worries me,if they knew,and it happened,why didn't they explained they're just placeholders and we'll se much improvment in the future? It's not a hard thing to say to avoid all this ruckus.


Originally Posted by Jiraeth
Thanks, great post - I agree...

EDIT: To clarify, I believe this will be an amazing game, I just don't think it will be BG3 except in name alone...


Like I said,they already sold the game to Larian fans and D&D fans xD

I know Solasta Melkyor95,looks pretty good. I got the same feeling with P:K and the sequel is looking even better.
As of right now,yes I agree that the BG3 name is hurting them more than is helping them. If they would have named it Return from Avernus or whatever fits the story no one would have complained.
When they announced BG3 everyone thought the game would remind them about the other games in the franchise but alas,that's far from happening so people is obviously mad about it. I knew it was going to have a very Larian flavor but this is not flavor,it's a whole cake xD and not even the icing is BG
Posted By: Horrorscope Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 02:25 AM
Simplify it even more... no one is changing anyone's mind. I have no problem as-is other than it looks like DOS, big mistake demoing that, someone out of 250 should have said, wait you can't do that! So they have this predicament, I would seriously consider renaming the game. It isn't DOS3 because it uses DnD rules. It is still DnD, they should sit down with WotC and come up with what is should be called. Perhaps it even gets delayed over this. Perhaps do two games, the second being RtwP BG3.
Posted By: Brent2410 Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 02:31 AM
I think a lot of what people are seeing when they say that it looks like D:OS is precisely that. It LOOKS like D:OS. The UI specifically. This was the first time we saw it though, and I expect it will look much different by release.

I get the feeling that Swen and the team wanted to make a D&D game, and that WOTC wanted to cash in on the BG name. I'm a fan of all D&D, D:OS, and BG series. I feel bad for the die hard BG fans. But personally... I think BG3 will be iconic in it's own right. Change is always bad until you start enjoying it. If you haven't tried D:OS series, I think it is on sale pretty heavily on Steam right now. Get the vitriol out now. Enjoy the game when it comes out.
Posted By: Adgaroth Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 02:34 AM
Originally Posted by Horrorscope
Simplify it even more... no one is changing anyone's mind. I have no problem as-is other than it looks like DOS, big mistake demoing that, someone out of 250 should have said, wait you can't do that! So they have this predicament, I would seriously consider renaming the game. It isn't DOS3 because it uses DnD rules. It is still DnD, they should sit down with WotC and come up with what is should be called. Perhaps it even gets delayed over this. Perhaps do two games, the second being RtwP BG3.


I think changing the name now is basically imposible,I highly doubt Hasbro or WoTC would allow it. And iI don't think Larian would do it either.
I really think the best way to deal with this is to make it more BG like I said at the opening, I don't think it will be too hard considering the state of the game and the time they have until they finish production.

Originally Posted by Brent2410
I think a lot of what people are seeing when they say that it looks like D:OS is precisely that. It LOOKS like D:OS. The UI specifically. This was the first time we saw it though, and I expect it will look much different by release.

I get the feeling that Swen and the team wanted to make a D&D game, and that WOTC wanted to cash in on the BG name. I'm a fan of all D&D, D:OS, and BG series. I feel bad for the die hard BG fans. But personally... I think BG3 will be iconic in it's own right. Change is always bad until you start enjoying it. If you haven't tried D:OS series, I think it is on sale pretty heavily on Steam right now. Get the vitriol out now. Enjoy the game when it comes out.


Swen has purposedly avoided to name Baldur's Gate without the 3 on it like a plague on the interviews xD (or at least is what I feel) He really really wants to make a D&D game,previous installments are kind of inconsequential to him (again,that's what I feel after 10 or so interviews)
It was Swen himsef who aproached WoTC after the first DOS and they rejected his proposal. They called him later when he was making DOS2 and he accepted the deal.

Your first sentence is basically one the points of this post,if they change the UI and a lot of ''litlle'' things into a more BG franchise relatable vibe the only people against it will be the hardcore RTwP supporters.

Yes I've played both,thanks for the suggestion smile
Posted By: 00zim00 Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 03:33 AM
Quote
"We were afraid that people would say that it was just Divinity: Original Sin 2 with a skin on top of it. We want no one to think that when they see it,"


I wonder if that means that they planed to implement changes to make it look more like bg3 but perhaps that didn't have the time, thus the worry. Or if what we saw was mostly the extent of how they envision bg3 to look.
Posted By: Adgaroth Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 03:38 AM
I wonder that too,but the lack of answers on this matter after the demo is what makes me worry about it.
If people is worried about it and you know you're gonna change it you can easily say it without any fears.
Posted By: WizardPus Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 03:51 AM
Quote
Larian's "BG3" even uses the D:OS2 mouse cursors, text font, and goofyish movement animation style, so it looks and feels all the more like playing D:OS2. It really doesn't give an impression that it's a different game.



--- So much this ^^^ (the sound effects?? selecting, aiming, shooting, animation... this is DOS3)...
Posted By: Adgaroth Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 04:06 AM
In my mind is just impossible to keep those for a new game of another IP even for a real DOS3 game would be super cheap really. I hope we hear some news soon about the direccion the game is going with all this stuff.
Posted By: WizardPus Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 04:07 AM
Baldurs gate was NEVER ...

1. Goofy representation of movement
a. Jumping with weird sound effects and animation as though every action is magical
b. Landing with the impact of a meteor strike ??
2. Weird sound effects
a. Select the character and point at an enemy (magical sound)
b. fire a standard arrow (magical sound)
c. over the top sound effects
3. Lack of spell verbal casting
4. BG was never DOS (and DOS is never BG).


I can still go for Turn-based or RTwP and be ok, but the game should be more like the original. Not more as in playing the same or even the mechanics, but the essense. What I mean is paying tribute to the high fantasy and deep-rooted core of its D&D history. Bioware knew they were making a digital representation of a D&D world and worked hard to make the game serious in tone and presentation (even with some humor thrown in).

DOS is not and has never been that type of game. It has always been a little goofy and less serious. The only thing that seemed serious in tone in BG was the cinematics. The actual gameplay, movement, sound effects, and animations not so much. If I were not told this was BG, I would not guess it was BG, I would guess DOS3
Posted By: Adgaroth Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 04:09 AM
Originally Posted by WizardPus
Baldurs gate was NEVER ...

1. Goofy representation of movement
a. Jumping with weird sound effects and animation as though every action is magical
b. Landing with the impact of a meteor strike ??
2. Weird sound effects
a. Select the character and point at an enemy (magical sound)
b. fire a standard arrow (magical sound)
c. over the top sound effects
3. Lack of spell verbal casting
4. BG was never DOS (and DOS is never BG).


I can still go for Turn-based or RTwP and be ok, but the game should be more like the original. Not more as in playing the same or even the mechanics, but the essense. What I mean is paying tribute to the high fantasy and deep-rooted core of its D&D history. Bioware knew they were making a digital representation of a D&D world and worked hard to make the game serious in tone and presentation (even with some humor thrown in).

DOS is not and has never been that type of game. It has always been a little goofy and less serious. The only thing that seemed serious in tone in BG was the cinematics. The actual gameplay, movement, sound effects, and animations not so much. If I were not told this was BG, I would not guess it was BG, I would guess DOS3


The funny think is that if you play D&D wich is what they aim for, the game there has ''real pyshics'' like in the real world so all those stupid jumps and shoves and effects for a dash acction are not just weird for BG they're weird for D&D too in my opinion.

I know it's a fantasy game but it's also pretty realistic with some things,you can't shove a dragon for obvious reasons.
Posted By: Braveheart Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 04:38 AM
To the OP@Algaroth

No matter how hard you try, there not going to budge because those people are stubborn and want to win in their arguments at all costs. They know this is not about DnD, i's about the fact that they were wrong and their expectations betrayed them. If they really followed all the interviews from Sven and Larian studios with by the way Wizards of the Coast before the game play demo, they would not have these ludicrous expectations. How can you somehow think that BG3 was going to look like BG2 and 1? Especially, when DOS was a huge success .

Now they even want to convince us that BG3 is not a DnD game, they actually want to still play BG on their 25 year old computers. Because that is exactly what they thought they were going to get in the year 2021? It' ridiculus.

So again, this is about winning an argument, they don't offer anything constructive.
Posted By: Adgaroth Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 04:50 AM
I could consider myself one of the people you speak about,I don't see any BG franchise vibe on this game and I'm saying why and offering what I think are pretty reasonable solutions keeping in mind the dev's take on the game,I've seen (I think) every interview with Vincke and Mearls and what you say is kind of true,and I expected as much. I knew Larian,I knew what they wanted to do with the game,but sincerily,I expected to see something that reminded me that this game is BG3,the next installment of the bg saga/franchise (that's how they sell it,if you have seen their presentation and interviews you should know)

I've said it already you can use de DOS engine and still make it look more BG

Of course there's pople who is going to complain for ever no matter what you do,but this is not the case and my point stands,it does not matter that BG is based on D&D because the moment they started to add numbers to Baldur's Gate it became a franchise,and every game of a franchise has to be recognizable,that's a fact.
That's the reason they didn't add Dark Alliance to the mix and created it's own franchise. Baldur's Gate descent into Avernus has the name BG because the city is relevant but it does not have a number because is not part of the franchise.

I hope you understand my point here.
Posted By: Delicieuxz Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 05:02 AM
Originally Posted by Braveheart
To the OP@Algaroth

No matter how hard you try, there not going to budge because those people are stubborn and want to win in their arguments at all costs. They know this is not about DnD, i's about the fact that they were wrong and their expectations betrayed them. If they really followed all the interviews from Sven and Larian studios with by the way Wizards of the Coast before the game play demo, they would not have these ludicrous expectations. How can you somehow think that BG3 was going to look like BG2 and 1? Especially, when DOS was a huge success .

Now they even want to convince us that BG3 is not a DnD game, they actually want to still play BG on their 25 year old computers. Because that is exactly what they thought they were going to get in the year 2021? It' ridiculus.

So again, this is about winning an argument, they don't offer anything constructive.


That is one big strawman. And I wouldn't call it constructive.
Posted By: dmsephiroth Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 01/03/20 05:16 AM
This will never be a baldurs gate 3 larian...just look what you've made and how angry a lot of the old baldurs gate players are.
Posted By: Ratherz Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 01/03/20 05:28 AM
Originally Posted by dmsephiroth
This will never be a baldurs gate 3 larian...just look what you've made and how angry a lot of the old baldurs gate players are.

Just a bunch of entitled manchildren throwing a fit when things aren't going exactly how they would in their own personal perfect world.
Posted By: Brent2410 Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 05:52 AM
Originally Posted by WizardPus
Quote
Larian's "BG3" even uses the D:OS2 mouse cursors, text font, and goofyish movement animation style, so it looks and feels all the more like playing D:OS2. It really doesn't give an impression that it's a different game.



--- So much this ^^^ (the sound effects?? selecting, aiming, shooting, animation... this is DOS3)...

While I agree... I think people need to remember that they just announced that they were working on it 8 months ago. Most of this stuff is probably just placeholders. It takes a lot of time and work to make a game and all of this is, essentially, just finishing touches. The community was losing their mind over not having any substantial updates - so they put something basic together.
Posted By: Adgaroth Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 06:01 AM
Originally Posted by Brent2410
Originally Posted by WizardPus
Quote
Larian's "BG3" even uses the D:OS2 mouse cursors, text font, and goofyish movement animation style, so it looks and feels all the more like playing D:OS2. It really doesn't give an impression that it's a different game.



--- So much this ^^^ (the sound effects?? selecting, aiming, shooting, animation... this is DOS3)...

While I agree... I think people need to remember that they just announced that they were working on it 8 months ago. Most of this stuff is probably just placeholders. It takes a lot of time and work to make a game and all of this is, essentially, just finishing touches. The community was losing their mind over not having any substantial updates - so they put something basic together.


That may be the case but it may be not too. We can only speak about what we've seen and what we know. We also don't know how they'll look if they change them.
Posted By: BennyM Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 06:12 AM
I personally REALLY hated it the first time I saw it, but as first and foremost a D&D player of 20 years... It has really really grown on me. The ability to turn it to turn based encounters whenever I want but still keep my other party members out of it if they aren't in that same zone. Awesome.

The turn based nature of the combat itself will be more tactical and easier to think about for sure, which I quite like... There is a sense of urgency with the BG1 and 2 real time combat with pause that you won't get here, but overall, I think I'm on board to give it a real shot.

The bottom line is I would hate to have a game that I have been waiting on for so long, be ruined by my pre-determined bias and not having have tried it yet. Larian know more about games than I do, so I'm inclined to trust their decision until I've played it for myself
Posted By: Raze Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 01/03/20 06:19 AM

I think points can be made without personal insults. Even if you think it is accurate, or is actually accurate, the argument will be missed as the insult is responded to.
Posted By: Boeroer Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 01/03/20 06:37 AM
I am an old BG player and I'm not mad. Reading other sources of feedback I come to the conclusion that "old BG players who are mad" is a loud but quite small minority.

Do I like BG3 so far? Yes... probably... not sure yet. But my first perception was positive. I didn't like D:OS I and II too much so there's still a chance BG3 takes a route I might not appreciate too much.
Do I have to behave like a Rumpelstiltskin in order to voice my disapproval? Certainly not.

Not saying that every criticism falls into that category of course, but some of it has hilarious 5-year-old-ranting vibes.

General feedback on Twitter and other more "non-focused" sources as well as press are pretty good by the way.
Posted By: Adgaroth Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 06:38 AM
Originally Posted by BennyM
I personally REALLY hated it the first time I saw it, but as first and foremost a D&D player of 20 years... It has really really grown on me. The ability to turn it to turn based encounters whenever I want but still keep my other party members out of it if they aren't in that same zone. Awesome.

The turn based nature of the combat itself will be more tactical and easier to think about for sure, which I quite like... There is a sense of urgency with the BG1 and 2 real time combat with pause that you won't get here, but overall, I think I'm on board to give it a real shot.

The bottom line is I would hate to have a game that I have been waiting on for so long, be ruined by my pre-determined bias and not having have tried it yet. Larian know more about games than I do, so I'm inclined to trust their decision until I've played it for myself


I perfectly understand what you say,for a D&D aproach on a game there's not much to complain mechanic wise,I would tone down shove and jump and I'm curios about how enemies works since the Intellect devourers didn't use their multiatack and they didn't have any resistances,I hope they dont auto adjust the monster cr to your lvl or something like that. But yes,overall any D&D is bound to be happy with the game and I'm glad for it,that's what Larian is aimin for.

I wouldn't call it a bias,not for me at least,I just cannot see BG when they played it or the 4 or 5 times I've seen it after to dissect it xD.
Posted By: Sordak Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 01/03/20 06:42 AM
as much as this pisses me off.
i certainly dont wanna be on the side that calls peopl eentitled manchildren.

theres a bad precedent to that.
Everyone is entitled to his opinion, even if it happns to be wrong
Posted By: Sordak Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 06:50 AM
the intellectdevourers have obviously been nerfed.

this is not a monster usually fought at level 1, they exist thee because the narrative requires them to be there.
Now this is a point of contention for many DnD players because... eh, i dsay its more of an internal debate.

Some people think that monsters statblocks shouldnt be changed for world consistency. Other people are willing to change monsters statblocks because of narrative reasons.
Having played 4e, im not miffed by this because 4e regulary had multple difficulty levels of the same enemy, ofthen representing yougn / injured versions
Posted By: MrBardoth Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 01/03/20 06:51 AM
I do not understand the sentiment "it doesn't look like a BG game"

BG came out 20+ years ago, graphics has gone so far beyond it we now have almost real-life levels of graphic fidelity. To me the important part of it being a BG game should be on the story, the characters, the world building, everything that makes it a DnD game.

I would imagine the UI elements that we saw in the demos that came from DOS2 will be changed, I mean, it pre-alpha, there is so much to be hopeful for.
Posted By: Boeroer Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 01/03/20 06:54 AM
Originally Posted by MrBardoth
I would imagine the UI elements that we saw in the demos that came from DOS2 will be changed, I mean, it pre-alpha, there is so much to be hopeful for.


Exactly. What do people expect after such a short time. Obviously a lot of resources got poured into the awesome cinematics. smile
Posted By: Adgaroth Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 06:57 AM
Originally Posted by Sordak
the intellectdevourers have obviously been nerfed.

this is not a monster usually fought at level 1, they exist thee because the narrative requires them to be there.
Now this is a point of contention for many DnD players because... eh, i dsay its more of an internal debate.

Some people think that monsters statblocks shouldnt be changed for world consistency. Other people are willing to change monsters statblocks because of narrative reasons.
Having played 4e, im not miffed by this because 4e regulary had multple difficulty levels of the same enemy, ofthen representing yougn / injured versions


I understand where you're coming from but I feel like it takes away the fear or fighting something when you know it's going to be downscaled,you know what I mean?

Well...the ''young'' ''weak'' name makes more sense. BG 1 had the Diseased Gibberling,and maybe Young wyrms iirc?
Posted By: Sordak Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 07:09 AM
my kneejerk reaction in DnD is that the DM does waht the DM does.
Mostly because i see the alternative as rules lawyering by hte players.

but i do agree that such a thing would probably be a good idea for consistencys sake
Posted By: Adgaroth Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 07:14 AM
I agree the DM word is rule,but it's weird to fight a downscaled enemy and then fight the real deal and they have the same name whith the later being stronger,but I guess they'll do something to prevent that,it wouldn't make much sense otherwise.

And feedback is metagame-y in nature I think xD
Posted By: wpmaura Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 01/03/20 07:16 AM
Until we see what rules they actually implemented or not this decision cant be made. And it's not whether this is a bg game. The question is whether it's a dnd game. When baldurs gate came out people were pissed that it was turn based then they go to love the real time pause. Personally I always wanted baldurs gate to use toe system.

Posted By: 00zim00 Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 07:27 AM

Originally Posted by Adgaroth

I understand and respect all parts of this conflict and the only thing I want is to look and this new game while proudly thinking ''This is Baldur's Gate 3''


Swen just Tweeted "Our goal is to capture the spirit of 5e just like BG1/2 tried to capture the spirit of 2e. We're not looking to recreate the previous games. Different times, different methods."

I get the need for change and until is see more of what they have planned I cant make a real judgement.
But if they are going with this design perspective I guess we need to ask, will their vision of 5e even look like BG? Or more so, do they even want it to look/feel like BG?

Tweet Link:
https://twitter.com/LarAtLarian/status/1233988288794550277?s=20
Posted By: Adgaroth Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 07:30 AM
Originally Posted by 00zim00

Originally Posted by Adgaroth

I understand and respect all parts of this conflict and the only thing I want is to look and this new game while proudly thinking ''This is Baldur's Gate 3''


Swen just Tweeted "Our goal is to capture the spirit of 5e just like BG1/2 tried to capture the spirit of 2e. We're not looking to recreate the previous games. Different times, different methods."

I get the need for change and until is see more of what they have planned I cant make a real judgement.
But if they are going with this design perspective I guess we need to ask, will their vision of 5e even look like BG? Or more so, do they even want it to look/feel like BG?

Tweet Link:
https://twitter.com/LarAtLarian/status/1233988288794550277?s=20


That sound to me that he does not give 2 fucks about his game being part of a franchise so...bad news for me I guess...I understand people is asking for a lot of crazy thing but if this is how they're going to manage feedback...aaarg I don't like it one bit xD
Posted By: Redunzgofasta Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 07:39 AM
If it's DnD and the campaign takes place in or around Balder's Gate, and it's called BG3, then it's BG3.
Everything else is totally trivial to the game being BG3 or not.
There's really nothing else to be said about it.
Posted By: 00zim00 Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 01/03/20 07:41 AM
Originally Posted by wpmaura
Until we see what rules they actually implemented or not this decision cant be made. And it's not whether this is a bg game. The question is whether it's a dnd game. When baldurs gate came out people were pissed that it was turn based then they go to love the real time pause. Personally I always wanted baldurs gate to use toe system.



Will it be a DND game, yes it appears they want it to be, is it a BG game in more then name... unclear.

at least, based on this tweet from swen

Quote
"Our goal is to capture the spirit of 5e just like BG1/2 tried to capture the spirit of 2e. We're not looking to recreate the previous games. Different times, different methods."


Tweet Link: https://twitter.com/LarAtLarian/status/1233988288794550277?s=20
Posted By: Waeress Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 07:42 AM
Originally Posted by Redunzgofasta
If it's DnD and the campaign takes place in or around Balder's Gate, and it's called BG3, then it's BG3.
Everything else is totally trivial to the game being BG3 or not.
There's really nothing else to be said about it.


Truth. The Bhaalspawn saga has ended anyway; so there isn't even a story connection. It is simply a new grand crpg featuring BG.
Posted By: Adgaroth Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 07:50 AM
Originally Posted by Redunzgofasta
If it's DnD and the campaign takes place in or around Balder's Gate, and it's called BG3, then it's BG3.
Everything else is totally trivial to the game being BG3 or not.
There's really nothing else to be said about it.


Like I told you on the steam forums,then Baldur's Gate:Dark Alliance 1 should have been BG3 but it's not for a reason,it's a diferent game with a diferent story with a diferent genre as any other game taking place ''in or around'' Baldur's Gate so I don't agree in the slightest.
Posted By: Boeroer Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 08:04 AM
What's most important when it comes to what this game is called is that WotC calls it Baldur's Gate III and specifically advised Larian to make a Baldur's Gate III.
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 08:11 AM
The community is only divided because of the name of this game.

Fan's of BG don't want this awesome game to be Baldur's Gate 3.
Fan's of Larian are so hyped by their new game.
Fan's of D&D are one or the other.

Just forget about the name of the game and everyone would talk about "the new great larian RPG" instead of talking only about "What is/should be Baldur's Gate".

It tend to appears that nearly 35% of players interrested in Baldur's Gate 3 on vcertain community are angry... and it's only about the name.
Posted By: Adgaroth Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 08:13 AM
Originally Posted by Boeroer
What's most important when it comes to what this game is called is that WotC calls it Baldur's Gate III and specifically advised Larian to make a Baldur's Gate III.


Of course,WoTC can make a hello kitty game with a sarevok helmet and call it BG4 but that is a dishonest cashgrab and not a proper ''next installment of the franchise'' (Even if for all term and purposes i canon BG4)
Posted By: Adgaroth Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 08:14 AM
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
The community is only divided because of the name of this game.

Fan's of BG don't want this awesome game to be Baldur's Gate 3.
Fan's of Larian are so hyped by their new game.
Fan's of D&D are one or the other.

Just forget about the name of the game and everyone would talk about "the new great larian RPG" instead of talking only about "What is/should be Baldur's Gate".

I don't want them to change the name,I want the new game of the bg franchise to have some resemblance to their predecesors wich is pretty reasonable in mi opinion.
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 08:20 AM
Originally Posted by Adgaroth
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
The community is only divided because of the name of this game.

Fan's of BG don't want this awesome game to be Baldur's Gate 3.
Fan's of Larian are so hyped by their new game.
Fan's of D&D are one or the other.

Just forget about the name of the game and everyone would talk about "the new great larian RPG" instead of talking only about "What is/should be Baldur's Gate".

I don't want them to change the name,I want the new game of the bg franchise to have some resemblance to their predecesors wich is pretty reasonable in mi opinion.



That's also what I want.
But if you delete the core of a game, you only keep what was not a specific part of the video game.

Lore, universe, rules, you don't have to be BG3 to only keep that. They were lots of "BG-like" before and BG should not become DoS-like
Nearly no one cares about the specific city of Baldur's Gate. SoA wasn't at Baldur's Gate.
Posted By: Adgaroth Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 08:33 AM
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by Adgaroth
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
The community is only divided because of the name of this game.

Fan's of BG don't want this awesome game to be Baldur's Gate 3.
Fan's of Larian are so hyped by their new game.
Fan's of D&D are one or the other.

Just forget about the name of the game and everyone would talk about "the new great larian RPG" instead of talking only about "What is/should be Baldur's Gate".

I don't want them to change the name,I want the new game of the bg franchise to have some resemblance to their predecesors wich is pretty reasonable in mi opinion.



That's also what I want.
But if you delete the core of a game, you only keep what was not a specific part of the video game.

Lore, universe, rules, you don't have to be BG3 to only keep that. They were lots of "BG-like" before and BG should not become DoS-like
Nearly no one cares about the specific city of Baldur's Gate. SoA wasn't at Baldur's Gate.


Because Baldur's Gate with a number atached to it is the name of the franchise,not the city anymore in terms of games,that's why SoA is not in that city but is still a Baldur's Gate game of the same franchise.
If you don't want a game that takes places on the city of Baldur's Gate be related to the BG franchise you name it with another name (not with the number) like Baldur's Gate:Dark Alliance or Baldur's:Gate Descent to Avernus.
Posted By: kyrt Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 01/03/20 09:16 AM
Do remember that the ship crashed 200 miles East of Baldur's Gate...also I fully expect them to take the first Act/Chapter as an introduction for people new to the Baldur's Gate series and gradually introduce them to things and make them care about the world and then fully expect a mindflayer or possibly even gith invasion come Act 2 or so which will change things more to what BG fans are thinking they want.

Remember the original trailer they revealed for the game Swen confirmed that the city we saw in the opening cinematic was not BG which means the events of the opening cinematic have not yet occurred...if it's representative of what's coming.

Do not forget that one of the only reasons BG1 and BG2 looked like it was darker is because of the black tile which was a result of poor lighting in the Infinity Engine. I imagine if the game were created these days the developers would have done everything they could have to make it feel like the DnD of the time. In the present that's 5th edition not 2nd edition DnD and the turn based style works for it.

Something people have also noted there are some place holders in the demo and there's even a chance aesthetically things haven't changed a whole lot yet. It's in pre-alpha meaning not even functional yet and not with everything in it that will eventually be in the game.

If you honestly expect Larian of all companies to completely show their hand when they had two-three additione Acts and tons of stuff in the first act of DOS2 omitted from the Early Access game all the way til release then I don't know what to say. This is a beginning chapter in a new tale and we have 200 miles to go before reaching Baldur's Gate.

You don't have to like what you've seen so far or even what's eventually in early access but don't be blind to the possibility it could still be an excellent Baldur's Gate game with a little time. If you are only a RtwP fan sorry for your loss perhaps a mod will be made?
Posted By: Delicieuxz Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 09:58 AM
Originally Posted by Adgaroth

Because Baldur's Gate with a number atached to it is the name of the franchise,not the city anymore in terms of games,that's why SoA is not in that city but is still a Baldur's Gate game of the same franchise.
If you don't want a game that takes places on the city of Baldur's Gate be related to the BG franchise you name it with another name (not with the number) like Baldur's Gate:Dark Alliance or Baldur's:Gate Descent to Avernus.


Small correction: You mean that the Baldur's Gate referred to with "Baldur's Gate 3" is the name of the series, not the franchise. The franchise is everything under the parent umbrella that the Baldur's Gate series is a part of, and includes Dark Alliance and Descent Into Avernus.



It's noteworthy that Larian's "Baldur's Gate 3" not only has nothing in common or relation either in narrative, characters, gameplay, or visuals to the Baldur's Gate series, but it literally is officially the sequel to Descent Into Avernus. Larian's "Baldur's Gate 3" is officially not a sequel to Baldur's Gate 2, but to Descent Into Avernus.

And it shows that there is not even the faintest relation or familiarity between Larian's "Baldur's Gate 3" and anything that Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 represent. So, why is Larian calling their game "Baldur's Gate 3"? They are literally lying by doing so. It is false marketing. And since the only purpose for it can be to capitalize on Baldur's Gate series fans' hopes and excitement at getting another Baldur's Gate game (which they are not getting with "Baldur's Gate 3"), the dishonest use of the Baldur's Gate series name by Larian is literally a cash-grab. It is actual fraud because every single sale that occurs directly as a result of the game being called "Baldur's Gate 3" is money that Larian tricked somebody into given them with a lie.

There is no connection to the Baldur's Gate series in "Baldur's Gate 3". That means it isn't a Baldur's Gate series game. Larian's upcoming game is a D&D RPG using the D:OS2 looks and formula which Larian are copy and pasting into a Forgotten Realms setting... but it isn't a Baldur's Gate. Not technically, not narratively, visually, certainly not gameplay-wise... nothing, absolutely nothing about it is associable with the Baldur's Gate series and what the series' name represents.

So, calling it "Baldur's Gate 3" is truly a lie and fraud. The name must be changed. Larian could not change it, just like a person could rob someone and not refuse to acknowledge any wrongdoing on their part. But, where ethics matter, the name of Larian's game must be changed.
Posted By: MadameStrangeluv Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 01/03/20 10:09 AM
Originally Posted by Boeroer
I am an old BG player and I'm not mad. Reading other sources of feedback I come to the conclusion that "old BG players who are mad" is a loud but quite small minority.

Do I like BG3 so far? Yes... probably... not sure yet. But my first perception was positive. I didn't like D:OS I and II too much so there's still a chance BG3 takes a route I might not appreciate too much.
Do I have to behave like a Rumpelstiltskin in order to voice my disapproval? Certainly not.

Not saying that every criticism falls into that category of course, but some of it has hilarious 5-year-old-ranting vibes.

General feedback on Twitter and other more "non-focused" sources as well as press are pretty good by the way.


this is the biggest naritive i have a problem with. There are a lot of people no true scottmaning the fandom. If you like it you are a Larian/DOS2 fan, If not you are a real BG fan. Ive even seen claims on other forums that if you are a real D&D fan you would hate this. i really would enjoy more constructive criticism regarding this not just people trying to foster an us vs them
Posted By: Sordak Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 10:37 AM
Dark Alliance is called dark alliance because its a different genre.
its not a CRPG, its not the same kind of storytelling

its an Action RPG where you play a single character, its a spinoff.
This isnt.
Posted By: Delicieuxz Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 10:46 AM
Originally Posted by Sordak
Dark Alliance is called dark alliance because its a different genre.
its not a CRPG, its not the same kind of storytelling

its an Action RPG where you play a single character, its a spinoff.
This isnt.


Dark Alliance has its own series name because it is a separate series - just like Larian's upcoming game is a separate series from Baldur's Gate. There is not a single shared style between Baldur's Gate and Larian's upcoming game. And Larian's upcoming game is officially the sequel to Descent Into Avernus, which means it is literally a different series than Baldur's Gate.

You may not like to face the fact that your favourite developer is selling-out and doing a cash-grab, but that's exactly what Larian are doing by calling this non Baldur's Gate series game "Baldur's Gate 3". It's being called that exclusively to hype up the fanbase of the Baldur's Gate series and to exploit those fans for sales, while not delivering anything that is known to be Baldur's Gate.

D:OS2 fans are happy because Larian is mostly cut-and-pasting D:OS2 with minor changes into the Forgotten Realms setting, effectively creating D&D D:OS2. But people who actually care about the Baldur's Gate series and want to play a new game from that series are betrayed by Larian's cash-grab sell-out move.
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 10:52 AM
Originally Posted by Adgaroth
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by Adgaroth
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
The community is only divided because of the name of this game.

Fan's of BG don't want this awesome game to be Baldur's Gate 3.
Fan's of Larian are so hyped by their new game.
Fan's of D&D are one or the other.

Just forget about the name of the game and everyone would talk about "the new great larian RPG" instead of talking only about "What is/should be Baldur's Gate".

I don't want them to change the name,I want the new game of the bg franchise to have some resemblance to their predecesors wich is pretty reasonable in mi opinion.



That's also what I want.
But if you delete the core of a game, you only keep what was not a specific part of the video game.

Lore, universe, rules, you don't have to be BG3 to only keep that. They were lots of "BG-like" before and BG should not become DoS-like
Nearly no one cares about the specific city of Baldur's Gate. SoA wasn't at Baldur's Gate.


Because Baldur's Gate with a number atached to it is the name of the franchise,not the city anymore in terms of games,that's why SoA is not in that city but is still a Baldur's Gate game of the same franchise.
If you don't want a game that takes places on the city of Baldur's Gate be related to the BG franchise you name it with another name (not with the number) like Baldur's Gate:Dark Alliance or Baldur's:Gate Descent to Avernus.


Shadow of Amn in called "Baldur's Gate 2 : Shadow of Amn".
He is the 2 and he take everything of the core of the Baldur's Gate franchise, that's why no one discuss about you're not playing in the city.

Baldur's Gate : Dark Alliance is another type of game using the name of the franchise.
That's also why no one discuss about you're not playing in the city, AND you're not playing a RTwP RPG game.

That's exactly what they should have done to respect fans... Call it whatever they want except using the 3

The 3 is the only reason why many many old fans complain.
No one has to judge our reasons are good or not, this is just what lots of us think.
Posted By: Delicieuxz Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 11:18 AM
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by Adgaroth

Because Baldur's Gate with a number atached to it is the name of the franchise,not the city anymore in terms of games,that's why SoA is not in that city but is still a Baldur's Gate game of the same franchise.
If you don't want a game that takes places on the city of Baldur's Gate be related to the BG franchise you name it with another name (not with the number) like Baldur's Gate:Dark Alliance or Baldur's:Gate Descent to Avernus.


Shadow of Amn in called "Baldur's Gate 2 : Shadow of Amn".
He is the 2 and he take everything of the core of the Baldur's Gate franchise, that's why no one discuss about you're not playing in the city.

Baldur's Gate : Dark Alliance is another type of game using the name of the franchise.
That's also why no one discuss about you're not playing in the city, AND you're not playing a RTwP RPG game.

That's exactly what they should have done to respect fans... Call it whatever they want except using the 3

The 3 is the only reason why many many old fans complain.
No one has to judge our reasons are good or not, this is just what lots of us think.


Like Adgaroth, you mean to say series, not franchise. The franchise that the Baldur's Gate series is a part of would probably include all the video games under the D&D or Forgotten Realms brands.

Those franchises contain many series, of which Baldur's Gate is one.


In the PC RPG RTwP Baldur's Gate series:

Baldur's Gate
Baldur's Gate: Tales of the Sword
Baldur's Gate 2: Shadows of Amn
Baldur's Gate 2: Throne of Bhaal


In the console ARPG / hack-n-slash Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance series:

Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance
Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance 2


In the Descent Into Avernus series:

Baldur's Gate: Descent Into Avernus
Larian's D&D D:OS2 clone, which is currently inappropriately titled "Baldur's Gate 3"
Posted By: 0Muttley0 Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 11:47 AM
Originally Posted by Waeress
Originally Posted by Redunzgofasta
If it's DnD and the campaign takes place in or around Balder's Gate, and it's called BG3, then it's BG3.
Everything else is totally trivial to the game being BG3 or not.
There's really nothing else to be said about it.


Truth. The Bhaalspawn saga has ended anyway; so there isn't even a story connection. It is simply a new grand crpg featuring BG.


That's the way I see it too. The Final Fantasy franchise changes a lot from game to game. Not just in setting, but in playstyle, mechanics etc.
Posted By: Melkyor95 Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 12:22 PM
Originally Posted by Redunzgofasta
If it's DnD and the campaign takes place in or around Balder's Gate, and it's called BG3, then it's BG3.


Forgive me but it is a simplistic reasoning and certainly not an argument.

For a company, there is nothing innocent in the fact of releasing a cRPG bearing the name Baldur's Gate. Above all, it means wanting to take advantage of the fame of previous games that have had the same name and have become legends in the history of video games.

The name of a game, the rules it uses and where it takes place are far from sufficient to make it seem legitimate in the eyes of many players to associate it with a license.

As I said in a previous comment on this topic, the name Baldur's Gate has, in a way, become the property of the players; and it is the players who will decide if this BG3 really deserves its name.
This name doesn't stop where it happens and the rules. It signifies an atmosphere, a history, strong emotions and an indescribable magic which made games which carried this name of the legends.

The only thing WotC and Larian can do is not just trying to make a good game with beautiful graphics, D&D rules and that it happens around Baldur's Gate. Because clearly, it will not be enough and they will be demolished for daring to call it Baldur's Gate.

And if neither WotC nor Larian really understand what the name Baldur's Gate now means in the minds and hearts of the players, as you yourself seem to be unable to do, then the use of this name will be felt as a betrayal and a vulgar marketing and commercial calculation.
Posted By: korotama Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 12:30 PM
To tell you the truth, it's not even the clean new setting or lack of RTwP that has people worked up but big companies pretending that the fans who have played, reviewed, made mods for and spread the word about this glorious series over the past two decades are wholly irrelevant and should not even be addressed explicitly. Sure, we don't speak for everyone but it doesn't seem like the people in charge of development even want to know who's in favor or opposed to the current vision. Sucks to be us I guess.
Posted By: Hawke Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 12:46 PM
I honestly don't get why you are still complaining the game is going to be out next year and it will more or less be what we have seen. Larian doesn't care what the old-school fans want because they are an insignificant minority DOS2 success showed them that A game which old-school fans hated but everyone else called it the best RPG ever and yet it sold better than all the Pathfinder, POE, Underrails combined.
Posted By: Wiborg Sturmfels Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 12:46 PM
Originally Posted by Delicieuxz
Originally Posted by Adgaroth

Because Baldur's Gate with a number atached to it is the name of the franchise,not the city anymore in terms of games,that's why SoA is not in that city but is still a Baldur's Gate game of the same franchise.
If you don't want a game that takes places on the city of Baldur's Gate be related to the BG franchise you name it with another name (not with the number) like Baldur's Gate:Dark Alliance or Baldur's:Gate Descent to Avernus.


Small correction: You mean that the Baldur's Gate referred to with "Baldur's Gate 3" is the name of the series, not the franchise. The franchise is everything under the parent umbrella that the Baldur's Gate series is a part of, and includes Dark Alliance and Descent Into Avernus.



It's noteworthy that Larian's "Baldur's Gate 3" not only has nothing in common or relation either in narrative, characters, gameplay, or visuals to the Baldur's Gate series, but it literally is officially the sequel to Descent Into Avernus. Larian's "Baldur's Gate 3" is officially not a sequel to Baldur's Gate 2, but to Descent Into Avernus.

And it shows that there is not even the faintest relation or familiarity between Larian's "Baldur's Gate 3" and anything that Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 represent. So, why is Larian calling their game "Baldur's Gate 3"? They are literally lying by doing so. It is false marketing. And since the only purpose for it can be to capitalize on Baldur's Gate series fans' hopes and excitement at getting another Baldur's Gate game (which they are not getting with "Baldur's Gate 3), the dishonest use of the Baldur's Gate series name by Larian is literally a cash-grab. It is actual fraud because every single sale that occurs directly as a result of the game being called "Baldur's Gate 3" is money that Larian tricked somebody into given them with a lie.

There is no connection to the Baldur's Gate series in "Baldur's Gate 3". That means it isn't a Baldur's Gate series game. Larian's upcoming game is a D&D RPG using the D:OS2 looks and formula which Larian are copy and pasting into a Forgotten Realms setting... but it isn't a Baldur's Gate. Not technically, not narratively, visually, certainly not gameplay-wise... nothing, absolutely nothing about it is associable with the Baldur's Gate series and what the series' name represents.

So, calling it "Baldur's Gate 3" is truly a lie and fraud. The name must be changed. Larian could not change it, just like a person could rob someone and not refuse to acknowledge any wrongdoing on their part. But, where ethics matter, the name of Larian's game must be changed.



First thought:
As many have mentioned, it was a somewhat unfortunate decision to call this game "Baldur's Gate III". At the end of BG2, it is mentioned that this adventure is over, but others will follow, so it would have been possible to continue somehow. The Maincharacter is having a romance, a child is born, bla bla bla. The story could have been continued considering Baldur's Gate: Descent in Avernus.
The only common ground to the predecessors is the setting in the Forgotten Realms in and around the city of Baldur´s Gate. Unfortunaly nothing from the predecessors will be continued but what the title "III" implies.
Since the outcry was predictable, I wonder why it was done anyway. Maybe Swen/Larian Studios had no choice. It is no accident that WotC released a new campaign for the Dungeons & Dragons tabletop game: Baldur's Gate: Descent in Avernus last year when Baldur´s Gate III was announced. It tells what's happened since Baldur's Gate II and plays 100 years after Baldur´s Gate II. It could be that the title "Baldurs Gate 3" was certainly a mandatory requirement for the game from WotC. No Baldur´s Gate 3, no licence. In this case Swen had no chance to name the game "Baldur´s Gate: NamedItWhateverYouLike". Maybe it was just a strategic sales decision. We don´t know and maybe will never find out due to contractual regulations.

Second thought:
But to be honest, we know almost nothing about the story except the outer frame. How often history has changed in BG1, SoD or BG2 and pushed us in another direction. How many times have we been surprised? Swen is definitely not going to reveal what the whole story looks like. All information is currently based on a few interviews, a demo and a bit of gameplay. The information available is also interpreted differently.
We know almost nothing at all and therefore nobody can not really judge at this point whether Baldur's Gate 3 deserves the name or not.

I personally believe that Baldur´s Gate III will not be a D:OS clone and that a lot of the presentation was just placeholders, borrwed by D:OS. I think we will see and hear a completely different and independent Baldurs Gate UI, spells and sounds. Larian Studios will definitely create an own Baldur's Gate atmosphere.

I think Swen is well aware that the Damocles sword hovers over him and Larian Stuidos.

Finally, it should also be noted that we can make our own story with our imagination, like in a pen&paper game. My character will be a half elf because it is the son of my main character from BG1 + 2 and Jaheira. For me, the story continues anyway...
Posted By: Ellderon Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 01:06 PM
Originally Posted by Adgaroth

The fact is this: When you look at this game,you recognize it as an impoved version of DOS2 with 5e ruleset or at the very least another Larian game based on DOS2. You would never,in all your life think ''Hey!,is this a new Baldur's Gate?'' AND THIS is where all the problems really come from,and let me tell you one think,they where aware of that and it was a fear inside the studio,I'll look for the interview later and edit this to provide a source.


I don't know how this can be fixed, since BG is deeply associated with the 2D Infinity engine, thus no new game will ever really LOOK like Baldurs Gate.

About the only thing I can think off is using BG2 style UI design and icons.
Posted By: Erwin Smith Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 01:18 PM
Everyone arguing about turn-based mode as if it were the biggest problem in this game.
The biggest problem for me is that this game is a Divinity recycling
Divinity colorful graphics, Divinity combat, Divinity animations, Divinity interactive objects etc...
This game doesn't even have classic elements from the original game (Spellcasting Sounds is an example)
Looks nothing like Baldur's Gate sleep
Posted By: Torque Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 01:30 PM
Originally Posted by Delicieuxz
Originally Posted by Adgaroth
"We were afraid that people would say that it was just Divinity: Original Sin 2 with a skin on top of it. We want no one to think that when they see it,"

https://www.usgamer.net/articles/baldurs-gate-3-preview

Wow. They were conscious of it, and yet that's precisely what happened and everybody is saying it looks like a D:OS2 clone because it really does. Larian's "BG3" even uses the D:OS2 mouse cursors, text font, and goofyish movement animation style, so it looks and feels all the more like playing D:OS2. It really doesn't give an impression that it's a different game.


As an avid D&D player (3.5e though) and a huge fan of the classic BG games (and also think D:OS is one of my GOATs) my impression is this:

Baldurs Gate 3 is Baldurs Gate in name only. People are absolutly correct when they say it looks identical to D:OS2 and if you didnt know there was D&D 5.0e rules behind the scenes you would think this is Divinity: Original Sin 3. And that is my main problem.

1) Overhaul of the UI is essential. You have to make it feel like a Baldurs Gate game. These are simple things to fix if you alot resources to it.
2) Grandious and flashy animations for simple actions like stabbing a guy. (note: hyperbole). Baldurs Gate is high fantasy with plenty of magic, but if something is deemed not a magic effect then why does it display as if it were magic? Counter-arguement to this is that melee combat looks boring without it. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one, I guess it boils to preference. Why am I "casting a spell" when I activate Dash? I thought that was a physical ability.
3) Fog of War. Now this is one of those things that breaks immersion. You learn to live with it but it makes the game incredibly gamey.
4) WIll my full plate 8 DEX dwarf be able to leap like a tiger 2 meters above him, or are there restrictions to the Jump skill? Another thing that breaks immersion. Counter-arguement: "Omg you care about realism in a game about mindflayers!". It depends. If the rules of the world is that anyone can leap like a olympian regardless of encumberance or ability then I guess its fine. Its stupid, but fine. The jumps showcased in the preview is something I assume high dex characters with light armor could pull off. So to be fair, this IS a question because Sven used a rogue to jump with.
Posted By: Torque Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 01:39 PM
Originally Posted by WizardPus
Baldurs gate was NEVER ...

1. Goofy representation of movement
a. Jumping with weird sound effects and animation as though every action is magical
b. Landing with the impact of a meteor strike ??
2. Weird sound effects
a. Select the character and point at an enemy (magical sound)
b. fire a standard arrow (magical sound)
c. over the top sound effects
3. Lack of spell verbal casting
4. BG was never DOS (and DOS is never BG).


Quoted for truth
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 01:43 PM
Originally Posted by Hawke
I honestly don't get why you are still complaining the game is going to be out next year and it will more or less be what we have seen. Larian doesn't care what the old-school fans want because they are an insignificant minority DOS2 success showed them that A game which old-school fans hated but everyone else called it the best RPG ever and yet it sold better than all the Pathfinder, POE, Underrails combined.


This is a so limited way to understand the situation.
Old fans of the Baldur's gate series are fans and customers of video games for about 20 years. Check FB, Youtube, Reddit, Steam forums, this forums and every video game sites where players can talk about the game...
This is NOT a minority, this is about 1 players on 3 interrested in this new game at the time... And in those that are happy, the huge majority just don't care about the name of the game.
I'm pretty sure it could be possible to have hundreds of signature on a petition asking them just to forget the 3...

Some of those complaining loved D:OS, some don't. Personnal preferences.

This is not a reason to be angry with many of them just about a "3" or to divide the new community appearing around the new Larian game.

Of course a game with modern mecanics have today more fans than a gameplay that has (nearly) not evolved since 1998...
This is not an argument, this is obvious.
Posted By: vometia Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 02:05 PM
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Of course a game with modern mecanics have today more fans than a gameplay that has (nearly) not evolved since 1998...
This is not an argument, this is obvious.

That's an important point for me personally. 20+ years is a long time in gaming and the late '90s was a bit of a personal nadir for me. Conversely, my formative years comprised the 8-bit era of the early '80s which I still remember fondly and tend to be very nostalgic about... but would I want to play them now? I put that to the test and bought a reconditioned but otherwise vintage early '80s home micro with a virtual HDD pre-loaded with lots of stuff, and beyond some initial curiosity I never played anything.

I'm not saying it's quite that extreme but from my point of view I like to see actual innovation that's in keeping with the times. That doesn't mean that I think what made a game great should be torn up and thrown away, just that things evolve. I don't always like the outcome but in general I feel happier with new taken on things than I would be if time somehow stood still.

As for the specific "is this Divinity or BG?" concern, I would like to think that any Divinity-isms are just a case of placeholders being used until everything is done. Though my background is Divinity and I've never played any BG game, what I want to see is BG, not Divinity with a BG flavour.

People can have different takes on stuff though. Several parallels have been drawn with "The New Fallouts". As someone who'd just immersed themselves in Oblivion, FO3 being "Oblivion with guns" was actually quite a positive thing at the time... and as descriptions go it was certainly a contentious one, but it had some merits, which was a positive and a negative. I'm not sure I'd want to repeat the experience again though. But my observation is that it showed just how fickle the fanbase can be when the virtually identical New Vegas was praised to the heavens while FO3 remained the worst indiscretion gaming has ever seen, which just left me thinking, hmm. Whatever point was being made must've gone right over my head. I don't care, I enjoyed Morrowind, Oblivion, FO3 and FNV pretty much equally.

With that in mind, I hope I enjoy BG3 in whatever form it takes. It will be more satisfying for me if it's proper Baldur's Gate, but that's the gnarly question: who will be the arbiter of what counts as "proper BG"?
Posted By: Danielbda Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 02:10 PM
Well, remember this is pre-alpha...
I think there are two ways they'll change their route to be more appealing to BG fans. Three actually:
1. They are aware of the criticism and just wanted to show the combat and some mechanics, but world look is not final and they were going to make it look more like BG from the start.
2. They'll respond to fan feedback, as they did with DOS.
3. WotC, their employers, will demand that they make changes.


This refers to the world ambience, not combat. I imagine them making the option to play RTwP, but their focus will be TB.
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 02:34 PM
Originally Posted by vometia
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Of course a game with modern mecanics have today more fans than a gameplay that has (nearly) not evolved since 1998...
This is not an argument, this is obvious.

That's an important point for me personally. 20+ years is a long time in gaming and the late '90s was a bit of a personal nadir for me. Conversely, my formative years comprised the 8-bit era of the early '80s which I still remember fondly and tend to be very nostalgic about... but would I want to play them now? I put that to the test and bought a reconditioned but otherwise vintage early '80s home micro with a virtual HDD pre-loaded with lots of stuff, and beyond some initial curiosity I never played anything.

I'm not saying it's quite that extreme but from my point of view I like to see actual innovation that's in keeping with the times. That doesn't mean that I think what made a game great should be torn up and thrown away, just that things evolve. I don't always like the outcome but in general I feel happier with new taken on things than I would be if time somehow stood still.

As for the specific "is this Divinity or BG?" concern, I would like to think that any Divinity-isms are just a case of placeholders being used until everything is done. Though my background is Divinity and I've never played any BG game, what I want to see is BG, not Divinity with a BG flavour.

People can have different takes on stuff though. Several parallels have been drawn with "The New Fallouts". As someone who'd just immersed themselves in Oblivion, FO3 being "Oblivion with guns" was actually quite a positive thing at the time... and as descriptions go it was certainly a contentious one, but it had some merits, which was a positive and a negative. I'm not sure I'd want to repeat the experience again though. But my observation is that it showed just how fickle the fanbase can be when the virtually identical New Vegas was praised to the heavens while FO3 remained the worst indiscretion gaming has ever seen, which just left me thinking, hmm. Whatever point was being made must've gone right over my head. I don't care, I enjoyed Morrowind, Oblivion, FO3 and FNV pretty much equally.

With that in mind, I hope I enjoy BG3 in whatever form it takes. It will be more satisfying for me if it's proper Baldur's Gate, but that's the gnarly question: who will be the arbiter of what counts as "proper BG"?


As you said, you don't want to play an old gameplay in 2020.
This is not the problem. TB game had evolved thanks to Larian, but the core gameplay of Baldur's Gate nearly didn't except a few try.

This said, I also hope I'll enjoy BG3 because I really like Larian, I really like TB games and I really like D&D and The Forgotten Realms... But I'll never forget that the only Baldur's Gate 3 that will exist for all times and we're waiting for about 20 years (with hopes, deceptions,...) has nothing in common with the Baldur's Gate series.

Bioware created the original games but if this name is still alive in video games after 20 years, it's only because of us (players, modders, public of the EE, dreamers,...).
We pay tribute to this name for about 20 years. I really think Larian and WoTC should have done the same or at least consider us in return wathever the direction they took for this new game.

You should definitely forget the 3.

Posted By: Boeroer Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 01/03/20 03:06 PM
Right!
Posted By: kanisatha Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 03:21 PM
Claims that somehow TB represents "evolution" and RTwP is something 20 years old is nonsense. TB existed 20 years ago too. In fact, it predates RTwP combat. Those of us who want RTwP are not saying we want RTwP exactly like it was in the original games. So the "it's been 20 years" line is a total strawman.

As for the point that this is just D:OS made to look like D&D, yes that is ultimately the main strike against this game. Even the professional reviewers, virtually every single one of them, are saying the same thing, that the game looks and feels and plays like D:OS2. But of course for them, because they are very pro D:OS, this is a good thing and they think they are complimenting the game by saying that it looks and feels and plays like D:OS2. Many fans however disagree that this is a good thing. And saying that the game uses D&D rules so this cannot be true is (maybe deliberately) missing the point. The underlying rules maybe D&D, but how a game looks on your screen and how it feels to play it are what really matter. Nobody is questioning that the rules are D&D, so that's yet another strawman.
Posted By: kanisatha Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 01/03/20 03:35 PM
Again more strawmen. How does "not looking like a game from 20 years ago" equal "must look like D:OS2"? Nobody is saying the game should look like what the original games looked like. The question is why does it look like D:OS?

As for the critics being "silly" or "children," well, lots of Larian sycophants and fanboys here. See how easy it is? Insults can go both ways.
Posted By: _Vic_ Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 03:49 PM
It was good to see a measured, calm opinion in a thread that I thought it was going to be just (another) interminable battle royale between TB and RTwP. Congrats to the OP, @Adgaroth. I mean, methinks that there is a thread labelled "RTwP vs TB" already, how is that you find the same debate in all the other threads?

Thanks for the effort and I have to say I agree with most of your opinions and maybe disagree with some, but at least I definitely respect your opinion for the measured tone of your posts.

A pity the thread derailed into the "Same as always" in the middle, but at least that restored my faith in humanity for a while.
Posted By: Braveheart Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 04:00 PM
For those people who want to convince you that this isn't BG3, they are literally trying to convince you that 1 + 1 = 3. They want to change the facts because there losing an argument.
That's not constructive, it's Baldur's gate 3 because Wizards of the Coast and Larian studios came to an agreement that they will continue the DnD franchise in the Sword Coast and Baldur's gate. Also, the fact that the game will actually visit Baldur's gate at some point and continues a story line set by WOTC.

Now, if you don't like the current story line and live in the past and want to play BG1-2 all over again because of your nostalgia, go ahead. But just because story lines evolved and computer hardware has evolved and we can play games that are better designed then the baldur's gate 20-25 years ago on a computer that is out of date and visuals that doesn't even compare to BG3, that doesn't mean your right to say this isn't BG3.

Larian studios has acquired the right to call it BG3 with a combination of marketing and staying true to the franchise by it's game play. I personally love the visuals of this game because it has evolved in my opinion to a better representation of DnD races, fantasy setting etc... Oh, and nostalgia shoudn't be your only parameter to judge a game, although it is important and there still room for improvement but many of you just seem to be coming off as oh well I want to go back and playing this ..

https://www.google.com/search?q=baldur%27s+gate+2&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjptdG80vnnAhVPm-AKHW7jCHsQ_AUoAXoECCAQAw&biw=1076&bih=568#imgrc=1Sb0TyYNc2R1AM&imgdii=YhxvbXppFv1g5M
Posted By: Boeroer Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 01/03/20 04:01 PM
As I said I didn't like D:OS I and II much. The only game from Larian I truly enjoyed was the original Divine Divinity - and that was nearly 18 years ago.

As I didn't call every ciritc silly or childish you shouldn't call all people who don't agree with you "fanboys". Just be reasonable. I recall we already had such a discussion in the Deadfire forums.

As to why it looks a bit like D:OS2: that's fairly obvious, isn't it? What did people expect? A whole new engine after 8 months that somehow captures the nostalgic vibes of the old BGI & II but is very modern and great-looking at the same time? How?

Larian uses its own engine which they also used for D:OS2. It would be an ecnomomically stupid decision to not use the well functioning foundation they have. This saves time and resources which can be put into other stuff like story, nice quests, good characters, companion interaction and whatnot. They don't reinvent the wheel which is a smart decision - also given the success of D:OS I and II.

Besides that I don't think BG3 looks as jolly and goofy like D:OS2 does. Actually BG3 looks very nice for a 8 month old pre alpha. Also I never saw a D&D game with such good cinematic sequences. I think those helped a lot to create some Baldur's-Gate- or at least D&D-vibes.

I'm sure there will be a lot of tweaking and effect juggling until it's ready.

I like that it will go into Early Access. That way there's still plenty of time to give constructive feedback - e.g. if you still think it still looks too much like D:OS.



Posted By: Braveheart Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 01/03/20 04:09 PM
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Again more strawmen. How does "not looking like a game from 20 years ago" equal "must look like D:OS2"? Nobody is saying the game should look like what the original games looked like. The question is why does it look like D:OS?

As for the critics being "silly" or "children," well, lots of Larian sycophants and fanboys here. See how easy it is? Insults can go both ways.


Because DOS was a success and their building off of that success. But don't insult my intelligence by saying this isn't the DnD 5th edition rules.
Posted By: Sordak Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 04:21 PM
Hawke has laid it down pretty much as it is.

You cannot change anything now. The games coming out in early access this year.
No amount of complaining will make them change the name.

note, it was WOTC who specificalyl asked them to do Baldurs Gate 3.
They didnt ask em to make Waterdeep: the game, they asked them to do Baldurs Gate 3.



On the "pay respects to us"
Which implies that "You" are a Homogenous group.
A lot of you people like to act as if there is a Homogenous group of "Baldurs Gate fans", while you can bareley agree on anything.
Half of you thinks it shouldnt be 5e but 2e instead, a quarter somehow thinks baldurs gate was 3.5, and another thinks 5e is hunky dory but should be RTWP.
Then theres a large part thats fine with TB even if they are hardcore fans (which get excluded from the conversaiton real fast)

A lot of you go on about Baldurs Gate specifically beeing about the Bhaalspawn, while others argue that picking up an old plot would do a diservice to it.
tons of people say illithids have nothing to do with Baldurs Gate, then some people remember that oh yeah there was this thing with the Illithids in baldurs gate 2.



As Sven said, you cannot placate everyone. There is no homogenous block of "baldurs gate fans" versus the evil divinity fans.
the only thing you are actually united in is your dislike of this game.
And that dislike mostly comes from the fact that nothing could ever live up to your expectations.
Posted By: DaKatarn Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 01/03/20 04:58 PM
Originally Posted by Braveheart
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Again more strawmen. How does "not looking like a game from 20 years ago" equal "must look like D:OS2"? Nobody is saying the game should look like what the original games looked like. The question is why does it look like D:OS?

As for the critics being "silly" or "children," well, lots of Larian sycophants and fanboys here. See how easy it is? Insults can go both ways.


Because DOS was a success and their building off of that success. But don't insult my intelligence by saying this isn't the DnD 5th edition rules.


Larian is capable of making a game that is not a Divinity clone, right?

So, we must hope because we want a Baldur's Gate game.
Posted By: Braveheart Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 01/03/20 05:11 PM
It's not a clone, it's DnD 5th edition rule set. And it is Baldur's gate 3 in many aspects lore wise except visually it looks like DOS. But visual and nostalgia alone is not game breaking to me, because most people when they talk about nostalgia their refering to the old baldur's gate (1-2) graphic style (out of date). Also, I love the character portraits I saw at the demo and the whole cinematic game play looks immersive to me. I don't understand how anyone can criticize the visuals of this game it looks phenomenal.
Posted By: Ugmaro Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 01/03/20 05:12 PM
Originally Posted by Braveheart
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Again more strawmen. How does "not looking like a game from 20 years ago" equal "must look like D:OS2"? Nobody is saying the game should look like what the original games looked like. The question is why does it look like D:OS?

As for the critics being "silly" or "children," well, lots of Larian sycophants and fanboys here. See how easy it is? Insults can go both ways.


Because DOS was a success and their building off of that success. But don't insult my intelligence by saying this isn't the DnD 5th edition rules.


I would actually be very happy if this was the D&D 5e rules - instead, there are no real reactions apart from an automatic AoO and almost all of the bonus actions present are actually disguised actions. I was expecting some deviation from the ruleset to make it better for the videogame format but with this they better come out with an entire ruleset/handbook to the game so you at least know what you can and can't do - even if 3/4 of it is copied from the PHB, that last 1/4 being different is quite a lot.
Posted By: Dark_Ansem Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 05:14 PM
Originally Posted by Sordak
Hawke has laid it down pretty much as it is.

You cannot change anything now. The games coming out in early access this year.
No amount of complaining will make them change the name.

note, it was WOTC who specificalyl asked them to do Baldurs Gate 3.
They didnt ask em to make Waterdeep: the game, they asked them to do Baldurs Gate 3.



On the "pay respects to us"
Which implies that "You" are a Homogenous group.
A lot of you people like to act as if there is a Homogenous group of "Baldurs Gate fans", while you can bareley agree on anything.
Half of you thinks it shouldnt be 5e but 2e instead, a quarter somehow thinks baldurs gate was 3.5, and another thinks 5e is hunky dory but should be RTWP.
Then theres a large part thats fine with TB even if they are hardcore fans (which get excluded from the conversaiton real fast)

A lot of you go on about Baldurs Gate specifically beeing about the Bhaalspawn, while others argue that picking up an old plot would do a diservice to it.
tons of people say illithids have nothing to do with Baldurs Gate, then some people remember that oh yeah there was this thing with the Illithids in baldurs gate 2.



As Sven said, you cannot placate everyone. There is no homogenous block of "baldurs gate fans" versus the evil divinity fans.
the only thing you are actually united in is your dislike of this game.
And that dislike mostly comes from the fact that nothing could ever live up to your expectations.



Actually, the game is in pre-alpha and supposed to come INTO Early access this year.
Posted By: DaKatarn Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 05:17 PM
Originally Posted by Braveheart
For those people who want to convince you that this isn't BG3, they are literally trying to convince you that 1 + 1 = 3. They want to change the facts because there losing an argument.
That's not constructive, it's Baldur's gate 3 because Wizards of the Coast and Larian studios came to an agreement that they will continue the DnD franchise in the Sword Coast and Baldur's gate. Also, the fact that the game will actually visit Baldur's gate at some point and continues a story line set by WOTC.

Now, if you don't like the current story line and live in the past and want to play BG1-2 all over again because of your nostalgia, go ahead. But just because story lines evolved and computer hardware has evolved and we can play games that are better designed then the baldur's gate 20-25 years ago on a computer that is out of date and visuals that doesn't even compare to BG3, that doesn't mean your right to say this isn't BG3.

Larian studios has acquired the right to call it BG3 with a combination of marketing and staying true to the franchise by it's game play. I personally love the visuals of this game because it has evolved in my opinion to a better representation of DnD races, fantasy setting etc... Oh, and nostalgia shoudn't be your only parameter to judge a game, although it is important and there still room for improvement but many of you just seem to be coming off as oh well I want to go back and playing this ..

https://www.google.com/search?q=baldur%27s+gate+2&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjptdG80vnnAhVPm-AKHW7jCHsQ_AUoAXoECCAQAw&biw=1076&bih=568#imgrc=1Sb0TyYNc2R1AM&imgdii=YhxvbXppFv1g5M


It's too easy to evacuate any critic as old nostalgic sour.

Many choice of gameplay, ambience and story is a Divinity Style and not a Baldur Style:

- One map for one location to visit with a big world map and the possibility of returning from former areas. The system of ONE BIG Map for one Act in Divinity isn't BG friendly and it's an immersion breacker.

- Incantations for wizard spell!!!!!! Not just click and KABOOM FIRE EFFECT!

- Of course the UI is too close of Divinity. We want an UI with wood and stone, a little more gloomy and traditional.

- "Ahh, the Child of Bhaal has awoken."

A VERY VERY BADASS MAIN VILAIN! Sarevok and Irenicus was deep and very iconic, like Hitchcock said "A good story is a story with a good vilain". I hope Illithid Master isn't the real final boss. I have big hope with Cult of the Dead Three (a very good connexion with the Bhaal Legacy and the new context of DD5).

- A LOT of charismatic NPC Companions and not just 5 or 6 Origin Divinity' style NPC.... And please true ROMANCES and a lot of PARTY BANTERS.

- A very good and long adventure with local issues and not just ultra epic and cosmic issue, it's an other immersion breacker imo. Less epic for epicness and more coherent and realistic background. Less High Fantasy for Millenials and more MEDIEVAL fantasy with historic soul and deep conflicts.

In summary, a good glass of old-fashioned wiskhy in front of a crackling fireplace, an old library and a hunting trophy. Not a smooth and clean atmosphere like the design of the latest iphone.

- Custom portrait and real character sheet.

- A little less colorfull ambience, BG universe is more realistic and less shiny and high fantasy than Divinity.

- Less WTF moments and jokes than Divinity, BG universe is serious and deep with subtle touches of humor like Jan Jansen and Minsc quotes.

An attack of shoes is fun but it's also useless and not the spirit of the licence.

- Please, a true group of 6 adventurers ( During the demo I have seen only 4 slots of characters...).

- Of course, a lot of easter eggs with the BG series (Viconia, Sarevok, events, locations, ...).

- BG Music' style or remix! Even today the first notes of the main theme of BG1 or BG2 still very iconic.
Posted By: Ugmaro Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 05:54 PM
Originally Posted by DaKatarn
Originally Posted by Braveheart
For those people who want to convince you that this isn't BG3, they are literally trying to convince you that 1 + 1 = 3. They want to change the facts because there losing an argument.
That's not constructive, it's Baldur's gate 3 because Wizards of the Coast and Larian studios came to an agreement that they will continue the DnD franchise in the Sword Coast and Baldur's gate. Also, the fact that the game will actually visit Baldur's gate at some point and continues a story line set by WOTC.

Now, if you don't like the current story line and live in the past and want to play BG1-2 all over again because of your nostalgia, go ahead. But just because story lines evolved and computer hardware has evolved and we can play games that are better designed then the baldur's gate 20-25 years ago on a computer that is out of date and visuals that doesn't even compare to BG3, that doesn't mean your right to say this isn't BG3.

Larian studios has acquired the right to call it BG3 with a combination of marketing and staying true to the franchise by it's game play. I personally love the visuals of this game because it has evolved in my opinion to a better representation of DnD races, fantasy setting etc... Oh, and nostalgia shoudn't be your only parameter to judge a game, although it is important and there still room for improvement but many of you just seem to be coming off as oh well I want to go back and playing this ..

https://www.google.com/search?q=baldur%27s+gate+2&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjptdG80vnnAhVPm-AKHW7jCHsQ_AUoAXoECCAQAw&biw=1076&bih=568#imgrc=1Sb0TyYNc2R1AM&imgdii=YhxvbXppFv1g5M


It's too easy to evacuate any critic as old nostalgic sour.

Many choice of gameplay, ambience and story is a Divinity Style and not a Baldur Style:

- One map for one location to visit with a big world map and the possibility of returning from former areas. The system of ONE BIG Map for one Act in Divinity isn't BG friendly and it's an immersion breacker.

- Incantations for wizard spell!!!!!! Not just click and KABOOM FIRE EFFECT!

- Of course the UI is too close of Divinity. We want an UI with wood and stone, a little more gloomy and traditional.

- "Ahh, the Child of Bhaal has awoken."

A VERY VERY BADASS MAIN VILAIN! Sarevok and Irenicus was deep and very iconic, like Hitchcock said "A good story is a story with a good vilain". I hope Illithid Master isn't the real final boss. I have big hope with Cult of the Dead Three (a very good connexion with the Bhaal Legacy and the new context of DD5).

- A LOT of charismatic NPC Companions and not just 5 or 6 Origin Divinity' style NPC.... And please true ROMANCES and a lot of PARTY BANTERS.

- A very good and long adventure with local issues and not just ultra epic and cosmic issue, it's an other immersion breacker imo. Less epic for epicness and more coherent and realistic background. Less High Fantasy for Millenials and more MEDIEVAL fantasy with historic soul and deep conflicts.

In summary, a good glass of old-fashioned wiskhy in front of a crackling fireplace, an old library and a hunting trophy. Not a smooth and clean atmosphere like the design of the latest iphone.

- Custom portrait and real character sheet.

- A little less colorfull ambience, BG universe is more realistic and less shiny and high fantasy than Divinity.

- Less WTF moments and jokes than Divinity, BG universe is serious and deep with subtle touches of humor like Jan Jansen and Minsc quotes.

An attack of shoes is fun but it's also useless and not the spirit of the licence.

- Please, a true group of 6 adventurers ( During the demo I have seen only 4 slots of characters...).

- Of course, a lot of easter eggs with the BG series (Viconia, Sarevok, events, locations, ...).

- BG Music' style or remix! Even today the first notes of the main theme of BG1 or BG2 still very iconic.


While I may agree with about half of your points, there are certain points I FULLY disagree with:

Minsc for example was the party idiot that had so many stupid lines you can hardly consider his quotes "subtle touches of humor" but are instead full on american TV show comedy acts - something I'm not a big fan of personally but don't mind that much either... someone needs to be the clown I guess (I'm talking about Minsc, please don't see this as an attack on you). On that note, I'd actually say Divinity 2 had far less "silly and wtf moments" compared to BG 1/2

D&D (including AD&D which BG 1 & 2 is based off of) is high fantasy - saying "millenial" here is like you're looking for a fight with "dem kids". No need to antagonize anyone. I'd personally like a "serious" game more as well but I'm one of the minority so I don't really expect it.

I'd be up for wizard(sorcerer/cleric/whatever) incantations if they're willing to make a specific incantation for every single spell - I really didn't like the fact that every spell used the same incantation in BG 1/2. If they won't go the extra mile with that and instead add 3 incantitions in total like there was in the previous BG games it's better if they leave it out in my opinion.

I have a question for you though: why do you specifically want a party size of 6? why not 4 or 5 or 8? Just asking

Final thought: Try not to say "we" and say "I" instead - you're representing yourself, not everyone smile
Posted By: Sordak Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 06:11 PM
Well i definitly want a party of 8
Gimme that

Huge parties are great

Let me do a buddy coop gameplay and still have each of us play 4 characters, now thatd be truly amazing


also yes.
Divinity beeing ridiculou sor a parody is basically a lie that gets repeated so ofthen people state it as fact.
the same with Baldurs Gate beeing "mature" or "Dark".

A lot of things seem mature to you when youre 12
Posted By: Sordak Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 01/03/20 06:17 PM
oh man, you pick the tiniest htings and act like its this huge problem.

Oh no, minor actions, stuff that normally flat out dosnt happen!
the game balance is ruined because you can throw a bottle at someone AND stab him
Posted By: Ugmaro Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 01/03/20 06:20 PM
Or throw a dagger at them and stab them... you know, 2 attack actions? as in standard actions? meh, lets just disagree with this and go on
Posted By: kyrthorsen Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 01/03/20 08:08 PM
Originally Posted by Sordak
This stuff just boggles my mind.
Why on earth would you want BG3 to be made by obsidian?

If you want RTWP then maybe go with owlcat.
but obsidian has shown qutie well that they are incapeable of making good games and they are out of touch with the CRPG audience.
Laud them as much as you want for beeing conservative in mechanics, their writing isnt winning any awards with the fan base.

and cheap? you realy think this is cheap? Do you even understand how much the larian team has expanded for this?

Why am i even typing this. This is bait.


Hi friend,

There is a saying that goes like this: "DON'T FIX WHAT ISN'T BROKEN"

BG1 and BG2 were not broken games.

What every fan of BG was expecting from BG3 was to take the very successful BG formula and IMPROVE on that to make BG3.

NOBODY was expecting that Larian would make a CHEAP move and just use its DOS template and call it BG.

Do you remember what happened with the Diablo franchise maybe? After legendary D1 and D2 games, a new dev team comes to "reinvent" things, and then makes D3, a complete cartoony-looking disaster. Now they are making D4 according to the "original" D1 and D2 recipe. Why, because it worked.

The same thing will happen with this "BG3" i.e. "DOS3" - they also made BG3 look like a cartoon.

What Larian has done (marketing DOS3 named as BG3) - in my book, resembles FALSE ADVERTISING.

They just hyped a lot of old BG fans up with false advertising. Larian, do you really think people are that stupid?

So what if they expanded their team and have a bigger budget? It is still a cheap move.

Larian, be honest and stop calling this game BG3!!!

Posted By: Ignatius Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 08:21 PM
I'm sorry, but this doesn't make a great deal of sense. Power says what 'Truth' is, and the power here is WOTC, who own the IP 'Baldur's Gate'.










Posted By: Adgaroth Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 08:55 PM
Originally Posted by Ignatius
I'm sorry, but this doesn't make a great deal of sense. Power says what 'Truth' is, and the power here is WOTC, who own the IP 'Baldur's Gate'.



I don't think anyone can argue that WoTC is the one that says what is what, same as if they decide to make a hello kitty game with sarevok's helmet and call it BG4 but that's not the point here.
Posted By: Delicieuxz Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 09:07 PM
Originally Posted by Ignatius
I'm sorry, but this doesn't make a great deal of sense. Power says what 'Truth' is, and the power here is WOTC, who own the IP 'Baldur's Gate'.


Larian have stated that they have control to choose what their D&D RPG game is, and that they chose the TB combat system because they were afraid of taking risks after the success of D:OS2 (hence why they've basically just copy-and-pasted D:OS2 into D&D and made minor changes, while greatly over-exaggerating the significance of the minor changes and additions):

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2020-02-27-baldurs-gate-3-interview
Quote
The choices that we made are ours. Why did we go for turn-based instead of real-time with pause? Because D&D to us is a turn-based game and we're really good - or we have become really good - with turn-based combat. So that, I think, is one of our strengths, and trying out real-time with pause for now, just because the originals were that? It's a big risk. Because the team would have to think completely differently, our combat would be completely different. And we didn't really feel good about that. Normally we do try out a lot. Normally we try out a lot before we make a decision, but with real-time with pause and turn-based we didn't, we just said "Okay it's just gonna be turn-based."


So, Larian is really just using the "Baldur's Gate" name as a husk to fill with a D&D D:OS2 clone, exclusively for the purpose of sales (that's what the "it's a big risk" remark refers to). It's a cash-grab.

BTW, TB games have on average been performing worse than RTwP games. And Larian's D:OS2 didn't come close to the amount of sales RTwP legend Dragon Age: Origins did. So, really, there is only a single big hit TB game while RTwP games are on average performing better.

Wasteland Remastered and Torment: Numenera tanked in sales and are unpopular. More people own Pillars of Eternity on Steam than own Wasteland 2 on Steam. When PoE 2 had TB added to it, its sales didn't improve at all and its Steam user rating didn't increase by even a single percentage-point. Pathfinder: Kingmaker is currently more popular than any TB game outside of Divinity: Original Sin 2. And Dragon Age: Origins (3.2 million copies sold in 3 months) greatly outsold Divinity: Original Sin 2 (1 million copies sold in 2.5 months).

So, TB games are not particularly popular and they have a higher failure-rate than RTwP games. It is only D:OS2 which has been a big hit in the TB genre.

Larian have become superstitious slaves in the wake of the success of D:OS2 and traded their integrity for the comfort and sales of an echo chamber of D:OS2 fans. So, there is literally no justification to using the "Baldur's Gate" name, when Larian's upcoming D&D RPG has as much in common with the Baldur's Gate series as


The definition of a Hack:

Quote
1. a person, as an artist or writer, who exploits, for money, his or her creative ability or training in the production of dull, unimaginative, and trite work; one who produces banal and mediocre work in the hope of gaining commercial success in the arts:
As a painter, he was little more than a hack.

2. a professional who renounces or surrenders individual independence, integrity, belief, etc., in return for money or other reward in the performance of a task normally thought of as involving a strong personal commitment:


Larian's "Baldur's Gate 3" has not even the faintest tiniest shred of relation to the Baldur's Gate series in character, experience, or gameplay and yet they're exploiting the name with a D:OS2 clone set in D&D for the purpose of the money doing so can make them. Larian have sold-out and literally become a hack developer for the sake of monetary gain.
Posted By: Ugmaro Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 09:16 PM
So, Larian is really just using the "Baldur's Gate" name as a husk to fill with a D&D D:OS2 clone, exclusively for the purpose of sales (that's what the "it's a big risk" remark refers to). It's a cash-grab. [/quote]

Your leap of logic astounds me... because they know they're good at TB and will do that and not RTwP they're cash-grabbing and somehow betraying Baldur's Gate brand? What?!
Posted By: WizardPus Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 01/03/20 09:18 PM
Quote


Larian, be honest and stop calling this game BG3!!!



I think there is time to make some minor tweaks that will make the game stand alone. Perhaps the early release is going to be used to help make it the direction where most fans provide constructive feedback. With that said, I have rarely seen an alpha game implement major changes from what is in play by the time they release the alpha.
Posted By: Delicieuxz Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 09:29 PM
Originally Posted by Ugmaro
Quote
So, Larian is really just using the "Baldur's Gate" name as a husk to fill with a D&D D:OS2 clone, exclusively for the purpose of sales (that's what the "it's a big risk" remark refers to). It's a cash-grab.


Your leap of logic astounds me... because they know they're good at TB and will do that and not RTwP they're cash-grabbing and somehow betraying Baldur's Gate brand? What?!


Not sure you understand what a leap of logic is... because you didn't quote one.

Yes, sacrificing integrity and honesty for the purpose of making money is a cash-grab. Yes, making a game that has not even a 1% association in any of its components or designs to the series it is labelled under, but labelling it as a part of that series exclusively for the purpose of exploiting the series' fans and making money from the marketing hype of that series name is literally betraying the series and is literally a cash-grab.

Is there any other very basic understanding that you wish to have confirmed?
Posted By: Adgaroth Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 09:31 PM
Originally Posted by Ugmaro
So, Larian is really just using the "Baldur's Gate" name as a husk to fill with a D&D D:OS2 clone, exclusively for the purpose of sales (that's what the "it's a big risk" remark refers to). It's a cash-grab.


Your leap of logic astounds me... because they know they're good at TB and will do that and not RTwP they're cash-grabbing and somehow betraying Baldur's Gate brand? What?![/quote]

Even if you put aside the TB vs RTwP thing the point still stands.
Posted By: Adgaroth Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 09:36 PM
Originally Posted by Delicieuxz
Originally Posted by Adgaroth
Originally Posted by Ugmaro
So, Larian is really just using the "Baldur's Gate" name as a husk to fill with a D&D D:OS2 clone, exclusively for the purpose of sales (that's what the "it's a big risk" remark refers to). It's a cash-grab.


Your leap of logic astounds me... because they know they're good at TB and will do that and not RTwP they're cash-grabbing and somehow betraying Baldur's Gate brand? What?!


Even if you put aside the TB vs RTwP thing the point still stands.


Which point?
[/quote]

That the game does not look at all like a game of the series and they're just using the name to make more money.
Posted By: Delicieuxz Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 09:37 PM
Originally Posted by Adgaroth
Originally Posted by Delicieuxz


Which point?


That the game does not look at all like a game of the series and they're just using the name to make more money.


Ah, yes. I got what you were saying after I made that post, so I deleted it before this next post of yours showed up. My bad.
Posted By: Ugmaro Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 09:39 PM
Originally Posted by Delicieuxz
Originally Posted by Ugmaro
Quote
So, Larian is really just using the "Baldur's Gate" name as a husk to fill with a D&D D:OS2 clone, exclusively for the purpose of sales (that's what the "it's a big risk" remark refers to). It's a cash-grab.


Your leap of logic astounds me... because they know they're good at TB and will do that and not RTwP they're cash-grabbing and somehow betraying Baldur's Gate brand? What?!


Not sure you understand what a leap of logic is... because you didn't quote one.

Yes, sacrificing integrity and honesty for the purpose of making money is a cash-grab. Yes, making a game that has not even a 1% association in any of its components or designs to the series it is labelled under, but labelling it as a part of that series exclusively for the purpose of exploiting the series' fans and making money from the marketing hype of that series name is literally betraying the series and is literally a cash-grab.

Is there any other very basic understanding that you wish to have confirmed?


Yes please, explain to me how RTwP is such a big part of the story and lore that it is the sole quality by which you claim something is or is not a BG game. They have experience with TB combat and would like to do that instead, to make sure fans are not disappointed by a half-assed combat system - I think that's a good thing

Would you like Larian to straight up show the entire story of BG 3 (as in, spoilers for the entire game, making it totally pointless to play through) to ease your mind it is somehow linked into the story of Bhaal? Maybe it should say at the start of BG 1 that you are one of the sons of Bhaal and that you will be fighting Sarevok at the end of the game, that is also a son of Bhaal and therefore making it pointless to call the game "Baldur's Gate" but should be called "The Bhaalspawn" instead?

Oh, of course, how could I forget, RTwP is the only way this can be a BG game. Yes please, do give more "very basic understanding" that is obviously missed by a whole truckload of people. I'm looking forward to hearing this.
Posted By: Adgaroth Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 09:52 PM
Originally Posted by Ugmaro
Originally Posted by Delicieuxz
Originally Posted by Ugmaro
Quote
So, Larian is really just using the "Baldur's Gate" name as a husk to fill with a D&D D:OS2 clone, exclusively for the purpose of sales (that's what the "it's a big risk" remark refers to). It's a cash-grab.


Your leap of logic astounds me... because they know they're good at TB and will do that and not RTwP they're cash-grabbing and somehow betraying Baldur's Gate brand? What?!


Not sure you understand what a leap of logic is... because you didn't quote one.

Yes, sacrificing integrity and honesty for the purpose of making money is a cash-grab. Yes, making a game that has not even a 1% association in any of its components or designs to the series it is labelled under, but labelling it as a part of that series exclusively for the purpose of exploiting the series' fans and making money from the marketing hype of that series name is literally betraying the series and is literally a cash-grab.

Is there any other very basic understanding that you wish to have confirmed?


Yes please, explain to me how RTwP is such a big part of the story and lore that it is the sole quality by which you claim something is or is not a BG game. They have experience with TB combat and would like to do that instead, to make sure fans are not disappointed by a half-assed combat system - I think that's a good thing

Would you like Larian to straight up show the entire story of BG 3 (as in, spoilers for the entire game, making it totally pointless to play through) to ease your mind it is somehow linked into the story of Bhaal? Maybe it should say at the start of BG 1 that you are one of the sons of Bhaal and that you will be fighting Sarevok at the end of the game, that is also a son of Bhaal and therefore making it pointless to call the game "Baldur's Gate" but should be called "The Bhaalspawn" instead?

Oh, of course, how could I forget, RTwP is the only way this can be a BG game. Yes please, do give more "very basic understanding" that is obviously missed by a whole truckload of people. I'm looking forward to hearing this.


If you ignore the RTwP thing the point still stands

''Yes, sacrificing integrity and honesty for the purpose of making money is a cash-grab. Yes, making a game that has not even a 1% association in any of its components or designs to the series it is labelled''

I think he's being pretty clear.
Posted By: kyrthorsen Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 01/03/20 09:54 PM
Originally Posted by WizardPus
Quote


Larian, be honest and stop calling this game BG3!!!



I think there is time to make some minor tweaks that will make the game stand alone. Perhaps the early release is going to be used to help make it the direction where most fans provide constructive feedback. With that said, I have rarely seen an alpha game implement major changes from what is in play by the time they release the alpha.


Yeah really hope so but actually doubt it.
Posted By: Delicieuxz Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 09:56 PM
Originally Posted by Ugmaro
Originally Posted by Delicieuxz
Originally Posted by Ugmaro
Quote
So, Larian is really just using the "Baldur's Gate" name as a husk to fill with a D&D D:OS2 clone, exclusively for the purpose of sales (that's what the "it's a big risk" remark refers to). It's a cash-grab.


Your leap of logic astounds me... because they know they're good at TB and will do that and not RTwP they're cash-grabbing and somehow betraying Baldur's Gate brand? What?!


Not sure you understand what a leap of logic is... because you didn't quote one.

Yes, sacrificing integrity and honesty for the purpose of making money is a cash-grab. Yes, making a game that has not even a 1% association in any of its components or designs to the series it is labelled under, but labelling it as a part of that series exclusively for the purpose of exploiting the series' fans and making money from the marketing hype of that series name is literally betraying the series and is literally a cash-grab.

Is there any other very basic understanding that you wish to have confirmed?


Yes please, explain to me how RTwP is such a big part of the story and lore

You're following-up one completely-failed non-argument with another.

Would you also like me to explain to you how RTwP is a big part of the artwork, or how the game options menu is a big part of the narrative, or how which shoes Swen is wearing today is a big part of the fact that Larian's upcoming D&D RPG isn't in any way a Baldur's Gate series game?


Quote
that it is the sole quality by which you claim something is or is not a BG game. They have experience with TB combat and would like to do that instead, to make sure fans are not disappointed by a half-assed combat system - I think that's a good thing

You say that because you don't care about the Baldur's Gate series and you just want more D:OS2. So, you're being selfish and not considerate of what Baldur's Gate is and what those who love the series expect from a game with that title. Whether or not Larian have experience with TB doesn't explain why they would call a non Baldur's Gate series game "Baldur's Gate 3". They could make their D&D D:OS2 clone under any name they wish.

And further, I didn't say that RTwP is the defining trait of Baldur's Gate - I specifically stated that Larian's D&D RPG has literally no association with the Baldur's Gate series in any of its components - not its story, not its gameplay, not its narrative, not its characters, not its style and tone, and not is visual look. It is not even a sequel to anything in the Baldur's Gate series but is a sequel to Descent Into Avernus. There is not even a slight semblance of the Baldur's Gate series in Larian's demoed game.

So, why in the world are you pigeonholing a false argument of 'making a TB games doesn't make a studio a sell-out and the game a cash-grab'? What makes a studio a sell-out is taking on a project but abandoning creative integrity and just rehashing their previous work because they're afraid to take a risk and they want more money - if they weren't willing to do the project justice they shouldn't have asked to do it. And what makes a move a cash-grab is doing it exclusively for money while being entirely disregarding of what responsibilities come with the action.

To be clear, Larian has sold-out and is doing a cash-grab move by calling their non Baldur's Gate game part of the Baldur's Gate series. And Larian's selling-out and betrayal of the Baldur's Gate series and its fans is in no way limited to the type of combat system the game has, but extends to every other presented aspect of Larian's D&D D:OS2-clone RPG.

Quote
Oh, of course, how could I forget, RTwP is the only way this can be a BG game. Yes please, do give more "very basic understanding" that is obviously missed by a whole truckload of people. I'm looking forward to hearing this.

No, it's missed primarily by just you. You have constructed an absurd strawman argument that obviously was made either having not read what I wrote, or out of a raging fanboyism that utterly blocked everything I wrote out from your mind so that you could only react to a figment of your imagination.

My entire post has gone over your head. And this shows that there is no objectivity and integrity behind Larian's sell-out and cash-grab move and that it is only defended by fanboys of D:OS2 who don't even care about Baldur's Gate and don't even know what the series is. Larian also clearly don't care about Baldur's Gate beyond the ability for its name to boost sales of their non Baldur's Gate D&D D:OS2 clone.
Posted By: Ugmaro Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 10:09 PM
Originally Posted by Delicieuxz
Originally Posted by Ugmaro
Originally Posted by Delicieuxz
Originally Posted by Ugmaro
Quote
So, Larian is really just using the "Baldur's Gate" name as a husk to fill with a D&D D:OS2 clone, exclusively for the purpose of sales (that's what the "it's a big risk" remark refers to). It's a cash-grab.


Your leap of logic astounds me... because they know they're good at TB and will do that and not RTwP they're cash-grabbing and somehow betraying Baldur's Gate brand? What?!


Not sure you understand what a leap of logic is... because you didn't quote one.

Yes, sacrificing integrity and honesty for the purpose of making money is a cash-grab. Yes, making a game that has not even a 1% association in any of its components or designs to the series it is labelled under, but labelling it as a part of that series exclusively for the purpose of exploiting the series' fans and making money from the marketing hype of that series name is literally betraying the series and is literally a cash-grab.

Is there any other very basic understanding that you wish to have confirmed?


Yes please, explain to me how RTwP is such a big part of the story and lore

You're following-up one completely-failed non-argument with another.

Would you also like me to explain to you how RTwP is a big part of the artwork, or how the game options menu is a big part of the narrative, or how which shoes Swen is wearing today is a big part of the fact that Larian's upcoming D&D RPG isn't in any way a Baldur's Gate series game?


Quote
that it is the sole quality by which you claim something is or is not a BG game. They have experience with TB combat and would like to do that instead, to make sure fans are not disappointed by a half-assed combat system - I think that's a good thing

You say that because you don't care about the Baldur's Gate series and you just want more D:OS2. So, you're being selfish and not considerate of what Baldur's Gate is and what those who love the series expect from a game with that title. Whether or not Larian have experience with TB doesn't explain why they would call a non Baldur's Gate series game "Baldur's Gate 3". They could make their D&D RPG under any name they wish.

And further, I didn't say that RTwP is the defining trait of Baldur's Gate - I specifically stated that Larian's D&D RPG has literally no association with the Baldur's Gate series in any of its components - not its story, not its gameplay, not its narrative, not its characters, not its style and tone, and not is visual look. It is not even a sequel to anything in the Baldur's Gate series but is a sequel to Descent Into Avernus.

So, why in the world are you pigeonholing a false argument of 'making a TB games doesn't make a studio a sell-out and the game a cash-grab'? What makes a studio a sell-out is calling their game something that it isn't for the sake of exploiting fans of the series name while only cloning past works out of fear of trying to do anything different. And what makes a move a cash-grab is doing it exclusively for money while being entirely disregarding of what responsibilities come with the action.

To be clear, Larian has sold-out and is doing a cash-grab move by calling their non Baldur's Gate game part of the Baldur's Gate series. And Larian's selling-out and betrayal of the Baldur's Gate series and its fans is in no way limited to the type of combat system the game has, but extends to every other presented aspect of Larian's D&D RPG.

Quote
Oh, of course, how could I forget, RTwP is the only way this can be a BG game. Yes please, do give more "very basic understanding" that is obviously missed by a whole truckload of people. I'm looking forward to hearing this.

No, it's missed primarily by just you. You have constructed an absurd strawman argument that obviously was made either having not read what I wrote, or out of a raging fanboyism that utterly blocked everything I wrote out from your mind so that you could only react to a figment of your imagination.

My entire post has gone over your head. And this shows that there is no objectivity and integrity behind Larian's sell-out and cash-grab move and that it is only defended by fanboys of D:OS2 who don't even care about Baldur's Gate and don't even know what the series is. Larian also clearly don't care about Baldur's Gate beyond the ability for its name to boost sales of their non Baldur's Gate D&D D:OS2 clone.


Interesting. Apart from ignoring the fact that I did in fact play both BG 1&2, you've went on to claim I'm a fanboy that wants nothing more than a D:OS 2 copy. Ignoring these interesting "facts", please tell me how you know the story has nothing to do with the narrative and/or characters in those 2 games. Oh you don't? OK.

Style and tone wise, BG 1 and 2 were very diverse games (not in between each other but in between each area you were in), meaning you made that entire claim based on approximately 1 hours worth of gameplay in the prologue where your main objective is to get the tadpole out of your head before you die (yes, very light-hearted that).

The ONLY 2 things that are true from your entire rant you've just thrown at me is that the gameplay is different (TB vs RTwP) and it's visual look (thank god for that, I for one don't like counting pixels). If you didn't believe so much in the RTwP style you wouldn't have gone through the trouble of providing irrelevant sales statistics of RTwP vs TB games (in which you're basically showing RTwP is better for sales, which undermines your point of them being cash-grabbers even more)

But please, feel free to cut up my entire super long three-paragraph post some more and counter any points you think you should by personally attacking me and/or anyone else that disagrees with your logic, I'm sure that'll do wonders to vindicate your point of view.
Posted By: Delicieuxz Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 10:24 PM
Originally Posted by Ugmaro
Interesting. Apart from ignoring the fact that I did in fact play both BG 1&2, you've went on to claim I'm a fanboy that wants nothing more than a D:OS 2 copy. Ignoring these interesting "facts", please tell me how you know the story has nothing to do with the narrative and/or characters in those 2 games. Oh you don't? OK.

Style and tone wise, BG 1 and 2 were very diverse games (not in between each other but in between each area you were in), meaning you made that entire claim based on approximately 1 hours worth of gameplay in the prologue where your main objective is to get the tadpole out of your head before you die (yes, very light-hearted that).

The ONLY 2 things that are true from your entire rant you've just thrown at me is that the gameplay is different (TB vs RTwP) and it's visual look (thank god for that, I for one don't like counting pixels). If you didn't believe so much in the RTwP style you wouldn't have gone through the trouble of providing irrelevant sales statistics of RTwP vs TB games (in which you're basically showing RTwP is better for sales, which undermines your point of them being cash-grabbers even more)

But please, feel free to cut up my entire super long three-paragraph post some more and counter any points you think you should by personally attacking me and/or anyone else that disagrees with your logic, I'm sure that'll do wonders to vindicate your point of view.


You stuck your foot in your mouth by coming at me with a strawman argument. Now you're trying to obfuscate your mistake by ranting about other things - things which are just as absurd as your previous arguments.

Quote
Ignoring these interesting "facts", please tell me how you know the story has nothing to do with the narrative and/or characters in those 2 games. Oh you don't? OK.

Wrong. We know that Larian's game's story has nothing to do with the story and characters of BG1 and BG2 because Larian have stated so. And because what's known of the story for Larian's "BG3" game is completely unrelated to the Baldur's Gate series. Because WotC marketed Descent Into Avernus (which has nothing to do with the Baldur's Gate series) as the prequel to Larian's "BG3". You speak out of sheer ignorance at every turn.


Instead of heaping on layer upon layer of efforts to hide your multiplying mistakes and fanboy hubris, you should do what you obviously didn't do from the beginning and actually read the post that I made and which you responded to with nothing that is relevant to it:

Quote

Originally Posted by Ignatius
I'm sorry, but this doesn't make a great deal of sense. Power says what 'Truth' is, and the power here is WOTC, who own the IP 'Baldur's Gate'.


Larian have stated that they have control to choose what their D&D RPG game is, and that they chose the TB combat system because they were afraid of taking risks after the success of D:OS2 (hence why they've basically just copy-and-pasted D:OS2 into D&D and made minor changes, while greatly over-exaggerating the significance of the minor changes and additions):

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2020-02-27-baldurs-gate-3-interview
Quote
The choices that we made are ours. Why did we go for turn-based instead of real-time with pause? Because D&D to us is a turn-based game and we're really good - or we have become really good - with turn-based combat. So that, I think, is one of our strengths, and trying out real-time with pause for now, just because the originals were that? It's a big risk. Because the team would have to think completely differently, our combat would be completely different. And we didn't really feel good about that. Normally we do try out a lot. Normally we try out a lot before we make a decision, but with real-time with pause and turn-based we didn't, we just said "Okay it's just gonna be turn-based."


So, Larian is really just using the "Baldur's Gate" name as a husk to fill with a D&D D:OS2 clone, exclusively for the purpose of sales (that's what the "it's a big risk" remark refers to). It's a cash-grab.

BTW, TB games have on average been performing worse than RTwP games. And Larian's D:OS2 didn't come close to the amount of sales RTwP legend Dragon Age: Origins did. So, really, there is only a single big hit TB game while RTwP games are on average performing better.

Wasteland Remastered and Torment: Numenera tanked in sales and are unpopular. More people own Pillars of Eternity on Steam than own Wasteland 2 on Steam. When PoE 2 had TB added to it, its sales didn't improve at all and its Steam user rating didn't increase by even a single percentage-point. Pathfinder: Kingmaker is currently more popular than any TB game outside of Divinity: Original Sin 2. And Dragon Age: Origins (3.2 million copies sold in 3 months) greatly outsold Divinity: Original Sin 2 (1 million copies sold in 2.5 months).

So, TB games are not particularly popular and they have a higher failure-rate than RTwP games. It is only D:OS2 which has been a big hit in the TB genre.

Larian have become superstitious slaves in the wake of the success of D:OS2 and traded their integrity for the comfort and sales of an echo chamber of D:OS2 fans. So, there is literally no justification to using the "Baldur's Gate" name, when Larian's upcoming D&D RPG has as much in common with the Baldur's Gate series as


The definition of a Hack:

Quote
1. a person, as an artist or writer, who exploits, for money, his or her creative ability or training in the production of dull, unimaginative, and trite work; one who produces banal and mediocre work in the hope of gaining commercial success in the arts:
As a painter, he was little more than a hack.

2. a professional who renounces or surrenders individual independence, integrity, belief, etc., in return for money or other reward in the performance of a task normally thought of as involving a strong personal commitment:


Larian's "Baldur's Gate 3" has not even the faintest tiniest shred of relation to the Baldur's Gate series in character, experience, or gameplay and yet they're exploiting the name with a D:OS2 clone set in D&D for the purpose of the money doing so can make them. Larian have sold-out and literally become a hack developer for the sake of monetary gain.

Posted By: ZeshinX Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 10:24 PM
For me, it's enough for them to remove the '3' from the title and add a subtitle.

If the only connection(s) this game will have to BG1/2 are whatever lingering effects of the time of Bhaalspawn saga (100 years prior to this), or a few non-human NPCs, a name drop or two or what have you....then the game doesn't need (or deserve) the '3'. It only really needs it if it is in some fashion carrying on the narrative of the Bhaalspawn saga (which, far as I understand, it is not). Thematic similarities do not justify it being claimed as a sequel.

The Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance games existed and the world didn't fall down. This is certainly more akin to BG1/2 than those games were, but it's still not part of that story. Using the name works for me, but that '3' is the stone around its neck for many.

Will it stop me from buying it upon final release? No. It's still a D&D 5e based single-player game. Something I'd like to play (since Sword Coast Legends spectacularly failed to deliver that and I've been waiting since Neverwinter Nights 2 for another D&D rules based single player game).

To me, this is not Baldur's Gate 3. This is Baldur's Gate: Something Else.
Posted By: Adgaroth Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 10:25 PM
Not going to quote,text is way to big.

''tell me how you know the story has nothing to do with the narrative and/or characters in those 2 games.'' Game director Swen Vincke has said it multiple times.
''your main objective is to get the tadpole out of your head before you die (yes, very light-hearted that).'' Fort Joy was suposed to be a crude place but it felt like a shiny and colorfull summer camp (only the dungeons felt more obscure but still too colorfull and cartoony for a bg series setting)
You can tell a story of murder and anihilation but the art style has to reflect it to really show it,no matter the engine or the graphics.
Posted By: Ugmaro Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 10:28 PM
Originally Posted by Delicieuxz

Quote
Ignoring these interesting "facts", please tell me how you know the story has nothing to do with the narrative and/or characters in those 2 games. Oh you don't? OK.

Wrong. We know that Larian's game's story has nothing to do with the story and characters of BG1 and BG2 because Larian have stated so.


Just like you decided to ignore everything out of your favor so shall I. Can I get a source on that please?
Posted By: Delicieuxz Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 10:31 PM
Originally Posted by Adgaroth
Not going to quote,text is way to big.

Nor is there anything of issue with it.

Quote
''tell me how you know the story has nothing to do with the narrative and/or characters in those 2 games.'' Game director Swen Vincke has said it multiple times.

Literally 0 search engine results for that phrase or anything resembling it.

Quote
''your main objective is to get the tadpole out of your head before you die (yes, very light-hearted that).'' Fort Joy was suposed to be a crude place but it felt like a shiny and colorfull summer camp (only the dungeons felt more obscure but still too colorfull and cartoony for a bg series setting)
You can tell a story of murder and anihilation but the art style has to reflect it to really show it,no matter the engine or the graphics.

And yet, Larian's D&D DOS2 clone has all the visual style including light-hearted histrionical animations of DOS2. So...
Posted By: Delicieuxz Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 10:33 PM
Originally Posted by Ugmaro
Originally Posted by Delicieuxz

Quote
Ignoring these interesting "facts", please tell me how you know the story has nothing to do with the narrative and/or characters in those 2 games. Oh you don't? OK.

Wrong. We know that Larian's game's story has nothing to do with the story and characters of BG1 and BG2 because Larian have stated so.


Just like you decided to ignore everything out of your favor so shall I. Can I get a source on that please?

Don't lie to me and to everybody else here. I have answered and refuted everything you claimed. And you have only heaped absurdity upon absurdity. If I come across that comment being made by Larian again, I will post it. But Larian have confirmed that their D&D DOS2 clone doesn't involve BG1 and 2's story or characters.
Posted By: Ugmaro Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 10:34 PM
Originally Posted by Adgaroth
Not going to quote,text is way to big.

''tell me how you know the story has nothing to do with the narrative and/or characters in those 2 games.'' Game director Swen Vincke has said it multiple times.
''your main objective is to get the tadpole out of your head before you die (yes, very light-hearted that).'' Fort Joy was suposed to be a crude place but it felt like a shiny and colorfull summer camp (only the dungeons felt more obscure but still too colorfull and cartoony for a bg series setting)
You can tell a story of murder and anihilation but the art style has to reflect it to really show it,no matter the engine or the graphics.


It's supposed to be a crude place, yes. I missed some "clutter" and murder in the fort joy camp (there was only 1 straight up murder for no reason, count me disappointed) but apart from the dungeons and the internment camp itself it's not really supposed to be crude and dark. If you don't like the art-style that's one thing, but claiming the game has the incorrect tone based on a sunny beach is like claiming there are no sunny beaches in the world. Besides, if you've ever actually seen a horrible scene IRL, you can appreciate how odd it is to see a pristine forest or a sunny beach after that. The mental shock that disconnect brings is... something special.
Posted By: kyrthorsen Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 01/03/20 10:41 PM
Originally Posted by Ratherz
Originally Posted by dmsephiroth
This will never be a baldurs gate 3 larian...just look what you've made and how angry a lot of the old baldurs gate players are.

Just a bunch of entitled manchildren throwing a fit when things aren't going exactly how they would in their own personal perfect world.


Sorry dude but you are just being mean and insulting people.

It is an objective fact that Larian has been marketing DOS3 under the name of BG3.

People have the right to complain, not everybody is a fanboy, some of us have critical minds.
Posted By: Ugmaro Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 10:41 PM
Originally Posted by Delicieuxz
Originally Posted by Ugmaro
Originally Posted by Delicieuxz

Quote
Ignoring these interesting "facts", please tell me how you know the story has nothing to do with the narrative and/or characters in those 2 games. Oh you don't? OK.

Wrong. We know that Larian's game's story has nothing to do with the story and characters of BG1 and BG2 because Larian have stated so.


Just like you decided to ignore everything out of your favor so shall I. Can I get a source on that please?

Don't lie to me and to everybody else here. I have answered and refuted everything you claimed. And you have only heaped absurdity upon absurdity. If I come across that comment being made by Larian again, I will post it. But Larian have confirmed that their D&D DOS2 clone doesn't involve BG1 and 2's story or characters.


I see, now I'm a liar as well and you're incapable of providing a shred of proof to the last argument you're clinging to. Claiming something is absurd does not make it absurd.
You, sir, have the vocabulary that allows you to make any point you wish in a sentence so short you'd make pretty much anyone impressed - instead you're using it to obfuscate any meaningful points with long words and even longer sentences.
I think I'm done with this debate with you since your modus operandi is personal attacks without actually backing up a single statement.
Posted By: Delicieuxz Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 10:47 PM
Originally Posted by Ugmaro

I see, now I'm a liar as well and you're incapable of providing a shred of proof to the last argument you're clinging to. Claiming something is absurd does not make it absurd.
You, sir, have the vocabulary that allows you to make any point you wish in a sentence so short you'd make pretty much anyone impressed - instead you're using it to obfuscate any meaningful points with long words and even longer sentences.
I think I'm done with this debate with you since your modus operandi is personal attacks without actually backing up a single statement.

You are a liar because you lie. That's how words work - for someone who uses them truthfully, anyway, which you don't.

Larian have said that their D&D DOS2 clone doesn't carry on the story of BG2 and doesn't include its characters. And I have pointed out that Larian's D&D DOS2 clone is a sequel to Descent Into Avernus which doesn't relate to the story of BG1 and BG2 and takes place hundreds of years after BG2. And I have said that if I come across Larian mentioning it again, I will post it here.

Your every attempt to cover your ongoing mistakes is to further peddle absurdity, strawman arguments, and disinformation. From the beginning you stuck your foot into your mouth and proceeded to do the same thing over and over, being refuted at every turn. You were done here before you started.

And you still show no signs of having actually read my post that you tripped and fell over:

Originally Posted by Delicieuxz
Originally Posted by Ignatius
I'm sorry, but this doesn't make a great deal of sense. Power says what 'Truth' is, and the power here is WOTC, who own the IP 'Baldur's Gate'.


Larian have stated that they have control to choose what their D&D RPG game is, and that they chose the TB combat system because they were afraid of taking risks after the success of D:OS2 (hence why they've basically just copy-and-pasted D:OS2 into D&D and made minor changes, while greatly over-exaggerating the significance of the minor changes and additions):

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2020-02-27-baldurs-gate-3-interview
Quote
The choices that we made are ours. Why did we go for turn-based instead of real-time with pause? Because D&D to us is a turn-based game and we're really good - or we have become really good - with turn-based combat. So that, I think, is one of our strengths, and trying out real-time with pause for now, just because the originals were that? It's a big risk. Because the team would have to think completely differently, our combat would be completely different. And we didn't really feel good about that. Normally we do try out a lot. Normally we try out a lot before we make a decision, but with real-time with pause and turn-based we didn't, we just said "Okay it's just gonna be turn-based."


So, Larian is really just using the "Baldur's Gate" name as a husk to fill with a D&D D:OS2 clone, exclusively for the purpose of sales (that's what the "it's a big risk" remark refers to). It's a cash-grab.

BTW, TB games have on average been performing worse than RTwP games. And Larian's D:OS2 didn't come close to the amount of sales RTwP legend Dragon Age: Origins did. So, really, there is only a single big hit TB game while RTwP games are on average performing better.

Wasteland Remastered and Torment: Numenera tanked in sales and are unpopular. More people own Pillars of Eternity on Steam than own Wasteland 2 on Steam. When PoE 2 had TB added to it, its sales didn't improve at all and its Steam user rating didn't increase by even a single percentage-point. Pathfinder: Kingmaker is currently more popular than any TB game outside of Divinity: Original Sin 2. And Dragon Age: Origins (3.2 million copies sold in 3 months) greatly outsold Divinity: Original Sin 2 (1 million copies sold in 2.5 months).

So, TB games are not particularly popular and they have a higher failure-rate than RTwP games. It is only D:OS2 which has been a big hit in the TB genre.

Larian have become superstitious slaves in the wake of the success of D:OS2 and traded their integrity for the comfort and sales of an echo chamber of D:OS2 fans. So, there is literally no justification to using the "Baldur's Gate" name, when Larian's upcoming D&D RPG has as much in common with the Baldur's Gate series as


The definition of a Hack:

Quote
1. a person, as an artist or writer, who exploits, for money, his or her creative ability or training in the production of dull, unimaginative, and trite work; one who produces banal and mediocre work in the hope of gaining commercial success in the arts:
As a painter, he was little more than a hack.

2. a professional who renounces or surrenders individual independence, integrity, belief, etc., in return for money or other reward in the performance of a task normally thought of as involving a strong personal commitment:


Larian's "Baldur's Gate 3" has not even the faintest tiniest shred of relation to the Baldur's Gate series in character, experience, or gameplay and yet they're exploiting the name with a D:OS2 clone set in D&D for the purpose of the money doing so can make them. Larian have sold-out and literally become a hack developer for the sake of monetary gain.




Posted By: Adgaroth Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 10:54 PM
Originally Posted by Ugmaro
Originally Posted by Delicieuxz

Quote
Ignoring these interesting "facts", please tell me how you know the story has nothing to do with the narrative and/or characters in those 2 games. Oh you don't? OK.

Wrong. We know that Larian's game's story has nothing to do with the story and characters of BG1 and BG2 because Larian have stated so.


Just like you decided to ignore everything out of your favor so shall I. Can I get a source on that please?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjnv1nxA-rA
1:30 (Not the one I'm looking for but for now that's it)
Posted By: Ugmaro Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 11:07 PM
"You are a liar because you lie. That's how words work - for someone who uses them truthfully, anyway, which you don't." - strawman argument

"Larian have said that their D&D DOS2 clone doesn't carry on the story of BG2 and doesn't include its characters." - no source

"And I have pointed out that Larian's D&D DOS2 clone is a sequel to Descent Into Avernus which doesn't relate to the story of BG1 and BG2 and takes place hundreds of years after BG2. And I have said that if I come across Larian mentioning it again, I will post it here." - true and does not relate at all to any of my points

"Your every attempt to cover your ongoing mistakes is to further peddle absurdity, strawman arguments, and disinformation. From the beginning you stuck your foot into your mouth and proceeded to do the same thing over and over, being refuted at every turn. You were done here before you started." - strawman argument right there if I ever saw one

"And you still show no signs of having actually read my post that you tripped and fell over:" fell over what, the lack of conciseness or your ever growing failure to actually make a point? Also, I read it, so you know... STRAWMAN ARGUEMENT

"Larian have stated that they have control to choose what their D&D RPG game is, and that they chose the TB combat system because they were afraid of taking risks after the success of D:OS2" - pretty much true, followed by "(hence why they've basically just copy-and-pasted D:OS2 into D&D...)" - either a very malicious "interpretation" or a straight up lie. The following is by definition a strawman arguement

"So, Larian is really just using the "Baldur's Gate" name as a husk to fill with a D&D D:OS2 clone, exclusively for the purpose of sales (that's what the "it's a big risk" remark refers to). It's a cash-grab." - Another strawman where you claim what they're claiming. The "big-risk" is in making a type of game they're not good at making. It is not a cash grab, it is making sure they make as good a game as they can for the fans (both fans of BG games as well as their own fans).

"BTW, TB games have on average been performing worse than RTwP games. And Larian's D:OS2 didn't come close to the amount of sales RTwP legend Dragon Age: Origins did. So, really, there is only a single big hit TB game while RTwP games are on average performing better." - And so you're burying your own point by saying RTwP games sell better... good job?

"Wasteland Remastered and Torment: Numenera tanked in sales and are unpopular. More people own Pillars of Eternity on Steam than own Wasteland 2 on Steam. When PoE 2 had TB added to it, its sales didn't improve at all and its Steam user rating didn't increase by even a single percentage-point. Pathfinder: Kingmaker is currently more popular than any TB game outside of Divinity: Original Sin 2. And Dragon Age: Origins (3.2 million copies sold in 3 months) greatly outsold Divinity: Original Sin 2 (1 million copies sold in 2.5 months)." - More about RTwP games selling better - good job?

"Larian have become superstitious slaves in the wake of the success of D:OS2 and traded their integrity for the comfort and sales of an echo chamber of D:OS2 fans. So, there is literally no justification to using the "Baldur's Gate" name, when Larian's upcoming D&D RPG has as much in common with the Baldur's Gate series as ..." - Some more strawman...

*Insert quote to look smart to myself*

"Larian's "Baldur's Gate 3" has not even the faintest tiniest shred of relation to the Baldur's Gate series in character, experience, or gameplay and yet they're exploiting the name with a D:OS2 clone set in D&D for the purpose of the money doing so can make them. Larian have sold-out and literally become a hack developer for the sake of monetary gain." - It's true because I say so. STRAW FUCKING MAN ARGUMENT AGAIN

And on a final, personal note:

Fuck you

Posted By: kanisatha Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 01/03/20 11:15 PM
The problem the Larian/D:OS fans are having is that they have drunk the gaming media Kool-Aid that D:OS2 was the greatest RPG ever and EVERYONE loved that game. Therefore, a game that looks and feels and plays like D:OS2 should equally be loved by EVERYONE and it makes sense for Larian to make this game just like D:OS2. Well, here's how things are for me:
I am a diehard fan of D&D, including very much liking 5e
I am a diehard fan of the Forgotten Realms setting
I am a diehard fan of tabletop roleplay gaming
I am a diehard fan of the original BG games and all the IE games
I am a diehard fan of the RPG genre in videogames and almost exclusively play only RPGs
BUT
I hate the D:OS games

Yeah. I know. Shocking, right? Not everybody who is a D&D/RPG fan is a D:OS fan. As much as there are quite a number of D:OS fans, there are also a lot of us gamers who love RPGs but hate D:OS. So when we criticize this game for looking and feeling and playing like D:OS, it is not a nostalgia trip for an old game. It is simply saying "I didn't like the D:OS games, and so I don't want this game that supposedly has nothing to do with the D:OS games to be anything like the D:OS games." Why is this in any way controversial?

NOT making the game anything like the D:OS games won't alienate the D:OS fanbase because this game is supposed to be NOT D:OS.
Making the game like the D:OS games WILL alienate the fanbase that did not like the D:OS games.

One last point. If it is just the case that every person who bought D:OS2 also buys this game, then as a AAA production this game will be a failure. Yes, there will be some people who are not D:OS2 fans who will buy the game because it is D&D, while there will also be some D:OS2 fans who will not buy the game because it is D&D and not D:OS. But ultimately, Larian needs to be able to appeal to those RPG fans who for one reason or another did NOT buy D:OS2 if they are to expand on D:OS2 sales. That's people like me. So why go out of your way to stick a finger in my eye?
Posted By: Ugmaro Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 11:16 PM
Originally Posted by Adgaroth
Originally Posted by Ugmaro
Originally Posted by Delicieuxz

Quote
Ignoring these interesting "facts", please tell me how you know the story has nothing to do with the narrative and/or characters in those 2 games. Oh you don't? OK.

Wrong. We know that Larian's game's story has nothing to do with the story and characters of BG1 and BG2 because Larian have stated so.


Just like you decided to ignore everything out of your favor so shall I. Can I get a source on that please?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjnv1nxA-rA
1:30 (Not the one I'm looking for but for now that's it)


Thanks for that - I understand it's not the link you were looking for, so I don't mind waiting for a better one (though I really expected the loud, rude one to put it up).
While I never claimed the game wasn't set 100 years after BG 2 there are strong hints about something to do with the Dead Three, where Bhaal in particular has a strong link with the story of the original BG games - which gives me hope they might tie the game into that story line quite a bit (that story is over but it's aftermath should be felt). I don't know if they will or not (nor do I want to find out through a spoiler) but I'm not going to say it's not just anger myself. That's why I asked for the source in the first place.
Posted By: Adgaroth Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 11:16 PM
Originally Posted by Adgaroth
Originally Posted by Ugmaro
Originally Posted by Delicieuxz

Quote
Ignoring these interesting "facts", please tell me how you know the story has nothing to do with the narrative and/or characters in those 2 games. Oh you don't? OK.

Wrong. We know that Larian's game's story has nothing to do with the story and characters of BG1 and BG2 because Larian have stated so.


Just like you decided to ignore everything out of your favor so shall I. Can I get a source on that please?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjnv1nxA-rA
1:30 (Not the one I'm looking for but for now that's it)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ju12JNh8gJs&list=PLoqfr492gtDx61FSXHnIElcC3Y_UmTc-o&index=7
2:15-3:20 (more or less,also not the one I'm looking for) Also around 6:40 he answer to other question saying BG1 and 2 are closed chapters.

"Larian have said that their D&D DOS2 clone doesn't carry on the story of BG2 and doesn't include its characters." - no source @Ugmaro
Posted By: Ugmaro Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 11:21 PM
Wait, did anyone actually hope for the actual story of the Bhaalspawn to continue after the way BG2 ended?
Posted By: Delicieuxz Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 11:28 PM
Originally Posted by Ugmaro
"You are a liar because you lie. That's how words work - for someone who uses them truthfully, anyway, which you don't." - strawman argument

That's not a strawman. So, have you been screwing up your every response because you aren't reading what you're responding to, or because you don't understand what you're reading? Either way, you have lied multiple times, and had hissy fits when it was pointed out.

Just to cover a lot of the following copy-and-pasting in one go: Ugmaro doesn't understand what a strawman argument is and made about a dozen individual claims of strawman arguments from my post, but in not a single one of their accusations was there actually any strawman argument from me. Ugmaro was probably worked into a fit over me saying this, and just wanted to throw the charge of using a strawman argument back at me, despite not understanding what it means:

Originally Posted by Delicieuxz
You stuck your foot in your mouth by coming at me with a strawman argument. Now you're trying to obfuscate your mistake by ranting about other things - things which are just as absurd as your previous arguments.




On to addressing each individual nonsensical accusation Ugmaro made:

Quote

"Larian have said that their D&D DOS2 clone doesn't carry on the story of BG2 and doesn't include its characters." - no source

"And I have pointed out that Larian's D&D DOS2 clone is a sequel to Descent Into Avernus which doesn't relate to the story of BG1 and BG2 and takes place hundreds of years after BG2. And I have said that if I come across Larian mentioning it again, I will post it here." - true and does not relate at all to any of my points

Actually, that information is the appropriate response to an extremely ignorant and arrogant comment of:

"please tell me how you know the story has nothing to do with the narrative and/or characters in those 2 games. Oh you don't? OK."

Quote
"Your every attempt to cover your ongoing mistakes is to further peddle absurdity, strawman arguments, and disinformation. From the beginning you stuck your foot into your mouth and proceeded to do the same thing over and over, being refuted at every turn. You were done here before you started." - strawman argument right there if I ever saw one

That's not a strawman. You need to look up what the term means so that you don't keep embarrassing yourself by using it incorrectly.

Quote
"And you still show no signs of having actually read my post that you tripped and fell over:" fell over what, the lack of conciseness or your ever growing failure to actually make a point? Also, I read it, so you know... STRAWMAN ARGUEMENT

Not a strawman. Look the phrase up.

Quote

"Larian have stated that they have control to choose what their D&D RPG game is, and that they chose the TB combat system because they were afraid of taking risks after the success of D:OS2" - pretty much true, followed by "(hence why they've basically just copy-and-pasted D:OS2 into D&D...)" - either a very malicious "interpretation" or a straight up lie. The following is by definition a strawman arguement

Not a strawman or a lie, and also literally what Larian said in an interview 3 days ago.

Quote

"So, Larian is really just using the "Baldur's Gate" name as a husk to fill with a D&D D:OS2 clone, exclusively for the purpose of sales (that's what the "it's a big risk" remark refers to). It's a cash-grab." - Another strawman where you claim what they're claiming. The "big-risk" is in making a type of game they're not good at making. It is not a cash grab, it is making sure they make as good a game as they can for the fans (both fans of BG games as well as their own fans).

Not a strawman. Look the phrase up.

Quote

"BTW, TB games have on average been performing worse than RTwP games. And Larian's D:OS2 didn't come close to the amount of sales RTwP legend Dragon Age: Origins did. So, really, there is only a single big hit TB game while RTwP games are on average performing better." - And so you're burying your own point by saying RTwP games sell better... good job?

I haven't said that RTwP games sell better nor does pointing out the fact that RTwP games have, on average, performed better than TB ones contradict any point I've made. What is your level of English comprehension? It obviously is not very high.

Quote

"Wasteland Remastered and Torment: Numenera tanked in sales and are unpopular. More people own Pillars of Eternity on Steam than own Wasteland 2 on Steam. When PoE 2 had TB added to it, its sales didn't improve at all and its Steam user rating didn't increase by even a single percentage-point. Pathfinder: Kingmaker is currently more popular than any TB game outside of Divinity: Original Sin 2. And Dragon Age: Origins (3.2 million copies sold in 3 months) greatly outsold Divinity: Original Sin 2 (1 million copies sold in 2.5 months)." - More about RTwP games selling better - good job?

And? Your point... doesn't appear to exist.

Quote

"Larian have become superstitious slaves in the wake of the success of D:OS2 and traded their integrity for the comfort and sales of an echo chamber of D:OS2 fans. So, there is literally no justification to using the "Baldur's Gate" name, when Larian's upcoming D&D RPG has as much in common with the Baldur's Gate series as ..." - Some more strawman...

That's not a strawman. Do yourself a favour and learn what a strawman argument is.

Quote

*Insert quote to look smart to myself*

You've failed and done the opposite.

Quote

"Larian's "Baldur's Gate 3" has not even the faintest tiniest shred of relation to the Baldur's Gate series in character, experience, or gameplay and yet they're exploiting the name with a D:OS2 clone set in D&D for the purpose of the money doing so can make them. Larian have sold-out and literally become a hack developer for the sake of monetary gain." - It's true because I say so. STRAW FUCKING MAN ARGUMENT AGAIN

That's literally not a strawman. Do you enjoy humiliating yourself?

Quote

And on a final, personal note:

Fuck you

Yes, I think that everybody who's bothered to read your absurdities is already well aware by this point that you haven't much intellectual resources to draw upon and are an emotional knee-jerk reactionary. Your forceful confirmation of that was not needed.
Posted By: Adgaroth Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 11:31 PM
Originally Posted by Ugmaro
Wait, did anyone actually hope for the actual story of the Bhaalspawn to continue after the way BG2 ended?


Now that I give you the source you wanted you throw another question?
I'm just answering what you wanted. Does this game's story has anything to do with BG1 and 2? Answer: No
Posted By: kyrthorsen Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 01/03/20 11:32 PM
Originally Posted by kanisatha
The problem the Larian/D:OS fans are having is that they have drunk the gaming media Kool-Aid that D:OS2 was the greatest RPG ever and EVERYONE loved that game. Therefore, a game that looks and feels and plays like D:OS2 should equally be loved by EVERYONE and it makes sense for Larian to make this game just like D:OS2. Well, here's how things are for me:
I am a diehard fan of D&D, including very much liking 5e
I am a diehard fan of the Forgotten Realms setting
I am a diehard fan of tabletop roleplay gaming
I am a diehard fan of the original BG games and all the IE games
I am a diehard fan of the RPG genre in videogames and almost exclusively play only RPGs
BUT
I hate the D:OS games

Yeah. I know. Shocking, right? Not everybody who is a D&D/RPG fan is a D:OS fan. As much as there are quite a number of D:OS fans, there are also a lot of us gamers who love RPGs but hate D:OS. So when we criticize this game for looking and feeling and playing like D:OS, it is not a nostalgia trip for an old game. It is simply saying "I didn't like the D:OS games, and so I don't want this game that supposedly has nothing to do with the D:OS games to be anything like the D:OS games." Why is this in any way controversial?

NOT making the game anything like the D:OS games won't alienate the D:OS fanbase because this game is supposed to be NOT D:OS.
Making the game like the D:OS games WILL alienate the fanbase that did not like the D:OS games.

One last point. If it is just the case that every person who bought D:OS2 also buys this game, then as a AAA production this game will be a failure. Yes, there will be some people who are not D:OS2 fans who will buy the game because it is D&D, while there will also be some D:OS2 fans who will not buy the game because it is D&D and not D:OS. But ultimately, Larian needs to be able to appeal to those RPG fans who for one reason or another did NOT buy D:OS2 if they are to expand on D:OS2 sales. That's people like me. So why go out of your way to stick a finger in my eye?


Yes, it really doesnt make sense to market a game like BG3 when they are actually selling DOS3. People that play these kind of games are really specific about what they like, so its sad that Larian blew this big oportunity.
Posted By: Ugmaro Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 11:34 PM
Originally Posted by Delicieuxz
Originally Posted by Ugmaro
"You are a liar because you lie. That's how words work - for someone who uses them truthfully, anyway, which you don't." - strawman argument

That's not a strawman. So, have you been screwing up your every response because you aren't reading what you're responding to, or because you don't understand what you're reading? Either way, you have lied multiple times, and had hissy fits when it was pointed out.

Just to cover a lot of the following copy-and-pasting in one go: Ugmaro doesn't understand what a strawman argument is and made about a dozen individual claims of strawman arguments from my post, but in not a single one of their accusations was there actually any strawman argument from me. Ugmaro was probably worked into a fit over me saying this, and just wanted to throw the charge of using a strawman argument back at me, despite not understanding what it means:

Originally Posted by Delicieuxz
You stuck your foot in your mouth by coming at me with a strawman argument. Now you're trying to obfuscate your mistake by ranting about other things - things which are just as absurd as your previous arguments.






Quote

"Larian have said that their D&D DOS2 clone doesn't carry on the story of BG2 and doesn't include its characters." - no source

"And I have pointed out that Larian's D&D DOS2 clone is a sequel to Descent Into Avernus which doesn't relate to the story of BG1 and BG2 and takes place hundreds of years after BG2. And I have said that if I come across Larian mentioning it again, I will post it here." - true and does not relate at all to any of my points

Actually, that information is the appropriate response to an extremely ignorant and arrogant comment of:

"please tell me how you know the story has nothing to do with the narrative and/or characters in those 2 games. Oh you don't? OK."

Quote
"Your every attempt to cover your ongoing mistakes is to further peddle absurdity, strawman arguments, and disinformation. From the beginning you stuck your foot into your mouth and proceeded to do the same thing over and over, being refuted at every turn. You were done here before you started." - strawman argument right there if I ever saw one

That's not a strawman. You need to look up what the term means so that you don't keep embarrassing yourself by using it incorrectly.

Quote
"And you still show no signs of having actually read my post that you tripped and fell over:" fell over what, the lack of conciseness or your ever growing failure to actually make a point? Also, I read it, so you know... STRAWMAN ARGUEMENT

Not a strawman. Look the phrase up.

Quote

"Larian have stated that they have control to choose what their D&D RPG game is, and that they chose the TB combat system because they were afraid of taking risks after the success of D:OS2" - pretty much true, followed by "(hence why they've basically just copy-and-pasted D:OS2 into D&D...)" - either a very malicious "interpretation" or a straight up lie. The following is by definition a strawman arguement

Not a strawman or a lie, and also literally what Larian said in an interview 3 days ago.

Quote

"So, Larian is really just using the "Baldur's Gate" name as a husk to fill with a D&D D:OS2 clone, exclusively for the purpose of sales (that's what the "it's a big risk" remark refers to). It's a cash-grab." - Another strawman where you claim what they're claiming. The "big-risk" is in making a type of game they're not good at making. It is not a cash grab, it is making sure they make as good a game as they can for the fans (both fans of BG games as well as their own fans).

Not a strawman. Look the phrase up.

Quote

"BTW, TB games have on average been performing worse than RTwP games. And Larian's D:OS2 didn't come close to the amount of sales RTwP legend Dragon Age: Origins did. So, really, there is only a single big hit TB game while RTwP games are on average performing better." - And so you're burying your own point by saying RTwP games sell better... good job?

I haven't said that RTwP games sell better nor does pointing out the fact that RTwP games have, on average, performed better than TB ones contradict any point I've made. What is your level of English comprehension? It obviously is not very high.

Quote

"Wasteland Remastered and Torment: Numenera tanked in sales and are unpopular. More people own Pillars of Eternity on Steam than own Wasteland 2 on Steam. When PoE 2 had TB added to it, its sales didn't improve at all and its Steam user rating didn't increase by even a single percentage-point. Pathfinder: Kingmaker is currently more popular than any TB game outside of Divinity: Original Sin 2. And Dragon Age: Origins (3.2 million copies sold in 3 months) greatly outsold Divinity: Original Sin 2 (1 million copies sold in 2.5 months)." - More about RTwP games selling better - good job?

And? Your point... doesn't appear to exist.

Quote

"Larian have become superstitious slaves in the wake of the success of D:OS2 and traded their integrity for the comfort and sales of an echo chamber of D:OS2 fans. So, there is literally no justification to using the "Baldur's Gate" name, when Larian's upcoming D&D RPG has as much in common with the Baldur's Gate series as ..." - Some more strawman...

That's not a strawman. Do yourself a favour and learn what a strawman argument is.

Quote

*Insert quote to look smart to myself*

You've failed and done the opposite.

Quote

"Larian's "Baldur's Gate 3" has not even the faintest tiniest shred of relation to the Baldur's Gate series in character, experience, or gameplay and yet they're exploiting the name with a D:OS2 clone set in D&D for the purpose of the money doing so can make them. Larian have sold-out and literally become a hack developer for the sake of monetary gain." - It's true because I say so. STRAW FUCKING MAN ARGUMENT AGAIN

That's literally not a strawman. Do you enjoy humiliating yourself?

Quote

And on a final, personal note:

Fuck you

Yes, I think that everybody who's bothered to read your absurdities is already well aware by this point that you haven't much intellectual resources to draw upon and are an emotional knee-jerk reactionary. Your forceful confirmation of that was not needed.


"A straw man (or strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent." which is the only thing you've been doing this entire time. Claiming others have said something they haven't (lying) or "misinterpreted" with malicious intent - a very clear straw man in each and every case.

The ONLY case where you stood a chance of refuting it you've decided to cut my comment short. How fitting.

Talk about "much intellectual resources".
Posted By: Delicieuxz Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 11:34 PM
Originally Posted by Ugmaro
Wait, did anyone actually hope for the actual story of the Bhaalspawn to continue after the way BG2 ended?


You are dishonest and disgraceful to the core. What I and Adgaroth have told you directly refuted your accusation of:

Originally Posted by Ugmaro
Interesting. Apart from ignoring the fact that I did in fact play both BG 1&2, you've went on to claim I'm a fanboy that wants nothing more than a D:OS 2 copy. Ignoring these interesting "facts", please tell me how you know the story has nothing to do with the narrative and/or characters in those 2 games. Oh you don't? OK.


Instead of acknowledging that you stuck your foot in your mouth yet again, for the umpteenth time, you're trying to bluff your way out of it and pretend that the idiocy here wasn't your own.
Posted By: Adgaroth Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 11:36 PM
Also an interesting phrase on taking the name of BG3,enjoy it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGnGOnzlC4s

3:45
Posted By: Delicieuxz Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 11:37 PM
Originally Posted by Ugmaro

"A straw man (or strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent." which is the only thing you've been doing this entire time. Claiming others have said something they haven't (lying) or "misinterpreted" with malicious intent - a very clear straw man in each and every case.

The ONLY case where you stood a chance of refuting it you've decided to cut my comment short. How fitting.

Talk about "much intellectual resources".


So... in other words, none of your accusations of strawman arguments of mine are actually strawman arguments - just like I said. So, you used a phrase you didn't grasp the meaning of and proceeded to repeatedly make absurd non-arguments, due to not having any ground to stand on. And now you're trying to run from that fact by posting the proof that you were wrong all along - which everybody can see, BTW. Will you ever cease acting dishonestly?
Posted By: Ugmaro Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 11:44 PM
Originally Posted by Adgaroth
Originally Posted by Ugmaro
Wait, did anyone actually hope for the actual story of the Bhaalspawn to continue after the way BG2 ended?


Now that I give you the source you wanted you throw another question?
I'm just answering what you wanted. Does this game's story has anything to do with BG1 and 2? Answer: No


Errr... just because it's not a direct continuation of that story does not mean it has nothing to do with that story. I fully expect certain characters from the original BG games to be there (one of the things that were claimed to not be there by mr "much intellectual resources") and I expect the current story to be heavily influenced by events from those games. If you had different expectations then I'm afraid we've had a miscommunication...
Posted By: Blade238 Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 01/03/20 11:55 PM
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen


It is an objective fact that Larian has been marketing DOS3 under the name of BG3.

People have the right to complain, not everybody is a fanboy, some of us have critical minds.

I think you have a very different usage of the statement "objective fact" than the vast majority of people would. They're utilizing another game's engine and some of the assets, however, this hardly qualifies the entry as a "DOS" game rather than a "BG" game.

If this game utilizes the Baldur's Gate lore, setting, races, etc., then it's a Baldur's Gate game. The game could quite literally be an FPP entry, but if it's confined within the BG universe, then it's a BG game and if this game builds upon the story and lore of the prior entries in a meaningful way to be considered a sequel, then it's even something that could reasonably be called "BG3".

The "fact" of the matter is that a lot of people are upset that this game is saving time and resources by using the assets of another game, or that this game plays more to the strengths of the developers making the entry, but that has absolutely no baring on whether or not this game would be considered "Baldur's Gate".

I'll say these things:
1.) It makes sense for the developers to use turn-based as a mode for combat because it's both easier to balance for, fits perfectly with the ruleset and it's something they're experienced with and accustomed to. For some that's a turn off and for others it's an improvement, but that's neither here nor there. This situation is a lesser example of Fallout NV which was developed by the original developers.

2.) The game is very early in production. They hinted towards bugs needing fixing, problems with the UI and adjustments that can be made. Ambience from color schemes, saturation, etc., is very easily adjustable as evidenced by user modding of other major games. These adjustments can likely be made to the game still.

3.) I agree that there are some things that share too much of a similarity due to asset sharing. This is both to the benefit and detriment of the game, but with so little of the game shown and with so much left to do in terms of developing the game, it's a bit too early to start pulling out the torches and pitchforks.
Posted By: Ugmaro Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 11:55 PM
Originally Posted by Delicieuxz
Originally Posted by Ugmaro

"A straw man (or strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent." which is the only thing you've been doing this entire time. Claiming others have said something they haven't (lying) or "misinterpreted" with malicious intent - a very clear straw man in each and every case.

The ONLY case where you stood a chance of refuting it you've decided to cut my comment short. How fitting.

Talk about "much intellectual resources".


So... in other words, none of your accusations of strawman arguments of mine are actually strawman arguments - just like I said. So, you used a phrase you didn't grasp the meaning of and proceeded to repeatedly make absurd non-arguments, due to not having any ground to stand on. And now you're trying to run from that fact by posting the proof that you were wrong all along - which everybody can see, BTW. Will you ever cease acting dishonestly?


Hmm, so basically you're saying that for example, in this very specific case, me not understanding what a strawman is due to not "much intellectual resources" and thus making myself a fool, is being dishonest?

That, by very definition, is the structure of a strawman argument - while I hate taking wikipedia as a quote (as I've done in my previous post since I'm lazy) I feel like I must:

Structure

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

Person 1 asserts proposition X.
Person 2 argues against a superficially similar proposition Y, falsely, as if an argument against Y were an argument against X.

Also, very lovely way of taking the whole *Insert quote to make myself look smart* comment about you completely out of context, thus completely destroying any signs of sarcasm whatsoever (which you've also done with the two cases of sarcasm in my first post).

You've accused me of several things and disregarded all of my arguments as strawman arguments and knee-jerk reactions, while all you've done is decided to interpret everything as whatever you want, claiming what everyone else is actually claiming in every single sentence and presenting THAT as the truth. You're actually right, this isn't a strawman policy in most cases, it's blatant lying and malicious misinterpretation.

Good job, you were right about something! Go you!
Posted By: Adgaroth Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 01/03/20 11:56 PM
Originally Posted by Ugmaro
Originally Posted by Adgaroth
Originally Posted by Ugmaro
Wait, did anyone actually hope for the actual story of the Bhaalspawn to continue after the way BG2 ended?


Now that I give you the source you wanted you throw another question?
I'm just answering what you wanted. Does this game's story has anything to do with BG1 and 2? Answer: No


Errr... just because it's not a direct continuation of that story does not mean it has nothing to do with that story. I fully expect certain characters from the original BG games to be there (one of the things that were claimed to not be there by mr "much intellectual resources") and I expect the current story to be heavily influenced by events from those games. If you had different expectations then I'm afraid we've had a miscommunication...


Well,the fact is that he said the BG1 AND BG2 story is closed,the game happens 100 years after that,and Descent into Avernus is it's precuel. I said nothing but there'll be characters of the previous installments on the new one. I don't see how that adds so much weight to what you're trying to prove.
Posted By: Ugmaro Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 02/03/20 12:01 AM
Originally Posted by Delicieuxz
Originally Posted by Ugmaro
Wait, did anyone actually hope for the actual story of the Bhaalspawn to continue after the way BG2 ended?


You are dishonest and disgraceful to the core. What I and Adgaroth have told you directly refuted your accusation of:

Originally Posted by Ugmaro
Interesting. Apart from ignoring the fact that I did in fact play both BG 1&2, you've went on to claim I'm a fanboy that wants nothing more than a D:OS 2 copy. Ignoring these interesting "facts", please tell me how you know the story has nothing to do with the narrative and/or characters in those 2 games. Oh you don't? OK.


Instead of acknowledging that you stuck your foot in your mouth yet again, for the umpteenth time, you're trying to bluff your way out of it and pretend that the idiocy here wasn't your own.


Again, claiming I'm saying something I'm not. I very clearly said (and thankfully you didn't edit my post by cutting out half the the sentence this time) that they didn't say it has nothing to do with the narrative and/or characters (i.e., the story), and I never said it is a direct continuation of BG2's story.

YET AGAIN you're lying and saying others are lying. Please stop this madness
Posted By: Ugmaro Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 02/03/20 12:05 AM
Originally Posted by Adgaroth

Well,the fact is that he said the BG1 AND BG2 story is closed,the game happens 100 years after that,and Descent into Avernus is it's precuel. I said nothing but there'll be characters of the previous installments on the new one. I don't see how that adds so much weight to what you're trying to prove.


I never said that they said the story would be a direct continuation, I said that "please tell me how you know the story has nothing to do with the narrative and/or characters in those 2 games." - which are two VERY separate things, which Delicieuxz is trying to equate in order to look smarter than he is and create anger.

I suppose he succeeded. smirk
Posted By: Delicieuxz Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 02/03/20 12:07 AM
Originally Posted by Ugmaro
Originally Posted by Delicieuxz
Originally Posted by Ugmaro

"A straw man (or strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent." which is the only thing you've been doing this entire time. Claiming others have said something they haven't (lying) or "misinterpreted" with malicious intent - a very clear straw man in each and every case.

The ONLY case where you stood a chance of refuting it you've decided to cut my comment short. How fitting.

Talk about "much intellectual resources".


So... in other words, none of your accusations of strawman arguments of mine are actually strawman arguments - just like I said. So, you used a phrase you didn't grasp the meaning of and proceeded to repeatedly make absurd non-arguments, due to not having any ground to stand on. And now you're trying to run from that fact by posting the proof that you were wrong all along - which everybody can see, BTW. Will you ever cease acting dishonestly?


Hmm, so basically you're saying that for example, in this very specific case, me not understanding what a strawman is due to not "much intellectual resources" and thus making myself a fool, is being dishonest?

Yes. You clearly do not grasp what a strawman is and what it isn't. Also, if you think you've found fault with "much intellectual resources", then you're demonstrating that you haven't much intellectual resources.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/much
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/much
"Much is now generally used with uncountable nouns. The equivalent used with countable nouns is many."

Generally - not exclusively. My usage of it is an older one, but still a usable one.

Quote

That, by very definition, is the structure of a strawman argument - while I hate taking wikipedia as a quote (as I've done in my previous post since I'm lazy) I feel like I must:

Structure

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

Person 1 asserts proposition X.
Person 2 argues against a superficially similar proposition Y, falsely, as if an argument against Y were an argument against X.

But... I didn't do that. I pointed out that you don't know what a strawman is - I didn't assert it. And I didn't then argue against it, but I pointed out that your recurring misuse of the term without learning from your mistake is making you look foolish.


Quote
Also, very lovely way of taking the whole *Insert quote to make myself look smart* comment about you completely out of context, thus completely destroying any signs of sarcasm whatsoever (which you've also done with the two cases of sarcasm in my first post).

You've accused me of several things and disregarded all of my arguments as strawman arguments and knee-jerk reactions, while all you've done is decided to interpret everything as whatever you want, claiming what everyone else is actually claiming in every single sentence and presenting THAT as the truth. You're actually right, this isn't a strawman policy in most cases, it's blatant lying and malicious misinterpretation.

Good job, you were right about something! Go you!

You have yet to demonstrate that you understand what a strawman argument is. None of your alleged examples of strawman arguments in that long post you made which I went over here are strawman arguments.

When somebody shows that you are wrong, you can't just say they're making a strawman by saying that you said what you said and pointing out that it's wrong. That's foolish.
Posted By: Delicieuxz Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 02/03/20 12:11 AM
Originally Posted by Ugmaro
Originally Posted by Delicieuxz
Originally Posted by Ugmaro
Wait, did anyone actually hope for the actual story of the Bhaalspawn to continue after the way BG2 ended?


You are dishonest and disgraceful to the core. What I and Adgaroth have told you directly refuted your accusation of:

Originally Posted by Ugmaro
Interesting. Apart from ignoring the fact that I did in fact play both BG 1&2, you've went on to claim I'm a fanboy that wants nothing more than a D:OS 2 copy. Ignoring these interesting "facts", please tell me how you know the story has nothing to do with the narrative and/or characters in those 2 games. Oh you don't? OK.


Instead of acknowledging that you stuck your foot in your mouth yet again, for the umpteenth time, you're trying to bluff your way out of it and pretend that the idiocy here wasn't your own.


Again, claiming I'm saying something I'm not. I very clearly said (and thankfully you didn't edit my post by cutting out half the the sentence this time) that they didn't say it has nothing to do with the narrative and/or characters (i.e., the story), and I never said it is a direct continuation of BG2's story.

YET AGAIN you're lying and saying others are lying. Please stop this madness

I never changed the meaning of what you said with any edits.

Why are you pretending that I've lied? I haven't. I also didn't say that others (plural) are lying - only that you have repeatedly lied, which you have.
Posted By: Adgaroth Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 02/03/20 12:16 AM
Originally Posted by Ugmaro
Originally Posted by Adgaroth

Well,the fact is that he said the BG1 AND BG2 story is closed,the game happens 100 years after that,and Descent into Avernus is it's precuel. I said nothing but there'll be characters of the previous installments on the new one. I don't see how that adds so much weight to what you're trying to prove.


I never said that they said the story would be a direct continuation, I said that "please tell me how you know the story has nothing to do with the narrative and/or characters in those 2 games." - which are two VERY separate things, which Delicieuxz is trying to equate in order to look smarter than he is and create anger.

I suppose he succeeded. smirk


"please tell me how you know the story has nothing to do with the narrative and/or characters in those 2 games." That was your question and I already answered,sorry but I don't understand what you want xD. In any case I'm not answering more about this,I don't want to turn this into another warzone so please both of you drop it. We're going nowhere with this. Thank you.
Posted By: Ugmaro Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 02/03/20 12:18 AM
"Yes. You clearly do not grasp what a strawman is and what it isn't. Also, if you think you've found fault with "much intellectual resources", then you're demonstrating that you haven't much intellectual resources.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/much
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/much
"Much is now generally used with uncountable nouns. The equivalent used with countable nouns is many."

Generally - not exclusively. My usage of it is an older one, but still a usable one."

I don't think it's incorrect, I've just decided to use that with you since you seem to think you're smart.

"But... I didn't do that. I pointed out that you don't know what a strawman is - I didn't assert it. And I didn't then argue against it, but I pointed out that your recurring misuse of the term without learning from your mistake is making you look foolish." - You claimed my misuse of it is dishonesty which is clearly not true. It's either a misunderstanding from my part (stupidity), which automatically absolves any potential dishonesty, or actual intentional dishonesty, which would mean I fully understand that I'm bullshitting and am therefore not stupid. Unfortunately, I've made a mistake but still you can't have it both ways - which is precisely why I'm saying that particular one is a strawman argument - you're claiming both is possible, which is untrue. If you claimed that I was infactual however (instead of lying or dishonest), you would be correct. Which I would expect from someone with your grasp of language and grammar and the importance you put on in.

Unfortunately, as I've said, I've made a mistake and took most of your claims as "straw men" while they were in fact malicious misinterpretations or straight up lies.

Posted By: Ugmaro Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 02/03/20 12:28 AM
Originally Posted by Delicieuxz
Originally Posted by Ugmaro
Originally Posted by Delicieuxz
Originally Posted by Ugmaro
Wait, did anyone actually hope for the actual story of the Bhaalspawn to continue after the way BG2 ended?


You are dishonest and disgraceful to the core. What I and Adgaroth have told you directly refuted your accusation of:

Originally Posted by Ugmaro
Interesting. Apart from ignoring the fact that I did in fact play both BG 1&2, you've went on to claim I'm a fanboy that wants nothing more than a D:OS 2 copy. Ignoring these interesting "facts", please tell me how you know the story has nothing to do with the narrative and/or characters in those 2 games. Oh you don't? OK.


Instead of acknowledging that you stuck your foot in your mouth yet again, for the umpteenth time, you're trying to bluff your way out of it and pretend that the idiocy here wasn't your own.


Again, claiming I'm saying something I'm not. I very clearly said (and thankfully you didn't edit my post by cutting out half the the sentence this time) that they didn't say it has nothing to do with the narrative and/or characters (i.e., the story), and I never said it is a direct continuation of BG2's story.

YET AGAIN you're lying and saying others are lying. Please stop this madness

I never changed the meaning of what you said with any edits.

Why are you pretending that I've lied? I haven't. I also didn't say that others (plural) are lying - only that you have repeatedly lied, which you have.


Pretending? You're claiming I "accused" you that "please tell me how you know the story has nothing to do with the narrative and/or characters in those 2 games. Oh you don't? OK." which you apparently "refuted" by saying that BG3 takes place after descent into avernus and is not a direct continuation of that game (and not even you but Adgaroth did that), which refutes it about as much as me saying that that you're not a human being because you like The Beatles or some other, fully random, incoherent things...

"only that you have repeatedly lied, which you have." - yes, another accusation without any proof. Please, stop the lies

Edit: additional lies:

"You haven't read my post"
later:
"You haven't read my post"
later:
"You've been dishonest"


Posted By: Delicieuxz Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 02/03/20 12:36 AM
Originally Posted by Ugmaro
Unfortunately, as I've said, I've made a mistake and took most of your claims as "straw men" while they were in fact malicious misinterpretations or straight up lies.


Well, I was going to leave this alone, as Adgaroth requested, but it seems you can't help yourself from digging your hole deeper because you made multiple additional false accusations.

When you have your mistake pointed out to you, and you deny that it is a mistake and continue to do it over and over again, then what would you call that? I can't know if you're lying or just lacking understanding. But I did say multiple times that you've failed to grasp what a strawman argument is. So, I didn't accuse you of lying over that. I accused you of lying over other things in the previous discussion, going back a few pages.
Posted By: Delicieuxz Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 02/03/20 12:42 AM
Originally Posted by Ugmaro
"only that you have repeatedly lied, which you have." - yes, another accusation without any proof. Please, stop the lies

That was not a lie.

Quote

Edit: additional lies:

"You haven't read my post"
later:
"You haven't read my post"

Those aren't quotes of mine, so you're being dishonest.

Actually, the quotes of what I said are:

Quote
No, it's missed primarily by just you. You have constructed an absurd strawman argument that obviously was made either having not read what I wrote, or out of a raging fanboyism that utterly blocked everything I wrote out from your mind so that you could only react to a figment of your imagination.

Quote
Instead of heaping on layer upon layer of efforts to hide your multiplying mistakes and fanboy hubris, you should do what you obviously didn't do from the beginning and actually read the post that I made and which you responded to with nothing that is relevant to it

Quote
And you still show no signs of having actually read my post that you tripped and fell over

Considering that your initial and subsequent responses to my post were oblivious of what it said and instead attacked a strawman argument that I hadn't said in my post, it's clear that you had not read it. That is a deductive conclusion, and what you've shown me.

Quote
later:
"You've been dishonest"

You've been dishonest constantly in this discussion. See above in this very post for the latest example of you being dishonest.
Posted By: vometia Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 02/03/20 03:18 AM
Guys, quit snarking at each other. It's disruptive and nobody else wants to see it.
Posted By: Ugmaro Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 02/03/20 03:23 AM
So after my initial sarcasm, where I stated RTwP is the only thing that makes a BG game actually part of the series in your mind, you said, and I quote:

"And further, I didn't say that RTwP is the defining trait of Baldur's Gate - I specifically stated that Larian's D&D RPG has literally no association with the Baldur's Gate series in any of its components - not its story, not its gameplay, not its narrative, not its characters, not its style and tone, and not is visual look. It is not even a sequel to anything in the Baldur's Gate series but is a sequel to Descent Into Avernus."

Which is in fact the only thing you said apart from spewing more obscenities about fanboys and such. When I decided to actually take my time and respond to these, as I previously thought it's apparent, you decided to claim this is absurd, just as you've done in your most recent post and haven't actually replied to any of them:

Originally Posted by Delicieuxz
Originally Posted by Ugmaro
Interesting. Apart from ignoring the fact that I did in fact play both BG 1&2, you've went on to claim I'm a fanboy that wants nothing more than a D:OS 2 copy. Ignoring these interesting "facts", please tell me how you know the story has nothing to do with the narrative and/or characters in those 2 games. Oh you don't? OK.

Style and tone wise, BG 1 and 2 were very diverse games (not in between each other but in between each area you were in), meaning you made that entire claim based on approximately 1 hours worth of gameplay in the prologue where your main objective is to get the tadpole out of your head before you die (yes, very light-hearted that).

The ONLY 2 things that are true from your entire rant you've just thrown at me is that the gameplay is different (TB vs RTwP) and it's visual look (thank god for that, I for one don't like counting pixels). If you didn't believe so much in the RTwP style you wouldn't have gone through the trouble of providing irrelevant sales statistics of RTwP vs TB games (in which you're basically showing RTwP is better for sales, which undermines your point of them being cash-grabbers even more)

But please, feel free to cut up my entire super long three-paragraph post some more and counter any points you think you should by personally attacking me and/or anyone else that disagrees with your logic, I'm sure that'll do wonders to vindicate your point of view.


You stuck your foot in your mouth by coming at me with a strawman argument. Now you're trying to obfuscate your mistake by ranting about other things - things which are just as absurd as your previous arguments.

Quote
Ignoring these interesting "facts", please tell me how you know the story has nothing to do with the narrative and/or characters in those 2 games. Oh you don't? OK.

Wrong. We know that Larian's game's story has nothing to do with the story and characters of BG1 and BG2 because Larian have stated so. And because what's known of the story for Larian's "BG3" game is completely unrelated to the Baldur's Gate series. Because WotC marketed Descent Into Avernus (which has nothing to do with the Baldur's Gate series) as the prequel to Larian's "BG3". You speak out of sheer ignorance at every turn.


Instead of heaping on layer upon layer of efforts to hide your multiplying mistakes and fanboy hubris, you should do what you obviously didn't do from the beginning and actually read the post that I made and which you responded to with nothing that is relevant to it:

Quote

Originally Posted by Ignatius
I'm sorry, but this doesn't make a great deal of sense. Power says what 'Truth' is, and the power here is WOTC, who own the IP 'Baldur's Gate'.


Larian have stated that they have control to choose what their D&D RPG game is, and that they chose the TB combat system because they were afraid of taking risks after the success of D:OS2 (hence why they've basically just copy-and-pasted D:OS2 into D&D and made minor changes, while greatly over-exaggerating the significance of the minor changes and additions):

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2020-02-27-baldurs-gate-3-interview
Quote
The choices that we made are ours. Why did we go for turn-based instead of real-time with pause? Because D&D to us is a turn-based game and we're really good - or we have become really good - with turn-based combat. So that, I think, is one of our strengths, and trying out real-time with pause for now, just because the originals were that? It's a big risk. Because the team would have to think completely differently, our combat would be completely different. And we didn't really feel good about that. Normally we do try out a lot. Normally we try out a lot before we make a decision, but with real-time with pause and turn-based we didn't, we just said "Okay it's just gonna be turn-based."


So, Larian is really just using the "Baldur's Gate" name as a husk to fill with a D&D D:OS2 clone, exclusively for the purpose of sales (that's what the "it's a big risk" remark refers to). It's a cash-grab.

BTW, TB games have on average been performing worse than RTwP games. And Larian's D:OS2 didn't come close to the amount of sales RTwP legend Dragon Age: Origins did. So, really, there is only a single big hit TB game while RTwP games are on average performing better.

Wasteland Remastered and Torment: Numenera tanked in sales and are unpopular. More people own Pillars of Eternity on Steam than own Wasteland 2 on Steam. When PoE 2 had TB added to it, its sales didn't improve at all and its Steam user rating didn't increase by even a single percentage-point. Pathfinder: Kingmaker is currently more popular than any TB game outside of Divinity: Original Sin 2. And Dragon Age: Origins (3.2 million copies sold in 3 months) greatly outsold Divinity: Original Sin 2 (1 million copies sold in 2.5 months).

So, TB games are not particularly popular and they have a higher failure-rate than RTwP games. It is only D:OS2 which has been a big hit in the TB genre.

Larian have become superstitious slaves in the wake of the success of D:OS2 and traded their integrity for the comfort and sales of an echo chamber of D:OS2 fans. So, there is literally no justification to using the "Baldur's Gate" name, when Larian's upcoming D&D RPG has as much in common with the Baldur's Gate series as


The definition of a Hack:

Quote
1. a person, as an artist or writer, who exploits, for money, his or her creative ability or training in the production of dull, unimaginative, and trite work; one who produces banal and mediocre work in the hope of gaining commercial success in the arts:
As a painter, he was little more than a hack.

2. a professional who renounces or surrenders individual independence, integrity, belief, etc., in return for money or other reward in the performance of a task normally thought of as involving a strong personal commitment:


Larian's "Baldur's Gate 3" has not even the faintest tiniest shred of relation to the Baldur's Gate series in character, experience, or gameplay and yet they're exploiting the name with a D:OS2 clone set in D&D for the purpose of the money doing so can make them. Larian have sold-out and literally become a hack developer for the sake of monetary gain.



Then, at the end, you've quoted someone else and yourself, making your post twice the size to obscure what you're saying - which is in fact, nothing apart from saying I was obscuring something. At this point I thought you were perhaps just not too bright, as y'know, I've clearly responded to what you said. After that, you've become even more malicious, calling me a liar:


Originally Posted by Delicieuxz
Originally Posted by Ugmaro
Originally Posted by Delicieuxz

Quote
Ignoring these interesting "facts", please tell me how you know the story has nothing to do with the narrative and/or characters in those 2 games. Oh you don't? OK.

Wrong. We know that Larian's game's story has nothing to do with the story and characters of BG1 and BG2 because Larian have stated so.


Just like you decided to ignore everything out of your favor so shall I. Can I get a source on that please?

Don't lie to me and to everybody else here. I have answered and refuted everything you claimed. And you have only heaped absurdity upon absurdity. If I come across that comment being made by Larian again, I will post it. But Larian have confirmed that their D&D DOS2 clone doesn't involve BG1 and 2's story or characters.


You have answered nothing this whole time, instead hiding behind your rhetoric. Unfortunately for you, "We know that Larian's game's story has nothing to do with the story and characters of BG1 and BG2 because Larian have stated so." doesn't mean that "We know the story of BG 3 has nothing to do with the main protagonist and the continuation of his story because Larian have stated so" but it means "We know the story of BG 3 has nothing to do with any of the characters that have had a significant impact on the events that took place in BG 1 and BG 2 and the events in BG 3 are not at all shaped by the events that took place in BG 1 and BG 2 because Larian have stated so", which is as far away from the truth as anything.

Just stop with the deception and misdirection. Yes, you got me on the "strawman" - good for you, with the entire frustration I was feeling I'm surprised that's the only stupidity I said.
Oh, and the misquotation at the end, where I tried to add a modicum of decency to your lines by only pointing out the obviously false parts and not the entire shitstorm you threw at me. Well done! Have a cookie.

Now stop lying
Posted By: Ugmaro Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 02/03/20 03:24 AM
Originally Posted by vometia
Guys, quit snarking at each other. It's disruptive and nobody else wants to see it.


Sorry, I was writing that out as your message came in so I didn't see it. Promise I'll stop
Posted By: Nobody_Special Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 02/03/20 03:29 AM
The Truth... You can't handle the TRUTH!!!!

At least not when you all going around calling each other liars.

The truth is the game is in pre-alpha and those that opt into the early access are the ones that will help shape the game with their feedback.

@1:30:00

Posted By: dmsephiroth Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 02/03/20 06:10 AM
Originally Posted by Ratherz
Originally Posted by dmsephiroth
This will never be a baldurs gate 3 larian...just look what you've made and how angry a lot of the old baldurs gate players are.

Just a bunch of entitled manchildren throwing a fit when things aren't going exactly how they would in their own personal perfect world.


How adult and accurate, insulting other people only bec. they do not share your opinion. Please grow up.
Posted By: vometia Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 02/03/20 06:26 AM
Originally Posted by dmsephiroth
How adult and accurate, insulting other people only bec. they do not share your opinion. Please grow up.

Raze has already made the point:

Originally Posted by Raze
I think points can be made without personal insults. Even if you think it is accurate, or is actually accurate, the argument will be missed as the insult is responded to.

I would like to move on from this rather than further fan the flames. Thanks.
Posted By: Ratherz Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 02/03/20 06:46 AM
Originally Posted by dmsephiroth
Originally Posted by Ratherz
Originally Posted by dmsephiroth
This will never be a baldurs gate 3 larian...just look what you've made and how angry a lot of the old baldurs gate players are.

Just a bunch of entitled manchildren throwing a fit when things aren't going exactly how they would in their own personal perfect world.


How adult and accurate, insulting other people only bec. they do not share your opinion. Please grow up.


I don't have a problem with different opinions. I do have a problem with the sense of ownership and entitlement the BG fans have toward the game. If Larian made a game I didn't like, I would express my opinion and move on. I like how the game is shaping up, so I'm here. A lot of the whiner crowd seems bent on trying to force Larian to change the game to their vision, when what's important here is Larian's vision.
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 02/03/20 07:38 AM
No one want them to change their game.
Fans don't want this game to be "the BG3".

The name of Baldur's Gate 1 and Baldur's Gate 2 is still alive after 20 years because of fans.
Changing so many things and doing a "DoS-like" with the legendary game we honnor for so many years is a shame (maybe you are only Larian fans, or not whatever, but yeah, the Baldur's Gate games from 1998 still has community, new mode,...).

But yea stop the obvious comments.
Of course they CAN call it BG3, they have the rights, WoTC """is the creator of D&D"""" and blablabla...
It's just a perfect f*** to all fans that created the legends.

Posted By: Delicieuxz Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 02/03/20 08:27 AM
Originally Posted by Ugmaro
Just stop with the deception and misdirection. Yes, you got me on the "strawman" - good for you, with the entire frustration I was feeling I'm surprised that's the only stupidity I said.
Oh, and the misquotation at the end, where I tried to add a modicum of decency to your lines by only pointing out the obviously false parts and not the entire shitstorm you threw at me. Well done! Have a cookie.

Now stop lying

That's an amazing shitpost you made, perhaps even more so than the many others you made before it.

As you are aware despite your public denial of it, I addressed your comments and refuted them, and I have not lied - but you have been outed for lying multiple times. It is the peak of immaturity to try to cover your own butt by lobbing that which you've done at somebody else, hoping that it confuses people and does something to hide your guilt.

Um, throwing out a bunch of nonsense that has no relation to the reality of what has transpired here does nothing to defend your position and doesn't make a point for you. You replied to my responses with comments which were completely irrelevant to what I said, and you became increasingly immature as you proceeded to do the same thing ad nauseum throughout many more posts. You are simply embarrassed at the mistakes you made and are trying to blame others for what you did - namely lying, but also much else. I assure you that you have fooled nobody here.
Posted By: vometia Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 02/03/20 08:32 AM
Originally Posted by vometia
Guys, quit snarking at each other. It's disruptive and nobody else wants to see it.

I'm not going to keep repeating myself. Stop it, guys, unless you want an enforced break.
Posted By: ChavaiotH Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 02/03/20 08:48 AM
how is it possible?
bg3 vs dos3? there is no dos3.
Posted By: Adgaroth Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 02/03/20 09:38 AM
Originally Posted by ChavaiotH
how is it possible?
bg3 vs dos3? there is no dos3.


and no bg3,magic my friend.
Posted By: ChavaiotH Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 02/03/20 09:53 AM
Originally Posted by Adgaroth
Originally Posted by ChavaiotH
how is it possible?
bg3 vs dos3? there is no dos3.


and no bg3,magic my friend.



https://baldursgate3.game/
Posted By: Adgaroth Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 02/03/20 10:03 AM
Originally Posted by ChavaiotH
Originally Posted by Adgaroth
Originally Posted by ChavaiotH
how is it possible?
bg3 vs dos3? there is no dos3.


and no bg3,magic my friend.



https://baldursgate3.game/


Illusionism spells from the wizards of the coast. Beware.
Posted By: ZeshinX Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 02/03/20 01:38 PM
I have no wish for Larian to change their game, but certainly the title by dropping the '3'. It doesn't warrant it. Baldur's Gate: Inspired Title absolutely, but that '3' just does not belong. This game seems (thus far) to be taking a very similar overall approach in terms of its technical design; it's a CRPG, it's party-based single-player, it's D&D and I've no doubt Larian carries the spirit of it with them through the design of this....but it is not a sequel and does not deserve the '3' in its title.

They've stated as much themselves, this game's story stands very much on its own. There may be in-game talk of what happened the 100 years prior during the Bhaalspawn saga, maybe a few NPCs that were present and/or involved in it will be party members or NPCs here (though Larian has been understandably cagey about that so far)...but it is not a sequel. Nothing, thus far, suggests it even remotely is. In fact I've found it to be quite the opposite, much of the interviews have been very, very careful to avoid inferring a sequel but are quite clear about it being its own thing.

I have no doubt I will play this game. How I feel about its gameplay and such I won't know until I'm playing it...but I do know I deplore the obvious and vulgar marketing of using the '3' in the title when it really doesn't need it.

Use the Baldur's Gate name to carry on the spirit, but that '3' needs to go. To do anything less is to spit on the legacy upon which you're trying to profit from.
Posted By: Sordak Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 02/03/20 01:57 PM
But you dont get to make that call so it doesnt matter.
Posted By: Soccer Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 02/03/20 02:24 PM
There was the same fan-concerns about Gothic IV, when Piranha Bytes lost their rights for the series, and they went to JoWooD. But in the end, Arcania: Gothic 4 turn out to be great, maybe even the best game in the whole Gothic series. Or, for example, similar situation with Vampire: The Masquerade series, when Paradox Interactive bought iintellectual rights for the game after they purchased White Wolf company. Although Paradox hired for Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines 2 many people from the Troika Games, creators of original game, in any way fans looking forward for the game release.

Maybe Larian and Swen Vincke will hire producer of original Baldur's Gate game - Ray Muzyka, at least in the role of consultant. Which would make most of the game series fans happy.
Posted By: kyrthorsen Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 02/03/20 04:09 PM
Originally Posted by Soccer
There was the same fan-concerns about Gothic IV, when Piranha Bytes lost their rights for the series, and they went to JoWooD. But in the end, Arcania: Gothic 4 turn out to be great, maybe even the best game in the whole Gothic series. Or, for example, similar situation with Vampire: The Masquerade series, when Paradox Interactive bought iintellectual rights for the game after they purchased White Wolf company. Although Paradox hired for Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines 2 many people from the Troika Games, creators of original game, in any way fans looking forward for the game release.

Maybe Larian and Swen Vincke will hire producer of original Baldur's Gate game - Ray Muzyka, at least in the role of consultant. Which would make most of the game series fans happy.


Larian still has a chance to turn things around - just changing certain visuals, setting a darker tone, darker colors, and making the game look a bit more serious/gothic/medieval/dirty...it could be improved a lot.

All the sunny beaches/cute rabbits and crazy jumping/gimmick stuff needs to be replaced with something more adult, realistic - then this game might have a chance.

I'm also quite worried that Larian will not be able to execute the story in focused way.
Posted By: Dark_Ansem Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 02/03/20 04:10 PM
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
Originally Posted by Soccer
There was the same fan-concerns about Gothic IV, when Piranha Bytes lost their rights for the series, and they went to JoWooD. But in the end, Arcania: Gothic 4 turn out to be great, maybe even the best game in the whole Gothic series. Or, for example, similar situation with Vampire: The Masquerade series, when Paradox Interactive bought iintellectual rights for the game after they purchased White Wolf company. Although Paradox hired for Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines 2 many people from the Troika Games, creators of original game, in any way fans looking forward for the game release.

Maybe Larian and Swen Vincke will hire producer of original Baldur's Gate game - Ray Muzyka, at least in the role of consultant. Which would make most of the game series fans happy.


Larian still has a chance to turn things around - just changing certain visuals, setting a darker tone, darker colors, and making the game look a bit more serious/gothic/medieval/dirty...it could be improved a lot.

All the sunny beaches/cute rabbits and crazy jumping/gimmick stuff needs to be replaced with something more adult, realistic - then this game might have a chance.

I'm also quite worried that Larian will not be able to execute the story in focused way.



What's unrealistic about rabbits FFS
Posted By: kyrthorsen Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 02/03/20 04:11 PM
Originally Posted by Dark_Ansem
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
Originally Posted by Soccer
There was the same fan-concerns about Gothic IV, when Piranha Bytes lost their rights for the series, and they went to JoWooD. But in the end, Arcania: Gothic 4 turn out to be great, maybe even the best game in the whole Gothic series. Or, for example, similar situation with Vampire: The Masquerade series, when Paradox Interactive bought iintellectual rights for the game after they purchased White Wolf company. Although Paradox hired for Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines 2 many people from the Troika Games, creators of original game, in any way fans looking forward for the game release.

Maybe Larian and Swen Vincke will hire producer of original Baldur's Gate game - Ray Muzyka, at least in the role of consultant. Which would make most of the game series fans happy.


Larian still has a chance to turn things around - just changing certain visuals, setting a darker tone, darker colors, and making the game look a bit more serious/gothic/medieval/dirty...it could be improved a lot.

All the sunny beaches/cute rabbits and crazy jumping/gimmick stuff needs to be replaced with something more adult, realistic - then this game might have a chance.

I'm also quite worried that Larian will not be able to execute the story in focused way.



What's unrealistic about rabbits FFS


Nothing wrong with rabbits, just saying BG is not a game that you play to enjoy cute rabbits.
Posted By: Dark_Ansem Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 02/03/20 08:40 PM
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
Originally Posted by Dark_Ansem
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
Originally Posted by Soccer
There was the same fan-concerns about Gothic IV, when Piranha Bytes lost their rights for the series, and they went to JoWooD. But in the end, Arcania: Gothic 4 turn out to be great, maybe even the best game in the whole Gothic series. Or, for example, similar situation with Vampire: The Masquerade series, when Paradox Interactive bought iintellectual rights for the game after they purchased White Wolf company. Although Paradox hired for Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines 2 many people from the Troika Games, creators of original game, in any way fans looking forward for the game release.

Maybe Larian and Swen Vincke will hire producer of original Baldur's Gate game - Ray Muzyka, at least in the role of consultant. Which would make most of the game series fans happy.


Larian still has a chance to turn things around - just changing certain visuals, setting a darker tone, darker colors, and making the game look a bit more serious/gothic/medieval/dirty...it could be improved a lot.

All the sunny beaches/cute rabbits and crazy jumping/gimmick stuff needs to be replaced with something more adult, realistic - then this game might have a chance.

I'm also quite worried that Larian will not be able to execute the story in focused way.



What's unrealistic about rabbits FFS


Nothing wrong with rabbits, just saying BG is not a game that you play to enjoy cute rabbits.


Are there no cute moments at all in BG FFS
Posted By: Gmazca Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 02/03/20 10:07 PM
Miniature giant space hamsters? Yes. Cute rabbits? No.

I find it odd that people are disregarding a lot of the funny moments in the original BG games. Remember when you got the Nether Scroll for Edwin, and he accidentally changed his gender? The party took to calling him Edwina...yeah, everything in BG is super serious...

Not only that, we have only seen 1-2 hours of gameplay and haven't even been to a major city yet. I'm sure we will be exploring the seedy underbelly of Baldur's Gate itself (not to mention graveyards, crypts, etc.).

And just because Baldur's Gate 3 can stand on its own doesn't mean it won't have the story elements to tie in this game with the previous two. The Cult of the Dead Three is an easy way to connect the events of the Bhaal Spawn to the current game. BG2 had Mind Flayers beneath Athkatla trying to organize, and you find a letter stating:

"The base is established, and the infiltration continues. The Hidden gathers followers, and soon we shall dominate the minds of the entire..."

It is quite possible Larian is using The Hidden as a jumping off point. We won't know until more of the story is released.
Posted By: kyrthorsen Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 02/03/20 10:10 PM

No, I honestly do not remember many cute moments in BG.

It was a dark, gritty, at times even surreal game setting and experience.

Just remember going to the Underdark in BG2 SoA, fighting Drow and Mind Flayers, fighting vampires etc.

Those settings and art style was brutally dark and horroresque.

So its not all about Larian now using the DOS template for BG3, it is CHANGING THE ENTIRE FEEL AND TONE OF THE ORIGINAL GAMES.

That is what bothers me most is that Larian is still using their goofy cartoony looking style of creating the setting.

Probably the dialouge will be goofy as well. THERE WAS NOTHING CUTE ABOUT BG1 AND BG2, why are you people insisting that BG was cute and funny?

Posted By: Gmazca Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 02/03/20 10:19 PM
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen

No, I honestly do not remember many cute moments in BG.

It was a dark, gritty, at times even surreal game setting and experience.

Just remember going to the Underdark in BG2 SoA, fighting Drow and Mind Flayers, fighting vampires etc.

Those settings and art style was brutally dark and horroresque.

So its not all about Larian now using the DOS template for BG3, it is CHANGING THE ENTIRE FEEL AND TONE OF THE ORIGINAL GAMES.

That is what bothers me most is that Larian is still using their goofy cartoony looking style of creating the setting.

Probably the dialouge will be goofy as well. THERE WAS NOTHING CUTE ABOUT BG1 AND BG2, why are you people insisting that BG was cute and funny?



We are not saying BG1/2 were cute and funny. We are saying there were cute/funny moments. You know, moments of levity. The original games, overall, had a serious tone, but that is not to say they didn't have their own sense of humor now and again.

And it's baffling to me that you've seen an hour and a half of level 1 gameplay and automatically write of the story and setting as goofy/cartoony. The opening cinematic alone is gruesome. Not to mention we know Demons and Vampires are in this game along with the Mind Flayers.

I'm fairly certain that Faerun is home to dark castles, dingy cities, and hellish crypts while at the same time having glorious cities, enchanting ruins, and sunny beaches. Here's hoping we see a vast variety of environments with their own tones and personality (the whimsical Fey Wild, the dark Shadowfell, or the hellish Avernus).
Posted By: kyrthorsen Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 02/03/20 10:24 PM
Originally Posted by Gmazca
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen

No, I honestly do not remember many cute moments in BG.

It was a dark, gritty, at times even surreal game setting and experience.

Just remember going to the Underdark in BG2 SoA, fighting Drow and Mind Flayers, fighting vampires etc.

Those settings and art style was brutally dark and horroresque.

So its not all about Larian now using the DOS template for BG3, it is CHANGING THE ENTIRE FEEL AND TONE OF THE ORIGINAL GAMES.

That is what bothers me most is that Larian is still using their goofy cartoony looking style of creating the setting.

Probably the dialouge will be goofy as well. THERE WAS NOTHING CUTE ABOUT BG1 AND BG2, why are you people insisting that BG was cute and funny?



We are not saying BG1/2 were cute and funny. We are saying there were cute/funny moments. You know, moments of levity. The original games, overall, had a serious tone, but that is not to say they didn't have their own sense of humor now and again.

And it's baffling to me that you've seen an hour and a half of level 1 gameplay and automatically write of the story and setting as goofy/cartoony. The opening cinematic alone is gruesome. Not to mention we know Demons and Vampires are in this game along with the Mind Flayers.

I'm fairly certain that Faerun is home to dark castles, dingy cities, and hellish crypts while at the same time having glorious cities, enchanting ruins, and sunny beaches. Here's hoping we see a vast variety of environments with their own tones and personality (the whimsical Fey Wild, the dark Shadowfell, or the hellish Avernus).


Sorry to dissapoint you or burst your bubble right now.

Did you watch the demo?

Did you by any chance see PINK BRAINS WITH FEET that were supposed to be enemies?

Did you by any chance see how other monsters look - like kids cartoon stuff.

So yea, seeing that demo was more then enough for me to understand what is happening.

Seen it happen before with Diablo 3 - huge failure, now they are going back to the "original" Diablo "dark" tones. LOL
Posted By: Gmazca Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 02/03/20 10:32 PM
Pink Brains with feet? You mean Intellect Devourers? The Mind Flayer pets that are a staple of D&D? I don't know any campaigns that feature Mind Flayers without Intellect Devourers at their sides. And yes, their design in BG3 is accurate.

[img]https://media.wizards.com/2014/downloads/dnd/MM_IntellectDevourer.pdf[/img]

The original games had plenty of sunny areas and weren't doom and gloom environments all the time. All I'm saying is, the demo for BG3 showed variety (sunny beach, dark dungeon, scary crypt). If that's not enough for you, I don't know what to say.
Posted By: kyrthorsen Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 02/03/20 10:42 PM
Originally Posted by Gmazca
Pink Brains with feet? You mean Intellect Devourers? The Mind Flayer pets that are a staple of D&D? I don't know any campaigns that feature Mind Flayers without Intellect Devourers at their sides. And yes, their design in BG3 is accurate.

[img]https://media.wizards.com/2014/downloads/dnd/MM_IntellectDevourer.pdf[/img]

The original games had plenty of sunny areas and weren't doom and gloom environments all the time. All I'm saying is, the demo for BG3 showed variety (sunny beach, dark dungeon, scary crypt). If that's not enough for you, I don't know what to say.


Please just check how the int. devourer looks in the pdf that you posted and then go and watch the BG3 gameplay again.

In the demo they look like PINK BRAINS WITH SMALL FEET, they look like a joke, they dont look scary nor weird, they even look cute.

That is the whole problem I'm trying to stress out here.
Posted By: Firesong Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 02/03/20 10:48 PM
My opinion:

I LOVE that this game is more like D:OS 2 than BG 2. Because I only had a short affair with BG 2 but I'm in love forever with D:OS 2.

(Actually I'd have preferred D:OS 3, because I'm way more into Rivellon than Baldurs Gate, but ok... as long as I get a similar humor, the canonical context of the story doesn't matter that much to me... I just think that "classless" is MUCH better than "classful", but ok, ok...)
Posted By: Gmazca Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 02/03/20 10:49 PM
@ kyrthorsen: We will have to agree to disagree on what hue an Intellect Devourer should be. I can respect your position that they could have a more muted color pallet, however, I don't think that is the direction they should go personally.

It has been 20 years since BG2, and I think Larian has an opportunity to have a wide variety of color pallets across the entire game. I would really like to see how the Mind Flayers look in action. That might make or break my position. Everything else from Intellect Devourers to Goblins looked good to me.
Posted By: dmsephiroth Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 02/03/20 11:31 PM
Originally Posted by Ratherz
Originally Posted by dmsephiroth
Originally Posted by Ratherz
Originally Posted by dmsephiroth
This will never be a baldurs gate 3 larian...just look what you've made and how angry a lot of the old baldurs gate players are.

Just a bunch of entitled manchildren throwing a fit when things aren't going exactly how they would in their own personal perfect world.


How adult and accurate, insulting other people only bec. they do not share your opinion. Please grow up.


I don't have a problem with different opinions. I do have a problem with the sense of ownership and entitlement the BG fans have toward the game. If Larian made a game I didn't like, I would express my opinion and move on. I like how the game is shaping up, so I'm here. A lot of the whiner crowd seems bent on trying to force Larian to change the game to their vision, when what's important here is Larian's vision.


They will made it anyway. I have just a problem with the name BG 3 infront of it. Just name it DOS 3 or dunno Sword Coast xyz .

With the name baldurs gate the fans think bout something else than this product.
Posted By: Blade238 Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 02/03/20 11:41 PM
Originally Posted by dmsephiroth


They will made it anyway. I have just a problem with the name BG 3 infront of it. Just name it DOS 3 or dunno Sword Coast xyz .

With the name baldurs gate the fans think bout something else than this product.

This post literally makes no sense. Why would they name a Baldur's Gate game, one that resides within the Baldur's Gate universe, with the same lore, anything but Baldur's Gate? How would naming it DOS make any sense?

Should Fallout New Vegas have been titled TES because it used the same engine and assets? Should Mass Effect or Dragon Age be titled the other for using the same engine and assets?

An IP is defined by its lore first and foremost. Gameplay and art is subject to change. Thus far we've seen a Baldur's Gate game with D&D gameplay and content.

People are acting like this is Bethesda bastardizing the Fallout IP based on a small showcase in a very early build with placeholder content. I'm honestly baffled.
Posted By: Sordak Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 03/03/20 10:35 AM
If they were to rename the game (which they wont, and cannot), would you shut up?
no.

You wouldnt. youd mvoe the goalpost yet again.

At firs tit was "it was gonna have the divinity ruleset" no it doesnt.
then it was "it will have too much humor and wont be grimdark" cue the trailer
now its "we dont like the name"

youll never be satisfied. so no cocnessions should be made to you.

And if you people KEEP bringing up this nonsense about "Muh dark atmosphere" ill make a collage of all those brightl ylit BG2 images from the other thread and i will post it EVERY.SINGLE.TIME you bring this up.
Posted By: Delicieuxz Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 03/03/20 01:51 PM
Originally Posted by Sordak
If they were to rename the game (which they wont, and cannot), would you shut up?
no.


Of course people would no longer complain. Do you think anybody cares if Larian makes a game? Of course they don't. What they care about is that Larian is co-opting another game series to make a clone of their DOS series, and are marketing their D&D DOS formula game as something that it isn't - which is a Baldur's Gate series game.

If Larian called their game anything that wasn't pretending to be Baldur's Gate 3, nobody would complain.

Quote

You wouldnt. youd mvoe the goalpost yet again.

At firs tit was "it was gonna have the divinity ruleset" no it doesnt.
then it was "it will have too much humor and wont be grimdark" cue the trailer
now its "we dont like the name"


You should put at least some thought into your post. The former two criticisms, about the ruleset (I haven't seen that criticism and I'm guessing that you haven't, either and are just BSing) and the type of humour, only apply because Larian are claiming it to be Baldur's Gate 3. If Larian weren't claiming it to be a part of the original Baldur's Gate PC series then there'd be no measurement by which to say it should or shouldn't have a particular ruleset or a certain style of humour.

Quit making nonsense up out of thin air to pretend that you have an argument when you have none.
Posted By: Boeroer Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 03/03/20 02:56 PM
Originally Posted by Sordak

ill make a collage of all those brightl ylit BG2 images from the other thread and i will post it EVERY.SINGLE.TIME you bring this up.

Please do so. smile
Posted By: Archaven Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 03/03/20 03:44 PM
hi i just want to chime in regarding my opinion. what i've seen this is basically just exactly DOS2 clone but with Baldur's Gate name. the UI, aesthetics, the graphics even 4 party character limit (not to mention turn-based) is exact DOS2 clone. i have DOS2 and i've played it. it's a great game. but Larian please don't be lazy by just copy paste and clone everything like DOS2. i'm looking forward to play baldur's gate 3 not DOS3.

one of the party character looks like Ifan from DOS2 and the vampire guy.. is he an iconic baldur's gate character? i don't particularly like his desgin. the hair, the face, the clothings doesn't seems to click well with high fantasy but looks modern. same with some demon where it's appearance doesn't seems to click at all.

what is that shove and jump? it looks really silly. why not just teleport or blink? it's really very silly and out of proportion in baldur's gate settings. i know this is just my opinion but the art design especially character design except the githyanki.. they all doesn't look right or suitable or reminds me about baldur's gate at all. i don't know? maybe the color pallette? the modern vampire look?

larian.. don't try to be naive and ignore negative feedback. right now i see the community has split like 50/50. you are going to be on a very bad reputation for ruining the franchise.

honestly if you call this DOS3 i will be more than happy.
Posted By: Braveheart Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 03/03/20 09:19 PM
Originally Posted by Archaven
hi i just want to chime in regarding my opinion. what i've seen this is basically just exactly DOS2 clone but with Baldur's Gate name. the UI, aesthetics, the graphics even 4 party character limit (not to mention turn-based) is exact DOS2 clone. i have DOS2 and i've played it. it's a great game. but Larian please don't be lazy by just copy paste and clone everything like DOS2. i'm looking forward to play baldur's gate 3 not DOS3.

one of the party character looks like Ifan from DOS2 and the vampire guy.. is he an iconic baldur's gate character? i don't particularly like his desgin. the hair, the face, the clothings doesn't seems to click well with high fantasy but looks modern. same with some demon where it's appearance doesn't seems to click at all.

what is that shove and jump? it looks really silly. why not just teleport or blink? it's really very silly and out of proportion in baldur's gate settings. i know this is just my opinion but the art design especially character design except the githyanki.. they all doesn't look right or suitable or reminds me about baldur's gate at all. i don't know? maybe the color pallette? the modern vampire look?

larian.. don't try to be naive and ignore negative feedback. right now i see the community has split like 50/50. you are going to be on a very bad reputation for ruining the franchise.

honestly if you call this DOS3 i will be more than happy.


I dont know what you mean by a DOS clone but BG3 is hardly a clone except maybe visually which is an improvement from BG1-2.
Also, BG3 is using the 5th edition DND rule with the collaboration from wizards of the coast dnd headquarters . DOS 2 has different combat rules and doesn't follow the DND LORE. So your way off base by calling it clone.
Posted By: Saxon1974 Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 03/03/20 09:36 PM
I think my biggest hope is that the game plays more "open world" then the way the DOS games are separated into "Acts" where you can only traverse the lands for the specific act you are in. Anyone have any idea?

The lack of open world feel is my biggest problem with DOS 1 & 2. I hope when exploring the forgotten realms in BG3 you can freely explore all the lands from the beginning. I know it's easier to balance encounters with it separated into "Acts" but I hope they go a different route here.

I LOVE Divine Divinity (Even though I hate the real time clicky combat) and I didn't love DOS 1 or 2 (I thought they were ok).
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 03/03/20 09:39 PM
Explosing barrels in every room, UI, graphics, gameplay, color, start on a beach, target line, fire trap, assets, game cover, grease everywhere, the way you move objects, ...... Do you need more exemple ?

Stop saying this is not a clone... 3/4 of what we see came from Dos (and have sometimes evolved I agree)
Your only argument are that it's not the same rules + not exactly the same using of their engine...
Posted By: Braveheart Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 03/03/20 09:44 PM
It's not a clone cause it's a fact and facts dont change, it only looks like DOS visually. Your the one that keeps changing the goal post. It will always stay BG3 lore wise and 5th edition rules . Live with it. -)
Posted By: Emrikol Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 03/03/20 09:53 PM
It isn't a clone. Is it going to be similar? Of course; it's Larian. Should it be similar? Of course. They produced the massively successful and highly lauded game. Turn based and the ability the interact with your environment are crucial elements that resonate with D&D. In that way DOS was more D&D than BG ever was.
Posted By: Ardeis Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 03/03/20 10:02 PM
Yea, visually and from the gameplay we've seen so far (movement, skill activation etc.) it's a total clone of DOS, a skin for different background mechanics. I think that is a problem, so much of gaming experience is interaction with the world visually and mechanically through 'jumping', exploring, pressing skills buttons, if that's exactly the same as DOS, it means BG3 loses it's identity behind something different.
Posted By: Braveheart Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 03/03/20 10:03 PM
Originally Posted by Emrikol
It isn't a clone. Is it going to be similar? Of course; it's Larian. Should it be similar? Of course. They produced the massively successful and highly lauded game. Turn based and the ability the interact with your environment are crucial elements that resonate with D&D. In that way DOS was more D&D than BG ever was.


Not only that but the combat mechanics is not the same as DOS, BG3 uses a completely different mechanic,it used 5th edition rules which DOS2 didn't use .
And story/lore wise it's different and the monsters too. So it's far from a clone.
Posted By: kyrthorsen Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 03/03/20 10:27 PM
Originally Posted by Firesong
My opinion:

I LOVE that this game is more like D:OS 2 than BG 2. Because I only had a short affair with BG 2 but I'm in love forever with D:OS 2.

(Actually I'd have preferred D:OS 3, because I'm way more into Rivellon than Baldurs Gate, but ok... as long as I get a similar humor, the canonical context of the story doesn't matter that much to me... I just think that "classless" is MUCH better than "classful", but ok, ok...)


Yeah, its great that you love DOS, totally fine, its a great game.

But this is BG in the making, and saying that you would like BG3 to be like DOS is like saying you would like Quake to be like Doom.

It does not make much sense to me.
Posted By: kyrthorsen Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 03/03/20 10:31 PM
Originally Posted by Gmazca
@ kyrthorsen: We will have to agree to disagree on what hue an Intellect Devourer should be. I can respect your position that they could have a more muted color pallet, however, I don't think that is the direction they should go personally.

It has been 20 years since BG2, and I think Larian has an opportunity to have a wide variety of color pallets across the entire game. I would really like to see how the Mind Flayers look in action. That might make or break my position. Everything else from Intellect Devourers to Goblins looked good to me.


Yeah well IMO that is exactly what is the problem with games today in general.

All games are trying hard to appeal to everybody.

Who do you like better, rock bands like the Doors, Beatles and Roling Stones, or you prefer Britnery Spears, Ariana Grande and Backstreet boys?

Today, all gaming studios are trying to be like Britney Spears, and its ruining so many games it unbelivable.

Devs should be looking to studios like From Software - they are not afraid to make a dark game, and they are a huge success, people love those games.

Posted By: kyrthorsen Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 03/03/20 10:45 PM
Originally Posted by Sordak
If they were to rename the game (which they wont, and cannot), would you shut up?
no.

You wouldnt. youd mvoe the goalpost yet again.

At firs tit was "it was gonna have the divinity ruleset" no it doesnt.
then it was "it will have too much humor and wont be grimdark" cue the trailer
now its "we dont like the name"

youll never be satisfied. so no cocnessions should be made to you.

And if you people KEEP bringing up this nonsense about "Muh dark atmosphere" ill make a collage of all those brightl ylit BG2 images from the other thread and i will post it EVERY.SINGLE.TIME you bring this up.


Hey sorry for bothering you with my thread.

As I said i really loved DOS1 and wish all the best for that game series.

However, I liked BG1 and BG2 better - better story, better setting, better combat, better spells. BG spell system was so advanced still to this day no game has came close to it.

So YEAH I would love if somebody made a GREAT BG3, but all I saw in the demo was a new DOS game called BG3.

Larian knows this is the truth.

Look what happened to Fallout 4 - the game looks like a circus for kids. Unfortunately it seems that Larian is making the same mistake as Bethesda with Fallout.

Since BG3 is still in development, I'm just making a suggestion - even though the probability that the devs will listen is close to zero.

Posted By: kyrthorsen Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 03/03/20 10:50 PM
Larian, if you are making BG3 then make BG3!

If you are making DOS3 then make DOS3.

You can't make BG3 as if you are making DOS3.

There are two entirely different games.

Remove the spider man jumping and remove all silly/cute things from the game, make it darker, brutal and horror-like.

You can easily replace jumping with a climbing animation.

Also, tone down the colors - no need to make the game look like a fun park.

Look at what was great about BG2 - DONT FIX WHAT ISNT BROKEN.

SOMETIMES LESS IS MORE.

Thank you.
Posted By: Braveheart Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 03/03/20 11:01 PM
How about instead of judging the game by its cover or in this case by the demo. Try it and and then make a judgment.
Posted By: kyrthorsen Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 03/03/20 11:09 PM
Originally Posted by Braveheart
How about instead of judging the game by its cover or in this case by the demo. Try it and and then make a judgment.


Judging the game by its gameplay demo is not like judging a book by its cover.

I've been playing RPGs all the way back to mid 90's, and been a gamer for more than 30 years.

I know what I'm talking about so just looking at this demo tells me even more than I needed to know. Sad.
Posted By: Blade238 Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 03/03/20 11:10 PM
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen

However, I liked BG1 and BG2 better - better story, better setting, better combat, better spells. BG spell system was so advanced still to this day no game has came close to it.

Look what happened to Fallout 4 - the game looks like a circus for kids. Unfortunately it seems that Larian is making the same mistake as Bethesda with Fallout.

Since BG3 is still in development, I'm just making a suggestion - even though the probability that the devs will listen is close to zero.


These are all your opinion. Not to mention, it's an opinion on which you're judging this game with little to no evidence beyond it being turn-based combat to support your opinion. The game will be using the Baldur Gate setting and story to continue with series. It's just placed far enough ahead in the timeline to make it capable of being standalone, however, they've stated there will be bits for those who know the other games.

For all you know the spell and system in this game will be more robust than anything in BG 1 or 2, but no one (including you) has seen enough to know that. All we know is that there will be more environmental interaction (which is a positive). As to it being some advanced system that no game has come close to? It was great, but it's also unbalanced and overpowered.

Comparing a game's combat type changing from RTwP to TB (which is arguably more accessible and better illustrates the D&D formula) to Bethesda reducing a beloved RPG franchise to a mindless shooter without any passible writing is absolutely ridiculous and completely disingenuous. Fallout 2 to Fallout Tactics or Fallout 2 to Fallout New Vegas would have been a better comparison.

Until more information or the early access is readily available, such claims are completely unfounded.
Posted By: kyrthorsen Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 03/03/20 11:18 PM
Originally Posted by Blade238
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen

However, I liked BG1 and BG2 better - better story, better setting, better combat, better spells. BG spell system was so advanced still to this day no game has came close to it.

Look what happened to Fallout 4 - the game looks like a circus for kids. Unfortunately it seems that Larian is making the same mistake as Bethesda with Fallout.

Since BG3 is still in development, I'm just making a suggestion - even though the probability that the devs will listen is close to zero.


These are all your opinion. Not to mention, it's an opinion on which you're judging this game with little to no evidence beyond it being turn-based combat to support your opinion. The game will be using the Baldur Gate setting and story to continue with series. It's just placed far enough ahead in the timeline to make it capable of being standalone, however, they've stated there will be bits for those who know the other games.

For all you know the spell and system in this game will be more robust than anything in BG 1 or 2, but no one (including you) has seen enough to know that. All we know is that there will be more environmental interaction (which is a positive). As to it being some advanced system that no game has come close to? It was great, but it's also unbalanced and overpowered.

Comparing a game's combat type changing from RTwP to TB (which is arguably more accessible and better illustrates the D&D formula) to Bethesda reducing a beloved RPG franchise to a mindless shooter without any passible writing is absolutely ridiculous and completely disingenuous. Fallout 2 to Fallout Tactics or Fallout 2 to Fallout New Vegas would have been a better comparison.

Until more information or the early access is readily available, such claims are completely unfounded.


I actually don't have a big problem with the combat being TB.

I actually do have a big problem with the game looking and playing - in every possible way - like DOS3.

This "BG3" has nothing in common with BG1 and BG2.

This is the SAME THING Bethesda did with Fallout - they just copy/pasted Elder Scrolls - Oblivion engine and game mechanics and called it Fallout.

Open your eyes.
Posted By: Emrikol Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 03/03/20 11:23 PM
I have asked this question so many times and have not gotten an answer. What would make this game more "BG" aside from RTwP? Darker colors? Really?
Posted By: Blade238 Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 03/03/20 11:42 PM
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen


I actually don't have a big problem with the combat being TB.

I actually do have a big problem with the game looking and playing - in every possible way - like DOS3.

This "BG3" has nothing in common with BG1 and BG2.

This is the SAME THING Bethesda did with Fallout - they just copy/pasted Elder Scrolls - Oblivion engine and game mechanics and called it Fallout.

Open your eyes.

I'm sorry, but I just can't take you serious with all these doomsday posts based on the next to zero information you have. You're literally saying you don't have a problem with it being turn-based in one sentence, while saying that's part of your problem in the next.

Then you're saying this game has nothing in common with BG1 and BG2, when it's literally the same universe and lore. Neither of us have seen enough to know, but this game could have multiple ties to the previous two games while still being a hundred years later.

As mentioned in my previous post: It would be asinine for them to not use their engine and assets when it saves a ton of time and resources.

Guess who also used Oblivions and Fallout 3's assets? Obsidian with the developers of the original Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 to create a world that many original fans accepted to be a true sequel to the series.

There are some similarities that I'm not too fond of myself, but to say the game is a clone and is not worthy of being a Baldur's Gate game is ridiculous. The easily abusable and quite irritating jumping/teleporting gimmick shouldn't have been carried over, though I can live with it. I'm also not a fan of the Origin characters, though I'll concede it's interesting to be able to play through the companions' perspectives.

Ultimately, until we've seen the early access it's simply absurd to jump to such conclusions.
Posted By: kyrthorsen Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 03/03/20 11:54 PM
Originally Posted by Emrikol
I have asked this question so many times and have not gotten an answer. What would make this game more "BG" aside from RTwP? Darker colors? Really?


Yeah definitely a tweak in the art style towards a more menacing dark look would be a step in the right direction.

Im not sure what else the devs could change at this point since the game is copy/paste DOS2.

You can find other suggesions here:

http://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=660349&nt=4&page=1
Posted By: kungfukappa Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 03/03/20 11:57 PM
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
Originally Posted by Emrikol
I have asked this question so many times and have not gotten an answer. What would make this game more "BG" aside from RTwP? Darker colors? Really?


Yeah definitely a tweak in the art style towards a more menacing dark look would be a step in the right direction.

Im not sure what else the devs could change at this point since the game is copy/paste DOS2.

You can find other suggesions here:

http://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=660349&nt=4&page=1

I actually try to answer this in my opinion thread. I realise i should probably merge it maybe, but i thought it was different enough to stand alone
Posted By: kyrthorsen Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 03/03/20 11:58 PM
Originally Posted by Blade238
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen


I actually don't have a big problem with the combat being TB.

I actually do have a big problem with the game looking and playing - in every possible way - like DOS3.

This "BG3" has nothing in common with BG1 and BG2.

This is the SAME THING Bethesda did with Fallout - they just copy/pasted Elder Scrolls - Oblivion engine and game mechanics and called it Fallout.

Open your eyes.

I'm sorry, but I just can't take you serious with all these doomsday posts based on the next to zero information you have. You're literally saying you don't have a problem with it being turn-based in one sentence, while saying that's part of your problem in the next.

Then you're saying this game has nothing in common with BG1 and BG2, when it's literally the same universe and lore. Neither of us have seen enough to know, but this game could have multiple ties to the previous two games while still being a hundred years later.

As mentioned in my previous post: It would be asinine for them to not use their engine and assets when it saves a ton of time and resources.

Guess who also used Oblivions and Fallout 3's assets? Obsidian with the developers of the original Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 to create a world that many original fans accepted to be a true sequel to the series.

There are some similarities that I'm not too fond of myself, but to say the game is a clone and is not worthy of being a Baldur's Gate game is ridiculous. The easily abusable and quite irritating jumping/teleporting gimmick shouldn't have been carried over, though I can live with it. I'm also not a fan of the Origin characters, though I'll concede it's interesting to be able to play through the companions' perspectives.

Ultimately, until we've seen the early access it's simply absurd to jump to such conclusions.


Look the problem is that they marketed a new BG game and they come up with an upgraded DOS game.

Thats the crux of the problem here - its false advertising imo.

If they were serious about making a new BG game, they could have at least try to change the visuals so that it does not look exactly the same as DOS.

All im saying is that its a cheap move, and it just not right to use the BG franchise as a cash cow like that, and get the old fans hyped.

I can live with TB - but copy pasting the entire game is just a bit too much.

For the lore - we will see about that - but im not very optimistic at this point.
Posted By: Emrikol Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 04/03/20 12:02 AM
Well, thank for providing an answer that makes sense to you. But, looking over what you wrote in the other thread you linked to, I will just say that I really don't think there is anything more I can say to you on the subject except ... and I am not trying to be harsh ... don't ever expect anything to bring back the "feel" of that game (as you perceive it).
Posted By: kyrthorsen Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 04/03/20 12:11 AM
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Well, thank for providing an answer that makes sense to you. But, looking over what you wrote in the other thread you linked to, I will just say that I really don't think there is anything more I can say to you on the subject except ... and I am not trying to be harsh ... don't ever expect anything to bring back the "feel" of that game (as you perceive it).


Yeah you are probably right about that - BG3 just wont be as good.

On the other hand, every year or two I do find a great game that captures that old magical feeling, so all is not lost.
Posted By: Emrikol Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 04/03/20 12:20 AM
Cheers
Posted By: Braveheart Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 04/03/20 02:22 AM
Again unless you have been living under a rock, it was written in the stars that BG3 was going to look alot like DOS visually, but not lore and rules. Based on the many interviews with larian studios and wizards of the coast. They came to an agreement that they will improve on the DOS style and at the same time keep the integrity of the lore and 5th edition rules. I wasn't surprised because I actually followed the game from the beginning. And honestly they improved the BG series greatly by doing so. So market wise and reputation their infact. They know this will sell, and they also know there will always be a minority who will disagree. Sorry you have to live with it. There are options like pathfinder wrath of the righteous that will bring your nostalgia. Go play that
Posted By: Maxxgold Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 04/03/20 04:35 AM
Definitely going to be Baldur’s Gate 3. The game is using a lot of assets from DOS in the demo we saw, but that will change with time. It’s already been addressed in these forums.
Posted By: Sordak Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 04/03/20 07:19 AM
people thinking its an upgrade to OS2 are unhinged.
and if it was marketed as this people would be pisses off just as much as i tis nothing like it in terms of the character classes and combat skills
Posted By: Dark_Ansem Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 04/03/20 09:44 AM
Originally Posted by Sordak
people thinking its an upgrade to OS2 are unhinged.
and if it was marketed as this people would be pisses off just as much as i tis nothing like it in terms of the character classes and combat skills


I mean, technically it is, if you think of the engine.
Posted By: Raze Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 04/03/20 10:32 AM
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Explosing barrels in every room, UI, graphics, gameplay, color, start on a beach, target line, fire trap, assets, game cover, grease everywhere, the way you move objects, ...... Do you need more exemple ?

The UI is a work in progress, as is the game itself. The build in the presentation didn't have the save system implemented yet. When Early Access started for D:OS and D:OS 2 there was stub text, a few pieces of equipment with incomplete descriptions and a few missing inventory icons, etc.
In BG3 that is a riverbank, actually. There are lots of games that start with characters being in prison, amnesia, a peaceful village being attacked, etc, but that's not much of an argument that the games are the same.
Are you suggesting that BG3 should not indicate if and where an attack is blocked because D:OS 2 did so?
I'm pretty sure traps are part of DnD, as well.
Other games were you can move objects in almost the exact same way (no rotation) include Divine Divinity and Beyond Divinity. D:OS 2 did not let you climb onto objects (you could sit on a chair stacked on top of other items if it wasn't too high, but you couldn't use this for exploring, etc).
Posted By: Sordak Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 04/03/20 10:41 AM
then Technically in Baldurs Gate you can turn into a Dragon and fly around with a Jetpack...
Posted By: Ellderon Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 04/03/20 11:38 AM
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
Originally Posted by Emrikol
I have asked this question so many times and have not gotten an answer. What would make this game more "BG" aside from RTwP? Darker colors? Really?


Yeah definitely a tweak in the art style towards a more menacing dark look would be a step in the right direction.

Im not sure what else the devs could change at this point since the game is copy/paste DOS2.



The interface change would go a long way.
Back to the more simpler and less colorful icons. The oak/stone UI look.
Posted By: kyrthorsen Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 04/03/20 02:04 PM
Yeah definitely.
Posted By: Riandor Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 04/03/20 03:01 PM
Raze already stated in at least on other thread that the UI will be changed/tweaked once the underlying mechanics have been "finalised".

A lot of what you see is placeholder, it's just relatively polished placeholder and as such it's easy to assume that that is final.

It has also been stated that there will be graphical enhancements before release as well.

As for what makes BG BG stylistically, well the Infinity Engine approach has a lot to do with it. Painted assets giving a false painted reality look. Muted colours, though not necessarily dark or without colour just more of a matte filter.

3D modelled games have always been shinier. Even Witcher 3 is vibrant and full of colour for such a dour story.

That said ignoring placeholder assets in UI and world, the main characters showcased so far look a little too "new". Like thy stepped out of a comic con. Witcher the Netflix TV series was given the same criticism, costumes and style looked too much like a tv set and less like a lived in world.

Spiderman on the PS4 - Vibrant (it's super heroes!), but you start off in this worn out suit and you work at getting it patched up or replaced. It's a nice touch but it meade me feel like I was playing a Spiderman that had already been around all the blocks multiple times.

Here, in the Demo and I stress DEMO, the main character (Astarion) comes out of a crash looking pristine and Shadowheart already has back what looks like all her gear. Now we didn't see the tutorial, so we comment on this DEMO scene as being the "opening". But if we have just been through (proverbial) Hell, like Shadowheart puts it, make it look that way, because BG never felt clean, even though it is still High Fantasy.

It feels old, from the stone UI to dirty boots and rusty swords and whilst colour is good, sun is good ( I don't need constant grimdark), different settings are good, lived in is better. Does that make sense?

Posted By: Emrikol Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 04/03/20 03:12 PM
Originally Posted by Riandor
Here, in the Demo and I stress DEMO, the main character (Astarion) comes out of a crash looking pristine and Shadowheart already has back what looks like all her gear. Now we didn't see the tutorial, so we comment on this DEMO scene as being the "opening". But if we have just been through (proverbial) Hell, like Shadowheart puts it, make it look that way, because BG never felt clean, even though it is still High Fantasy.


Fair criticism. Some ripped up clothes for the start would be more appropriate and a dirty or grimy facade such as in God of War would be nice.

BG2 wasn't capable of showing the level cleanliness or dirtiness that BG3 can, so not that fair to compare the two.
Posted By: Riandor Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 04/03/20 03:29 PM
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Originally Posted by Riandor
Here, in the Demo and I stress DEMO, the main character (Astarion) comes out of a crash looking pristine and Shadowheart already has back what looks like all her gear. Now we didn't see the tutorial, so we comment on this DEMO scene as being the "opening". But if we have just been through (proverbial) Hell, like Shadowheart puts it, make it look that way, because BG never felt clean, even though it is still High Fantasy.


Fair criticism. Some ripped up clothes for the start would be more appropriate and a dirty or grimy facade such as in God of War would be nice.

BG2 wasn't capable of showing the level cleanliness or dirtiness that BG3 can, so not that fair to compare the two.

BG2 wasn't able to graphically show it, but it felt textually real thanks to the painted look of the artwork and you imagined the rest when it came to inventory screens.
Again Witcher 3 does a good job of making the characters clothes feel textually grounded, but again we are comparing finished product vs demo and D&D, even Baldur's Gate, has always had flamboyancy in clothing, style over function, but "personally" it could do with feeling/looking a little more worn ;-)
Posted By: Sordak Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 04/03/20 05:07 PM
>NOBLE
>Elf
>Dressed in rags
Bruh, hes been captured by mindflayers, he wasnt thrown in the dungeon by the local lord

the absolute seethe over minor details is realy amusing
Posted By: Dark_Ansem Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 04/03/20 05:21 PM
Originally Posted by Raze
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Explosing barrels in every room, UI, graphics, gameplay, color, start on a beach, target line, fire trap, assets, game cover, grease everywhere, the way you move objects, ...... Do you need more exemple ?

The UI is a work in progress, as is the game itself. The build in the presentation didn't have the save system implemented yet. When Early Access started for D:OS and D:OS 2 there was stub text, a few pieces of equipment with incomplete descriptions and a few missing inventory icons, etc.
In BG3 that is a riverbank, actually. There are lots of games that start with characters being in prison, amnesia, a peaceful village being attacked, etc, but that's not much of an argument that the games are the same.
Are you suggesting that BG3 should not indicate if and where an attack is blocked because D:OS 2 did so?
I'm pretty sure traps are part of DnD, as well.
Other games were you can move objects in almost the exact same way (no rotation) include Divine Divinity and Beyond Divinity. D:OS 2 did not let you climb onto objects (you could sit on a chair stacked on top of other items if it wasn't too high, but you couldn't use this for exploring, etc).


Ah, the start in prison, a staple of Bethesda
Posted By: dmsephiroth Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 04/03/20 08:54 PM
Oh Helloo Larian, watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qORVHGkEn58

There you can see a real good RPG which looks kinda familiar with baldurs gate, good music, effects and fun gameplay.
Posted By: kungfukappa Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 04/03/20 08:56 PM
Originally Posted by dmsephiroth
Oh Helloo Larian, watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qORVHGkEn58

There you can see a real good RPG which looks kinda familiar with baldurs gate, good music, effects and fun gameplay.

Y-YYES!!!

Lead evil by example and one day we need no longer take the boots to those who stray off the path of goodness in to the muck and bile of villainy, and track great bloody footprints across our lily white tiles! Boo will have clean woodshavings you evil bastards! YEARGH!
Posted By: Emrikol Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 04/03/20 09:08 PM
Yeah, that looks more of the old BG games. Larian doesn't make those kind of games, though. And apparently, WotC doesn't want it either.
Posted By: Bercon Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 04/03/20 09:19 PM
Pathfinder: Kingmaker was great (at least after a year of bugfixing) and sequel looks great too. You still have couple days chance to back it in Kickstartter, I got myself a collectors edition. However, it's very iterative in it's approach. It doesn't do much beyond what Baldur's Gate did 20 years ago. Sure it does graphics and game mechanics better, but there is very little new in there. Will it be the title all other cRPGs are compared to for the next 20 years? I doubt it. Baldur's Gate III on the other hand is stretching the limits what can be done in cRPG. The interactivity with environment, different approaches you can take to each situation etc. That's something new. It's more riskier take, but it has a chance to be that title that will be talked for 20 years. I'm glad we are getting both, rather than two similar games.
Posted By: ThreeL Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 04/03/20 09:29 PM
Feels like people forgot temple of elemental evil... This was turn based and D&D and so much worse than BG especially because of the fighting system
Posted By: kyrthorsen Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 04/03/20 10:10 PM
Originally Posted by Dark_Ansem
Originally Posted by Sordak
people thinking its an upgrade to OS2 are unhinged.
and if it was marketed as this people would be pisses off just as much as i tis nothing like it in terms of the character classes and combat skills


I mean, technically it is, if you think of the engine.


haha, bullseye!
Posted By: kyrthorsen Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 04/03/20 10:17 PM
Originally Posted by dmsephiroth
Oh Helloo Larian, watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qORVHGkEn58

There you can see a real good RPG which looks kinda familiar with baldurs gate, good music, effects and fun gameplay.


Hah, this game looks exactly how BG3 should have looked. LOL
Posted By: Ratherz Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 04/03/20 10:35 PM
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
Originally Posted by dmsephiroth
Oh Helloo Larian, watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qORVHGkEn58

There you can see a real good RPG which looks kinda familiar with baldurs gate, good music, effects and fun gameplay.


Hah, this game looks exactly how BG3 should have looked. LOL


That actually looks horrible. Everything is so brown it's hard to even make out the player models.
Posted By: kungfukappa Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 04/03/20 10:39 PM
Originally Posted by Ratherz
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
Originally Posted by dmsephiroth
Oh Helloo Larian, watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qORVHGkEn58

There you can see a real good RPG which looks kinda familiar with baldurs gate, good music, effects and fun gameplay.


Hah, this game looks exactly how BG3 should have looked. LOL


That actually looks horrible. Everything is so brown it's hard to even make out the player models.

"but it's pre-alpha!"
Posted By: dmsephiroth Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 05/03/20 02:31 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5a1rPHaQ5fQ

And the music <33

I love it.
Posted By: Eguzky Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 05/03/20 02:49 AM
It's BG3 because they were given the BG IP to use.
And it takes place in the BG universe.
And it takes place in the BG timeline.
And the events of BG 1 & 2 are canon to the events in BG3.

Huh. Seems like BG3 to me. You know, because the game-engine & mechanics have little..actually, have NOTHING to do with game sequels and in-universe lore.

Fallout 3 was not the same as 1 & 2.
World of Warcraft was not an RTS.
Kid Icarus was a side scroller. KI: Uprising was an amazing on-rails shooter plus 3D shooter for the ground battles.
Castle Wolfenstein was, again, a side-scroller before becoming a 3D FPS.
Duke Nukem, AGAIN, was a side scroller, then an FPS.

This is the same thread as the Steam forums; people angry that BG3 is not real-time w/ pause, because they can't take off their nostalgia goggles and accept something new.

We get it; you're angry that BG3 is not going to be a carbon copy of a 20 year old game who's combat was the worst part of it.
You're angry that Larian did not know to psychically contact you to let YOU decide how they should spend their millions of dollars to create the game.
And you're angry that other people are going to like something you hate.

As I've said on the Steam forums; no one cares. Go back to Pathfinder: Kingmaker and let the fans enjoy a perfectly good, perfectly enjoyable turn-based D&D game.
Kingmaker, for me not liking RTwP, is a perfectly fine D&D game.

Go away and let us fans enjoy what will be another perfectly fine D&D game with a combat system we can enjoy.
Posted By: dmsephiroth Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 05/03/20 03:21 AM
And on the steam forum:

WE DO CARE !

So pls let others do not like something, you like.

You hatespeech us bec. we do not like something you do, but critisize us for the same? Funny guy/girl.

Everyone has the right to critisize something. If you cannot stand that, do not come to a forum and read.

And it has nothing to do with nostalgia goggles.

The fighting-system in bg was far superior than most of modern RPG's, even if YOU did not like it. Just accept it, thank you.

And if i make a game named baldurs gate 3....OFC the old fans will have some hopes and thoughts bout the product of that.
They should haved named it DOS 3 or something like that. Then the rumours and heavy feelings would not have happend here at all. But i guess you cannot understand that.
Posted By: kungfukappa Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 05/03/20 03:55 AM
Originally Posted by dmsephiroth
And on the steam forum:

WE DO CARE !

So pls let others do not like something, you like.

You hatespeech us bec. we do not like something you do, but critisize us for the same? Funny guy/girl.

Everyone has the right to critisize something. If you cannot stand that, do not come to a forum and read.

And it has nothing to do with nostalgia goggles.

The fighting-system in bg was far superior than most of modern RPG's, even if YOU did not like it. Just accept it, thank you.

And if i make a game named baldurs gate 3....OFC the old fans will have some hopes and thoughts bout the product of that.
They should haved named it DOS 3 or something like that. Then the rumours and heavy feelings would not have happend here at all. But i guess you cannot understand that.

I agree, there is no need to behave like the toxic steam forums where everyone is just angry sperges. We are above that. I read those forums and weep for what people must think gamers are
Posted By: Eguzky Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 05/03/20 04:18 AM
Originally Posted by dmsephiroth
And on the steam forum:

WE DO CARE !

So pls let others do not like something, you like.

You hatespeech us bec. we do not like something you do, but critisize us for the same? Funny guy/girl.

Everyone has the right to critisize something. If you cannot stand that, do not come to a forum and read.

And it has nothing to do with nostalgia goggles.

The fighting-system in bg was far superior than most of modern RPG's, even if YOU did not like it. Just accept it, thank you.

And if i make a game named baldurs gate 3....OFC the old fans will have some hopes and thoughts bout the product of that.
They should haved named it DOS 3 or something like that. Then the rumours and heavy feelings would not have happend here at all. But i guess you cannot understand that.


You're really going to say I don't understand, when I just told you literally every reason why it's a legitimate sequel? You're argument for why it's NOT a Baldur's gate sequel is basically 'The mechanics changed'.
And argument I already shot down. But I don't understand?

Uh-huh. Sure, buddy. It's pretty clear YOU don't understand, and ignored half of my post that took apart your complaints, just so you could continue complaining.

And you're allowed to not like something..somewhere else.
The forums should be for the fans to have a place to enjoy something without harassment and negative posts.

You don't see me going onto Pathfinder: Kingmaker's forums and complaining that it should have been turn-based from the start. Why? Because they have a right to enjoy their game and community without negativity.
Plus, it would be stupid for me to demand a developer change their game to appease me, who would be in the minority at that point.

So once again:
t's BG3 because they were given the BG IP to use.
And it takes place in the BG universe.
And it takes place in the BG timeline.
And the events of BG 1 & 2 are canon to the events in BG3.

Game mechanics are the WORST way to ask for a sequel. Game mechanics change was technology grows and improves. I also already listed a number of games that changed full GENRES, not just MECHANICS, and succeeded.

So stop and let us enjoy the hyper for a good game.
A good game, regardless of how RTwP people feel.
A good game that will be turn-based no matter how hard people complain otherwise.
A good game that is, regardless of inane complaints, a Baldur's Gate sequel.
Posted By: kungfukappa Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 05/03/20 04:58 AM
sorry, Eguzky, but people with opinions different from yours is not "harassment", but telling people they are not allowed to express opinions is.
Posted By: vometia Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 05/03/20 05:38 AM
Originally Posted by kungfukappa
I agree, there is no need to behave like the toxic steam forums where everyone is just angry sperges. We are above that. I read those forums and weep for what people must think gamers are

Originally Posted by Eguzky
The forums should be for the fans to have a place to enjoy something without harassment

Both of these things. Everyone be nice. Or else. biggrin
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 05/03/20 08:28 AM
Originally Posted by Eguzky
It's BG3 because they were given the BG IP to use.
And it takes place in the BG universe.
And it takes place in the BG timeline.
And the events of BG 1 & 2 are canon to the events in BG3.

Huh. Seems like BG3 to me. You know, because the game-engine & mechanics have little..actually, have NOTHING to do with game sequels and in-universe lore.

Fallout 3 was not the same as 1 & 2.
World of Warcraft was not an RTS.
Kid Icarus was a side scroller. KI: Uprising was an amazing on-rails shooter plus 3D shooter for the ground battles.
Castle Wolfenstein was, again, a side-scroller before becoming a 3D FPS.
Duke Nukem, AGAIN, was a side scroller, then an FPS.

This is the same thread as the Steam forums; people angry that BG3 is not real-time w/ pause, because they can't take off their nostalgia goggles and accept something new.

We get it; you're angry that BG3 is not going to be a carbon copy of a 20 year old game who's combat was the worst part of it.
You're angry that Larian did not know to psychically contact you to let YOU decide how they should spend their millions of dollars to create the game.
And you're angry that other people are going to like something you hate.

As I've said on the Steam forums; no one cares. Go back to Pathfinder: Kingmaker and let the fans enjoy a perfectly good, perfectly enjoyable turn-based D&D game.
Kingmaker, for me not liking RTwP, is a perfectly fine D&D game.

Go away and let us fans enjoy what will be another perfectly fine D&D game with a combat system we can enjoy.



Oh yeah, Forgotten Realms + ""timeline""/event + D&D rules... Okay I now understand...

Baldur's Gate (and video games) is a set of many elements. Universe and rules are just a part of it.
That's not only what define the experience.

Diablo 3 would never be named Diablo 3 if it wasn't H&S.
World of Warcraft is not named Warcraft 4...
DoS3 is not gonna be a RTS game.
TES6 won't be on a other world as Nirn/Tamriel.

This is just part of the experiences but this is important these things are presents for players to find the spirit of previous games.
No one said BG3 should run on IE. Part of an experience doesn't mean take the exact same things.
Posted By: Sordak Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 05/03/20 09:44 AM
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
Originally Posted by Dark_Ansem
Originally Posted by Sordak
people thinking its an upgrade to OS2 are unhinged.
and if it was marketed as this people would be pisses off just as much as i tis nothing like it in terms of the character classes and combat skills


I mean, technically it is, if you think of the engine.


haha, bullseye!

arent you very smart.

Then technically Baldurs Gate 3 is literaly a game in which you turn into a dragon and jetpack around the place.
Also Dragon Ball FighterZ is a first person shooter.

You absolute Genius
Posted By: Delicieuxz Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 05/03/20 11:00 AM
Originally Posted by ThreeL
Feels like people forgot temple of elemental evil... This was turn based and D&D and so much worse than BG especially because of the fighting system


Yeah. There is no trend in gaming indicating that TB is preferred to RTwP. There has only been big TB hit, and that's DOS2. 1 game isn't a trend.

There are been more recent TB games that tanked than there are ones that did great. Torment: Numenera and Wasteland Remastered were both flops and both had TB. And the TB combat was one of the things that were criticized about Torment: Numenera - because Planescape: Torment had RTwP and people didn't like the title switching to TB.

There are more owners of Pillars of Eternity, which is RTwP, on Steam than Wasteland 2, which is TB.

Pillars of Eternity 2 had TB added to it, but it didn't improve its sales or raise its Steam user score by even a single percentage point in the months that followed the TB patch.

And Pathfinder: Kingmaker is more popular right now than any TB game other than DOS2.

And while DOS2's sales have been great, they still haven't topped Dragon Age: Origins': DA:O sold 3.2 million copies in just over 3 months. DOS2 sold 1 million copies in 2.5 months.


So, there is no trend anywhere that TB is more favoured than RTwP. But some fans of DOS2 have let their appreciation of the game blind them to the point they've crafted a mythology about TB games and their popularity.


Here's Larian's "BG3" senior designer and main combat designer, Edouard Imbert on RTwP vs TB:

https://jv.jeuxonline.info/actualit...rt-senior-designer-combats-baldur-gate-3
Quote
Q: How do you reconcile the nostalgia of Baldur's Gate fans with the need to modernise the formula?

A: First of all, you have the basic question: do we do real time with a pause or do we go round by round? I'm a critic of real time with pause because I remember my Baldur's Gate games and I look at what they did recently with Pillars of Eternity: it's a mess, pause, you give three orders, you stop the pause, it's a mess. I don't like that at all. I'm convinced it's something that's playing against us, that's preventing us from attracting new players. What I like about the turn-by-turn is that the "it's yours, it's mine, it's yours" side of it, everyone understands that.

What I want to do, apart from the mechanics, is to have references to the old Baldur's Gate, so that "it rhymes" as Georges Lucas said. Nevertheless, you still have to realize that it has aged. The tone has aged, the mechanics have aged. We have to modernize, we have to simplify. Anyway, we follow the rules of the 5th edition of Dungeons and Dragons, which is still much more accessible I think. So, how do you modernize with that in mind? I think we can make references to the scenario, we can go through known places, maybe find characters, but I think that this will happen mostly at the level of the universe and the scenario as well as at the level of the tone more than in the mechanics, which, for their part, need to be modernized.

That is somebody who should not ever be allowed to develop a Baldur's Gate game. They are prejudiced against Baldur's Gate from the outset and have no interest in making a Baldur's Gate game. There isn't a problem with RTwP, there's a problem with their perception of and skill with RTwP. They require a very dumbed-down experience that is ultra-simple and clarified in order to be able to follow what is happening. They aren't the average gamer, though.

This further underscores that Larian are not even thinking about making a Baldur's Gate game and couldn't care less about the Baldur's Gate series other than the potential for its name to boost their own Divinity brand's popularity, as Swen said is what he hopes to do:

https://youtu.be/kGnGOnzlC4s?t=214
Quote
... so, the chance to do that, and to bring what basically is our RPG identity to Baldur's Gate as a franchise was an opportunity too good to resist. And so, what it will do for us... uh, what we think it will do for us is it's going to show a larger segment of people, because I think Baldur's Gate 3 will reach more people than Divinity will have done... it will show a larger segment of the population what our RPGs feel like and hopefully bring them to play our other games also.

And as Walgrave revealed when he said Larian are sticking to the DOS formula (which disingenuously saying that D&D is a turn-based game while omitting to acknowledge that Baldur's Gate isn't just D&D and is a RTwP series):

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2020-02-27-baldurs-gate-3-interview
Quote
The choices that we made are ours. Why did we go for turn-based instead of real-time with pause? Because D&D to us is a turn-based game and we're really good - or we have become really good - with turn-based combat. So that, I think, is one of our strengths, and trying out real-time with pause for now, just because the originals were that? It's a big risk. Because the team would have to think completely differently, our combat would be completely different. And we didn't really feel good about that. Normally we do try out a lot. Normally we try out a lot before we make a decision, but with real-time with pause and turn-based we didn't, we just said "Okay it's just gonna be turn-based."

It's no wonder Walgrave couldn't think of a single aspect of their D&D RPG that justifies calling their "BG3" a successor to the Baldur's Gate series:

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2020-02-27-baldurs-gate-3-interview
Quote
So, I think that in spirit it's still the successor of Baldur's Gate 1 and 2. Because there are so many things that people who did play and like Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 will still recognise in the new one. It's still about your party. It's still about big personalities clashing with each other and relationships. It's still a party-based game, you still need to do combat, you will recognise a lot of D&D rules - even if you haven't played D&D in 20 years. You will still recognise all the spells, et cetera. So, to me it's a true sequel, but we are bringing it into the 21st century by saying, "Look, it's glorious 3D."

So, Larian's "BG3" is a sequel because it's a party-based RPG with colourful character and with combat in it - and the combat uses a D&D ruleset. He didn't even dare add that Baldur's Gate has specifically RTwP combat - because, of course, Larian's "BG3" doesn't. Walgrave's claim is the equivalent of saying that any first-person game where you play as a single character and use a variety of weapons to shoot at lots of things is a DOOM series game or a Half-Life series game.

There are loads of games that fit Walgrave's description that aren't called Baldur's Gate series games, and there are thousands that fit the description if not counting the D&D ruleset qualifier. What Walgrave is saying is that there is no similarity between Larian's D&D game and the Baldur's Gate series and so he couldn't think of something that actually justifies calling Larian's "BG3" a Baldur's Gate series game.

Black Isle themselves, the creators of the Baldur's Gate series, wasn't willing to call their game "BG3" despite that their cancelled game had a lot more in common with the BG series: https://twitter.com/jesawyer/status/1234228179906134016

So, if they judged it not right that their own follow-up game not be titled Baldur's Gate 3, then it's clear that they would not approve of Larian's game bearing the Baldur's Gate name.


Larian talk like snakes in interviews when trying to rationalize why they're calling their game "BG3". But it's abundantly clear that the only actual reason why they are calling it "BG3" is for a cash-grab, to promote their own DOS formula and brand. And co-opting another series and disregarding its important legacy and its fans for such a self-serving goal is selling-out. If they weren't interesting in making an actual Baldur's Gate game, and it's clear they have never been, then they should have left the title alone.

BTW, in a recent interview Swen said that their studio all loved the BG series (except for everything about it, it seems). But in an older interview from when the license was being announced, I'm pretty sure he said that the people in their studio didn't even know what the Baldur's Gate series was when the idea was raised.
Posted By: vometia Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 05/03/20 01:10 PM
TB/RTwP discussion here please. Thank you.
Posted By: Eguzky Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 05/03/20 02:29 PM
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by Eguzky
It's BG3 because they were given the BG IP to use.
And it takes place in the BG universe.
And it takes place in the BG timeline.
And the events of BG 1 & 2 are canon to the events in BG3.

Huh. Seems like BG3 to me. You know, because the game-engine & mechanics have little..actually, have NOTHING to do with game sequels and in-universe lore.

Fallout 3 was not the same as 1 & 2.
World of Warcraft was not an RTS.
Kid Icarus was a side scroller. KI: Uprising was an amazing on-rails shooter plus 3D shooter for the ground battles.
Castle Wolfenstein was, again, a side-scroller before becoming a 3D FPS.
Duke Nukem, AGAIN, was a side scroller, then an FPS.

This is the same thread as the Steam forums; people angry that BG3 is not real-time w/ pause, because they can't take off their nostalgia goggles and accept something new.

We get it; you're angry that BG3 is not going to be a carbon copy of a 20 year old game who's combat was the worst part of it.
You're angry that Larian did not know to psychically contact you to let YOU decide how they should spend their millions of dollars to create the game.
And you're angry that other people are going to like something you hate.

As I've said on the Steam forums; no one cares. Go back to Pathfinder: Kingmaker and let the fans enjoy a perfectly good, perfectly enjoyable turn-based D&D game.
Kingmaker, for me not liking RTwP, is a perfectly fine D&D game.

Go away and let us fans enjoy what will be another perfectly fine D&D game with a combat system we can enjoy.



Oh yeah, Forgotten Realms + ""timeline""/event + D&D rules... Okay I now understand...

Baldur's Gate (and video games) is a set of many elements. Universe and rules are just a part of it.
That's not only what define the experience.

Diablo 3 would never be named Diablo 3 if it wasn't H&S.
World of Warcraft is not named Warcraft 4...
DoS3 is not gonna be a RTS game.
TES6 won't be on a other world as Nirn/Tamriel.

This is just part of the experiences but this is important these things are presents for players to find the spirit of previous games.
No one said BG3 should run on IE. Part of an experience doesn't mean take the exact same things.


World of Warcraft WAS Warcraft 4. They changed the name when they switched genres, but it was a continuation of the same story in the same world (IE: The events of Warcraft 1-3 are canon to WoW) with the same people.
Baldur's Gate 3 is not even switching genres; it's still an isometric RPG based on D&D. It's also using the same world, and the events of BG 1 & 2 are canon to BG3.

DoS3 could be an RTS, and as long as it takes place in the same world as DoS2, it's a sequel. I would not buy it, because I don't like RTSs, but it would still be a sequel.

Mechaniics change as technology changes. And developers make what they are comfortable making. I'd rather have a TB game from Larian, who have shown they are very good hands at making TB games, then an RTS.

If you don't like turn-based games; fine. I don't like RTwP. It would be silly of me or you or anyone to buy a game they are going to hate.
But if you don't mind turn-based games, then don't let something as silly as a mechanics shift chase you away from what looks like a very good game so far.

And no matter how much you, me, or anyone tries to claim otherwise, a sequel is determined by a games STORY, not it's mechanics.

Sequel:
a published, broadcast, or recorded work that continues the story or develops the theme of an earlier one.


You will note in that definition, it covers the story. Not the mechanics.
Posted By: kanisatha Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 05/03/20 02:44 PM
Originally Posted by kungfukappa
sorry, Eguzky, but people with opinions different from yours is not "harassment", but telling people they are not allowed to express opinions is.

Right on. I have every right to be angry, to complain, and to describe this game as a bad game. And I will continue to do so.
Posted By: anjovis bonus Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 05/03/20 02:46 PM
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Originally Posted by kungfukappa
sorry, Eguzky, but people with opinions different from yours is not "harassment", but telling people they are not allowed to express opinions is.

Right on. I have every right to be angry, to complain, and to describe this game as a bad game. And I will continue to do so.


Based on a single tech demo. It's what, pre-alpha? Hilarious.
Posted By: Riandor Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 05/03/20 02:48 PM
Originally Posted by Eguzky
[quote=Maximuuus][quote=Eguzky]...


One could argue that the upcoming Diablo 4 is moving to a more open world hub style game more,with MMORPG elements. They will still call it Diablo 4 and not World of Diablo.

I really do think though that too much is being made of the BG3 title. WoTC wanted a BG3 game, they specifically chose Larian due to how D:OS was as a game and all that that entails. Life is too bloody short to care about this to this extent and I say that as someone for whom BG2 defined everything when it came to RPG games going forward. I took ages to warm to NWN purely for this very reason, because although it wasn't called BG(x) it was the next BioWare RPG game that I played (I missed Icewind Dale, though I did play a fair amount of Planescape Torment) and it didn't have a PARTY.

We all have things that are personal to us when it comes to beloved franchises or music or whatever. For me like I said, it's 6 people party composition in a D&D setting with epic story and awesome interactions. Anyting else is just a game mechanic.

For others its the painted landscapes, for others the combat system, or a combination. Either way, I feel we need to move away from "this isn't BG3!!" Because it is, because WoTC have said it is and because Larian are making it as such.

Is it my BG3? Your BG3? Yes, no, perhaps or variants of. It's healthy to state what we like or dislike, but arguing over the title should really stop and instead we should focus on providing constructive feedback as to what we would like to see from Larian going forward.

I think they've seen what a passionate corwd we can be, but let's be passionate and support and where appropriate critique, not act like spoilt brats who didn't get a red BMX but a black mountain bike for their birthday.
Posted By: Eguzky Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 05/03/20 02:49 PM
Originally Posted by anjovis bonus
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Originally Posted by kungfukappa
sorry, Eguzky, but people with opinions different from yours is not "harassment", but telling people they are not allowed to express opinions is.

Right on. I have every right to be angry, to complain, and to describe this game as a bad game. And I will continue to do so.


Based on a single tech demo. It's what, pre-alpha? Hilarious.


To be fair; the mechanic many people dislike will not change, most likely.

But complaining about graphics, animation, voice acting, or UI at this stage is like complaining that cake batter does not look as good as a finished cake.
Posted By: Riandor Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 05/03/20 03:16 PM
Originally Posted by Eguzky
Originally Posted by anjovis bonus
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Originally Posted by kungfukappa
sorry, Eguzky, but people with opinions different from yours is not "harassment", but telling people they are not allowed to express opinions is.

Right on. I have every right to be angry, to complain, and to describe this game as a bad game. And I will continue to do so.


Based on a single tech demo. It's what, pre-alpha? Hilarious.


To be fair; the mechanic many people dislike will not change, most likely.

But complaining about graphics, animation, voice acting, or UI at this stage is like complaining that cake batter does not look as good as a finished cake.

That's the nature of the internet and the early reveal we all crave. But I utterly agree with you.

We take what we see at face value and discuss it as if it was the "near" final product. I said it in another thread, due to the borrowing of assets from D:OS2, the BG3 Demo looks quite far advanced, more than Larian perhaps intended. I feel Larian could have been more vocal about the graphical look and feel side to the general public, but, but maybe they were and I missed it. After all until I joined this forum, I went mostly by the presentation by Swen at PAX, whereas most of the Media videos that came out shortly after were more enlightening.

I think that the Early Access news also makes people sit up more and go, "argh it's nearly playable and it's not BG3 looking at all". Rightly or wrongly. Yet it is still very much a wait and see approach that is needed, though I wholeheartedly believe we should be providing constructive criticism for all things, even if we believe they are final, becaue a) they're probably not and b) I beleive Larian would at least take note, even if they ultimately stuck to their idea over our collective one.

Posted By: Cirolle Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 05/03/20 05:06 PM
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
Originally Posted by Sordak
This stuff just boggles my mind.
Why on earth would you want BG3 to be made by obsidian?

If you want RTWP then maybe go with owlcat.
but obsidian has shown qutie well that they are incapeable of making good games and they are out of touch with the CRPG audience.
Laud them as much as you want for beeing conservative in mechanics, their writing isnt winning any awards with the fan base.

and cheap? you realy think this is cheap? Do you even understand how much the larian team has expanded for this?

Why am i even typing this. This is bait.


Hi friend,

There is a saying that goes like this: "DON'T FIX WHAT ISN'T BROKEN"

BG1 and BG2 were not broken games.

What every fan of BG was expecting from BG3 was to take the very successful BG formula and IMPROVE on that to make BG3.

NOBODY was expecting that Larian would make a CHEAP move and just use its DOS template and call it BG.

Do you remember what happened with the Diablo franchise maybe? After legendary D1 and D2 games, a new dev team comes to "reinvent" things, and then makes D3, a complete cartoony-looking disaster. Now they are making D4 according to the "original" D1 and D2 recipe. Why, because it worked.

The same thing will happen with this "BG3" i.e. "DOS3" - they also made BG3 look like a cartoon.

What Larian has done (marketing DOS3 named as BG3) - in my book, resembles FALSE ADVERTISING.

They just hyped a lot of old BG fans up with false advertising. Larian, do you really think people are that stupid?

So what if they expanded their team and have a bigger budget? It is still a cheap move.

Larian, be honest and stop calling this game BG3!!!



Alright, I seen this argument before.

Diablo 3 was a huge success and sold over 20 million copies over all platforms, making it one of the most sold games of all times (MC and PUBG is ahead).
To compare, Diablo 1 and 2 sold around 6 million copies (2 for D1 and 4 for D2)

The only ones that thought it was a HUGE FAILURE was a smaller group of Diablo 2 fans.
Something is not a failure because YOU don't like it.

You simply cannot just make up your own definition of "Failure".

And if you want to bring up the point of Diablo 2 coming out in 2000, fair enough. It sold well for that year, but it is still 7 million copies behind The Sims.
Posted By: Cirolle Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 05/03/20 06:03 PM
Originally Posted by dmsephiroth
Oh Helloo Larian, watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qORVHGkEn58

There you can see a real good RPG which looks kinda familiar with baldurs gate, good music, effects and fun gameplay.


This looks like a total clone of Pathfinder: Kingmaker and nothing like Baldur's Gate II
Posted By: Riandor Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 05/03/20 06:41 PM
Originally Posted by Cirolle
[quote=kyrthorsen][quote=Sordak]...


Oh come on, D3 was not a commercial success because of its new art style and corny dialogue.
It was successful in spite of this because old fans were desperate for a new Diablo and there was precious little else out there in the genre, plus the later ability to play on console with 4 -layer couch co-op, the much better expansion and continued updates make it still one of the better games in a niche genre.

I love Diablo, but stylistically and tone wise, d3 is a poor Diablo game, so says pretty much everyone, including blizzard. Plus you can not compare it to the sims?!! That’s like me comparing big sales to bloody fifa

So these things are important and I look forward to seeing how Larian handles BG3.
Posted By: Cirolle Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 05/03/20 06:57 PM
Originally Posted by Riandor
Originally Posted by Eguzky
[quote=Maximuuus][quote=Eguzky]...


...For others its the painted landscapes...


I feel dumb for asking this, but what does this mean? The "painted" landscapes part.
Posted By: Emrikol Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 05/03/20 07:04 PM
I think they are referring to textures that look or almost look hand-drawn. For me, what they call "painted landscapes" is just better graphics for 1998, but poor quality ones by today's standards. Then again, maybe look to Pillars of Eternity for more current examples ... even though they don't seem as "painted" as BG3. But it's all so vague and subjective, I don't think anyone really knows.
Posted By: Cirolle Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 05/03/20 07:09 PM
Originally Posted by Riandor
Originally Posted by Cirolle
[quote=kyrthorsen][quote=Sordak]...


Oh come on, D3 was not a commercial success because of its new art style and corny dialogue.
It was successful in spite of this because old fans were desperate for a new Diablo and there was precious little else out there in the genre, plus the later ability to play on console with 4 -layer couch co-op, the much better expansion and continued updates make it still one of the better games in a niche genre.

I love Diablo, but stylistically and tone wise, d3 is a poor Diablo game, so says pretty much everyone, including blizzard. Plus you can not compare it to the sims?!! That’s like me comparing big sales to bloody fifa

So these things are important and I look forward to seeing how Larian handles BG3.


The 4 million Diablo fans hardly made up for the 20 million plus sold.
I am not a fan of Diablo 3. I did buy it and then hardly played it.

I am having problems with people going overboard and saying things like "Complete failure" or "Disaster"
The game did fine and sold enough copies to be on the top 3 of all times.

However, the "failure" of Diablo 3 was that Blizzard aimed for it to be a cash cow to be milked for many years. The intent was not for it to "just" be a single player game, but to be a "Game as a service". This part never took off and they had invested years into the whole concept.
As a friend pointed out, if they had focused on churning out a Diablo series of games instead, they would have made a lot more money.

I feel that Diablo 4 will be more in style with Diablo 2, but they will most likely push the side cash cow even more this time around.
Posted By: Cirolle Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 05/03/20 07:11 PM
Originally Posted by Emrikol
I think they are referring to textures that look or almost look hand-drawn. For me, what they call "painted landscapes" is just better graphics for 1998, but poor quality ones by today's standards. Then again, maybe look to Pillars of Eternity for more current examples ... even though they don't seem as "painted" as BG3. But it's all so vague and subjective, I don't think anyone really knows.


Huh

I thought they meant that all the backgrounds assets where places by hand or something.
I mean, it is obviously assets that are used many many times in different places.

I don't think it refers to the style really. Would be the first time I see that.
Posted By: Riandor Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 05/03/20 07:14 PM
Originally Posted by Cirolle
Originally Posted by Riandor
Originally Posted by Cirolle
[quote=kyrthorsen][quote=Sordak]...


Oh come on, D3 was not a commercial success because of its new art style and corny dialogue.
It was successful in spite of this because old fans were desperate for a new Diablo and there was precious little else out there in the genre, plus the later ability to play on console with 4 -layer couch co-op, the much better expansion and continued updates make it still one of the better games in a niche genre.

I love Diablo, but stylistically and tone wise, d3 is a poor Diablo game, so says pretty much everyone, including blizzard. Plus you can not compare it to the sims?!! That’s like me comparing big sales to bloody fifa

So these things are important and I look forward to seeing how Larian handles BG3.


The 4 million Diablo fans hardly made up for the 20 million plus sold.
I am not a fan of Diablo 3. I did buy it and then hardly played it.

I am having problems with people going overboard and saying things like "Complete failure" or "Disaster"
The game did fine and sold enough copies to be on the top 3 of all times.

However, the "failure" of Diablo 3 was that Blizzard aimed for it to be a cash cow to be milked for many years. The intent was not for it to "just" be a single player game, but to be a "Game as a service". This part never took off and they had invested years into the whole concept.
As a friend pointed out, if they had focused on churning out a Diablo series of games instead, they would have made a lot more money.

I feel that Diablo 4 will be more in style with Diablo 2, but they will most likely push the side cash cow even more this time around.


Here I agree
Posted By: Emrikol Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 05/03/20 07:15 PM
Originally Posted by Cirolle
Originally Posted by Emrikol
I think they are referring to textures that look or almost look hand-drawn. For me, what they call "painted landscapes" is just better graphics for 1998, but poor quality ones by today's standards. Then again, maybe look to Pillars of Eternity for more current examples ... even though they don't seem as "painted" as BG3. But it's all so vague and subjective, I don't think anyone really knows.


Huh

I thought they meant that all the backgrounds assets where places by hand or something.
I mean, it is obviously assets that are used many many times in different places.

I don't think it refers to the style really. Would be the first time I see that.


Quote
I will try to find information. But the Infinity Engine of BG1/2 uses pre-rendered 2D backgrounds, which are painted with hand-drawn textures. For example, you can see repeating textures in grass, but those textures are hand-painted. You can see that the trees are hand painted 2d artwork that is then painted into the environment with a brush. Then, after the 2D environments are painted, another coder goes around and draws the collision maps which block out the base of trees (you can see this collision map in the "map overlay" think in the EE), or the depths of walls. Then, the "z axis" stuff is layered and opaqued above so that it fades out when you walk "beneath it".

Each "tile" of the map is about one screen size at medium zoom, they painted the maps one "tile" at a time, and every map is a large 2D planar environment with what is called "trompe l'oiel" or trick of the eye to make it seem 3d.

I've studied BG in art history class in university. I am from Edmonton, so I kind of had more direct access to old Bioware before they dissolved and became an E.A. cancer mill.



From this thread, a few posts down on the first page.
Posted By: kungfukappa Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 05/03/20 07:33 PM
Originally Posted by Delicieuxz
post


#standingovation

Exactly.
Posted By: dirdil Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 05/03/20 07:35 PM
Originally Posted by Delicieuxz
Originally Posted by ThreeL
Feels like people forgot temple of elemental evil... This was turn based and D&D and so much worse than BG especially because of the fighting system


Yeah. There is no trend in gaming indicating that TB is preferred to RTwP. There has only been big TB hit, and that's DOS2. 1 game isn't a trend.

There are been more recent TB games that tanked than there are ones that did great. Torment: Numenera and Wasteland Remastered were both flops and both had TB. And the TB combat was one of the things that were criticized about Torment: Numenera - because Planescape: Torment had RTwP and people didn't like the title switching to TB.

There are more owners of Pillars of Eternity, which is RTwP, on Steam than Wasteland 2, which is TB.

Pillars of Eternity 2 had TB added to it, but it didn't improve its sales or raise its Steam user score by even a single percentage point in the months that followed the TB patch.

And Pathfinder: Kingmaker is more popular right now than any TB game other than DOS2.

And while DOS2's sales have been great, they still haven't topped Dragon Age: Origins': DA:O sold 3.2 million copies in just over 3 months. DOS2 sold 1 million copies in 2.5 months.


So, there is no trend anywhere that TB is more favoured than RTwP. But some fans of DOS2 have let their appreciation of the game blind them to the point they've crafted a mythology about TB games and their popularity.


Here's Larian's "BG3" senior designer and main combat designer, Edouard Imbert on RTwP vs TB:

https://jv.jeuxonline.info/actualit...rt-senior-designer-combats-baldur-gate-3
Quote
Q: How do you reconcile the nostalgia of Baldur's Gate fans with the need to modernise the formula?

A: First of all, you have the basic question: do we do real time with a pause or do we go round by round? I'm a critic of real time with pause because I remember my Baldur's Gate games and I look at what they did recently with Pillars of Eternity: it's a mess, pause, you give three orders, you stop the pause, it's a mess. I don't like that at all. I'm convinced it's something that's playing against us, that's preventing us from attracting new players. What I like about the turn-by-turn is that the "it's yours, it's mine, it's yours" side of it, everyone understands that.

What I want to do, apart from the mechanics, is to have references to the old Baldur's Gate, so that "it rhymes" as Georges Lucas said. Nevertheless, you still have to realize that it has aged. The tone has aged, the mechanics have aged. We have to modernize, we have to simplify. Anyway, we follow the rules of the 5th edition of Dungeons and Dragons, which is still much more accessible I think. So, how do you modernize with that in mind? I think we can make references to the scenario, we can go through known places, maybe find characters, but I think that this will happen mostly at the level of the universe and the scenario as well as at the level of the tone more than in the mechanics, which, for their part, need to be modernized.


That is somebody who should not ever be allowed to develop a Baldur's Gate game. They are prejudiced against Baldur's Gate from the outset and have no interest in making a Baldur's Gate game. There isn't a problem with RTwP, there's a problem with their perception of and skill with RTwP. They require a very dumbed-down experience that is ultra-simple and clarified in order to be able to follow what is happening. They aren't the average gamer, though.

This further underscores that Larian are not even thinking about making a Baldur's Gate game and couldn't care less about the Baldur's Gate series other than the potential for its name to boost their own Divinity brand's popularity, as Swen said is what he hopes to do:

https://youtu.be/kGnGOnzlC4s?t=214
Quote
... so, the chance to do that, and to bring what basically is our RPG identity to Baldur's Gate as a franchise was an opportunity too good to resist. And so, what it will do for us... uh, what we think it will do for us is it's going to show a larger segment of people, because I think Baldur's Gate 3 will reach more people than Divinity will have done... it will show a larger segment of the population what our RPGs feel like and hopefully bring them to play our other games also.

And as Walgrave revealed when he said Larian are sticking to the DOS formula (which disingenuously saying that D&D is a turn-based game while omitting to acknowledge that Baldur's Gate isn't just D&D and is a RTwP series):

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2020-02-27-baldurs-gate-3-interview
Quote
The choices that we made are ours. Why did we go for turn-based instead of real-time with pause? Because D&D to us is a turn-based game and we're really good - or we have become really good - with turn-based combat. So that, I think, is one of our strengths, and trying out real-time with pause for now, just because the originals were that? It's a big risk. Because the team would have to think completely differently, our combat would be completely different. And we didn't really feel good about that. Normally we do try out a lot. Normally we try out a lot before we make a decision, but with real-time with pause and turn-based we didn't, we just said "Okay it's just gonna be turn-based."

It's no wonder Walgrave couldn't think of a single aspect of their D&D RPG that justifies calling their "BG3" a successor to the Baldur's Gate series:

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2020-02-27-baldurs-gate-3-interview
Quote
So, I think that in spirit it's still the successor of Baldur's Gate 1 and 2. Because there are so many things that people who did play and like Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 will still recognise in the new one. It's still about your party. It's still about big personalities clashing with each other and relationships. It's still a party-based game, you still need to do combat, you will recognise a lot of D&D rules - even if you haven't played D&D in 20 years. You will still recognise all the spells, et cetera. So, to me it's a true sequel, but we are bringing it into the 21st century by saying, "Look, it's glorious 3D."

So, Larian's "BG3" is a sequel because it's a party-based RPG with colourful character and with combat in it - and the combat uses a D&D ruleset. He didn't even dare add that Baldur's Gate has specifically RTwP combat - because, of course, Larian's "BG3" doesn't. Walgrave's claim is the equivalent of saying that any first-person game where you play as a single character and use a variety of weapons to shoot at lots of things is a DOOM series game or a Half-Life series game.

There are loads of games that fit Walgrave's description that aren't called Baldur's Gate series games, and there are thousands that fit the description if not counting the D&D ruleset qualifier. What Walgrave is saying is that there is no similarity between Larian's D&D game and the Baldur's Gate series and so he couldn't think of something that actually justifies calling Larian's "BG3" a Baldur's Gate series game.

Black Isle themselves, the creators of the Baldur's Gate series, wasn't willing to call their game "BG3" despite that their cancelled game had a lot more in common with the BG series: https://twitter.com/jesawyer/status/1234228179906134016

So, if they judged it not right that their own follow-up game not be titled Baldur's Gate 3, then it's clear that they would not approve of Larian's game bearing the Baldur's Gate name.


Larian talk like snakes in interviews when trying to rationalize why they're calling their game "BG3". But it's abundantly clear that the only actual reason why they are calling it "BG3" is for a cash-grab, to promote their own DOS formula and brand. And co-opting another series and disregarding its important legacy and its fans for such a self-serving goal is selling-out. If they weren't interesting in making an actual Baldur's Gate game, and it's clear they have never been, then they should have left the title alone.

BTW, in a recent interview Swen said that their studio all loved the BG series (except for everything about it, it seems). But in an older interview from when the license was being announced, I'm pretty sure he said that the people in their studio didn't even know what the Baldur's Gate series was when the idea was raised.


There's not a single thing above I disagree with. There are only 2 games in this world i'd consider myself a fan of; Baldur's Gate and PS:T.
Planescape 2 was a disappointment for me because what I missed mostly was the atmosphere. Bought the game nevertheless because I knew from the start what I was getting and wanted to support the genre.

But this time i'm not "sad" disappointed, I'm furious! I was expecting a game that would feel familiar to its' predecessors. All i see is DOS.

Primary reasons are the artwork and the combat system which kinda effects a fair portion of game time..
And now thanks to Delicieuxz I'm learning that combat system apparently changed so they could attract new players(guess what's happening to some old ones?), can't risk changing what they've already done, and they believe "D&D is turn-based so Baldur's Gate should be turn-based too" is a logical argument.
What were Baldur's Gate 1 & 2 then? Have you ever tried playing D&D RTwP? No, because you can't. Well, in the actual Baldur's Gate you can.
Posted By: Cirolle Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 05/03/20 07:42 PM
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Originally Posted by Cirolle
Originally Posted by Emrikol
I think they are referring to textures that look or almost look hand-drawn. For me, what they call "painted landscapes" is just better graphics for 1998, but poor quality ones by today's standards. Then again, maybe look to Pillars of Eternity for more current examples ... even though they don't seem as "painted" as BG3. But it's all so vague and subjective, I don't think anyone really knows.


Huh

I thought they meant that all the backgrounds assets where places by hand or something.
I mean, it is obviously assets that are used many many times in different places.

I don't think it refers to the style really. Would be the first time I see that.


Quote
I will try to find information. But the Infinity Engine of BG1/2 uses pre-rendered 2D backgrounds, which are painted with hand-drawn textures. For example, you can see repeating textures in grass, but those textures are hand-painted. You can see that the trees are hand painted 2d artwork that is then painted into the environment with a brush. Then, after the 2D environments are painted, another coder goes around and draws the collision maps which block out the base of trees (you can see this collision map in the "map overlay" think in the EE), or the depths of walls. Then, the "z axis" stuff is layered and opaqued above so that it fades out when you walk "beneath it".

Each "tile" of the map is about one screen size at medium zoom, they painted the maps one "tile" at a time, and every map is a large 2D planar environment with what is called "trompe l'oiel" or trick of the eye to make it seem 3d.

I've studied BG in art history class in university. I am from Edmonton, so I kind of had more direct access to old Bioware before they dissolved and became an E.A. cancer mill.



From this thread, a few posts down on the first page.


Thank you, this was most helpful
Posted By: kungfukappa Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 05/03/20 07:48 PM
Originally Posted by Cirolle
Thank you, this was most helpful


It is really neat stuff how they did it. Obviously, digital painting back in 1998 was pixel dependent and not vectored like we can do today, but there is no reason why something as artful could not be accomplished today.

Pillars of Eternity actually does an incredible job of this in the Unity engine. They used the same technique by making expansive 2D backgrounds (just not as big as the maps in BG, sadly) and then populated them with 3d rendered objects. Pay very close attention to the Odema's Camp right at the beginning, you can see that it is a "showpiece" that received a lot of love and attention, not just because it is the first thing players see.

The environment is a flat, 2d planar map, but they have 3d rendered adra rocks and walls and characters. They use lighting to blend it all together. You can tell very well that the trees are painted then rendered. It is gorgeous.
Posted By: Raze Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 06/03/20 02:49 PM
Originally Posted by Delicieuxz
BTW, in a recent interview Swen said that their studio all loved the BG series

He was speaking in general terms. As is almost always the case when describing the opinion of a group of hundreds of people.

Originally Posted by Delicieuxz
in an older interview from when the license was being announced, I'm pretty sure he said that the people in their studio didn't even know what the Baldur's Gate series was when the idea was raised.

He said there were people who didn't know Baldur's Gate, not 'the' people.
In any case, these statements do not conflict; it is entirely possible to love something now that you did not know about more than a year ago.
Posted By: kyrthorsen Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 06/03/20 10:17 PM
Originally Posted by Cirolle
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
Originally Posted by Sordak
This stuff just boggles my mind.
Why on earth would you want BG3 to be made by obsidian?

If you want RTWP then maybe go with owlcat.
but obsidian has shown qutie well that they are incapeable of making good games and they are out of touch with the CRPG audience.
Laud them as much as you want for beeing conservative in mechanics, their writing isnt winning any awards with the fan base.

and cheap? you realy think this is cheap? Do you even understand how much the larian team has expanded for this?

Why am i even typing this. This is bait.


Hi friend,

There is a saying that goes like this: "DON'T FIX WHAT ISN'T BROKEN"

BG1 and BG2 were not broken games.

What every fan of BG was expecting from BG3 was to take the very successful BG formula and IMPROVE on that to make BG3.

NOBODY was expecting that Larian would make a CHEAP move and just use its DOS template and call it BG.

Do you remember what happened with the Diablo franchise maybe? After legendary D1 and D2 games, a new dev team comes to "reinvent" things, and then makes D3, a complete cartoony-looking disaster. Now they are making D4 according to the "original" D1 and D2 recipe. Why, because it worked.

The same thing will happen with this "BG3" i.e. "DOS3" - they also made BG3 look like a cartoon.

What Larian has done (marketing DOS3 named as BG3) - in my book, resembles FALSE ADVERTISING.

They just hyped a lot of old BG fans up with false advertising. Larian, do you really think people are that stupid?

So what if they expanded their team and have a bigger budget? It is still a cheap move.

Larian, be honest and stop calling this game BG3!!!



Alright, I seen this argument before.

Diablo 3 was a huge success and sold over 20 million copies over all platforms, making it one of the most sold games of all times (MC and PUBG is ahead).
To compare, Diablo 1 and 2 sold around 6 million copies (2 for D1 and 4 for D2)

The only ones that thought it was a HUGE FAILURE was a smaller group of Diablo 2 fans.
Something is not a failure because YOU don't like it.

You simply cannot just make up your own definition of "Failure".

And if you want to bring up the point of Diablo 2 coming out in 2000, fair enough. It sold well for that year, but it is still 7 million copies behind The Sims.


If you think a game is a huge success just because a lot people that loved the series bought the next installment...big sales dont make a good game

Same with BG3, jeah sure the game could make lots of money because of its IP - but that doesnt mean it will be a great game

The ONLY POINT Im trying to make with this thread is that BG3 needs to be DIFFERENT than DOS and SIMILAR to BG 1 and 2.

The PROBLEM is that the gameplay LOOKS as a DOS game not a BG game.

PERIOD.
Posted By: kungfukappa Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 06/03/20 10:22 PM
Originally Posted by Raze
Originally Posted by Delicieuxz
BTW, in a recent interview Swen said that their studio all loved the BG series

He was speaking in general terms. As is almost always the case when describing the opinion of a group of hundreds of people.

Originally Posted by Delicieuxz
in an older interview from when the license was being announced, I'm pretty sure he said that the people in their studio didn't even know what the Baldur's Gate series was when the idea was raised.

He said there were people who didn't know Baldur's Gate, not 'the' people.
In any case, these statements do not conflict; it is entirely possible to love something now that you did not know about more than a year ago.

How is it possible to pay tribute to that thing when you know little about it, and choose to eschew the things that made it what it was?
Posted By: kyrthorsen Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 06/03/20 10:34 PM
LOL, now even Larian in their new community update is giving excuses about the similiarity between DOS saying that the engine is only 30% DOS2, and that this engine 4.0 is being dubbed BG3 engine, when actually they are updating the DOS2 engine.

There is NOTHING wrong with that, but Larian really needs to stop, think and execute a game that is not DOS anymore...they have to say bye bye DOS and hello BG3, change their art style, visuals, set a darker tone, and look to things that BG1 and 2 did good and IMPROVE ON THAT --- not improve on the things DOS2 did good because then it would be a DOS3 game.
Posted By: Cirolle Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 06/03/20 11:34 PM
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
Originally Posted by Cirolle
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
Originally Posted by Sordak
This stuff just boggles my mind.
Why on earth would you want BG3 to be made by obsidian?

If you want RTWP then maybe go with owlcat.
but obsidian has shown qutie well that they are incapeable of making good games and they are out of touch with the CRPG audience.
Laud them as much as you want for beeing conservative in mechanics, their writing isnt winning any awards with the fan base.

and cheap? you realy think this is cheap? Do you even understand how much the larian team has expanded for this?

Why am i even typing this. This is bait.


Hi friend,

There is a saying that goes like this: "DON'T FIX WHAT ISN'T BROKEN"

BG1 and BG2 were not broken games.

What every fan of BG was expecting from BG3 was to take the very successful BG formula and IMPROVE on that to make BG3.

NOBODY was expecting that Larian would make a CHEAP move and just use its DOS template and call it BG.

Do you remember what happened with the Diablo franchise maybe? After legendary D1 and D2 games, a new dev team comes to "reinvent" things, and then makes D3, a complete cartoony-looking disaster. Now they are making D4 according to the "original" D1 and D2 recipe. Why, because it worked.

The same thing will happen with this "BG3" i.e. "DOS3" - they also made BG3 look like a cartoon.

What Larian has done (marketing DOS3 named as BG3) - in my book, resembles FALSE ADVERTISING.

They just hyped a lot of old BG fans up with false advertising. Larian, do you really think people are that stupid?

So what if they expanded their team and have a bigger budget? It is still a cheap move.

Larian, be honest and stop calling this game BG3!!!



Alright, I seen this argument before.

Diablo 3 was a huge success and sold over 20 million copies over all platforms, making it one of the most sold games of all times (MC and PUBG is ahead).
To compare, Diablo 1 and 2 sold around 6 million copies (2 for D1 and 4 for D2)

The only ones that thought it was a HUGE FAILURE was a smaller group of Diablo 2 fans.
Something is not a failure because YOU don't like it.

You simply cannot just make up your own definition of "Failure".

And if you want to bring up the point of Diablo 2 coming out in 2000, fair enough. It sold well for that year, but it is still 7 million copies behind The Sims.


If you think a game is a huge success just because a lot people that loved the series bought the next installment...big sales dont make a good game

Same with BG3, jeah sure the game could make lots of money because of its IP - but that doesnt mean it will be a great game

The ONLY POINT Im trying to make with this thread is that BG3 needs to be DIFFERENT than DOS and SIMILAR to BG 1 and 2.

The PROBLEM is that the gameplay LOOKS as a DOS game not a BG game.

PERIOD.


I am going to ignore your last part about DOS vs BG since that had nothing to do with my post.

And I feel like I already explained what actually made Diablo 3 a success and what made it a "failure". Neither had anything to do with the original fans.

I know what your point is about DOS and BG, and I think it isn't really worth exploring.
Posted By: Nyanko Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 07/03/20 12:12 AM
Personally, whether it's a real BG3 or a DoS3, I just don't care. Either way, it's gonna be a good game. And that's all that matters to me.
Posted By: kyrthorsen Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 07/03/20 08:23 AM
Originally Posted by Nyanko
Personally, whether it's a real BG3 or a DoS3, I just don't care. Either way, it's gonna be a good game. And that's all that matters to me.


Wel thats sad. You young gamers today, you would play anything served on your plate.
Posted By: Sordak Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 07/03/20 08:31 AM
ITT: disingenuous nonsense
Posted By: Nyanko Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 07/03/20 08:39 AM
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
Originally Posted by Nyanko
Personally, whether it's a real BG3 or a DoS3, I just don't care. Either way, it's gonna be a good game. And that's all that matters to me.


Wel thats sad. You young gamers today, you would play anything served on your plate.


You made a wrong assumption here. Too bad for you.

As a matter of fact, I played the first BG when it came out and all its sequels afterwards. But maybe you have to understand some players are not bond to nostalgia and prefer to enjoy a good game rather than crying on the fact its mechanics are not the same anymore. And as a long time backer for Larian Studios, I know I will be playing a very good game when BG3 is out.
Posted By: vometia Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 07/03/20 09:13 AM
Originally Posted by Nyanko
...some players are not bond to nostalgia

Well quite. I played Pong back in the 1970s; I thought it was pants then and I have the same opinion now! I do have nostalgia-goggles for some games but I've revisited enough of them to accept that, for me at least, times move on.
Posted By: ThreeL Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 07/03/20 09:32 AM
Originally Posted by vometia
Originally Posted by Nyanko
...some players are not bond to nostalgia

Well quite. I played Pong back in the 1970s; I thought it was pants then and I have the same opinion now! I do have nostalgia-goggles for some games but I've revisited enough of them to accept that, for me at least, times move on.


But BG2 is still an awesome game, in some points unreached until now. That's not just nostalgia.
Posted By: vometia Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 07/03/20 10:24 AM
Originally Posted by ThreeL
But BG2 is still an awesome game, in some points unreached until now. That's not just nostalgia.

So are a number of titles I played, particularly in my Third Gaming Phase; but that was then and while they have a lot of strengths, they were of their time. While there are elements I'd love to see again, I dunno if I'd really be that entertained with a more modern clone: once the novelty wore off I think there'd be a risk of feeling all btdt.
Posted By: anjovis bonus Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 07/03/20 10:50 AM
There's a whole bunch of IE rip off games, from PoE to Pathfinder to Tyranny to that new Torment game. The market is saturated, there's really no sense in making one more modernized IE rip off.
Posted By: Madscientist Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 07/03/20 11:18 AM
To those who think this game should not be called Baldurs Gate 3:

I have some alternatives wink
- Baldurs Gate: The DIVINITYve Edition
- Divinity Original Sin: The Gate of Baldur
- Day of the Tentacle 2: Invasion of the Brain Eaters

I am really looking forward to this game.
I have played and enjoyed old games like BG1+2 and I have played and enjoyed new games like Disco Elysium.
And I do NOT care how the game is called (hint: Baldurs Gate 3) or if it looks like a 20 year old game (hint: it does not) as long as I enjoy playing it.
Posted By: Dark_Ansem Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 07/03/20 11:23 AM
Originally Posted by vometia
Originally Posted by ThreeL
But BG2 is still an awesome game, in some points unreached until now. That's not just nostalgia.

So are a number of titles I played, particularly in my Third Gaming Phase; but that was then and while they have a lot of strengths, they were of their time. While there are elements I'd love to see again, I dunno if I'd really be that entertained with a more modern clone: once the novelty wore off I think there'd be a risk of feeling all btdt.


I feel like games quality has largely dropped since 2010, in favour of technology.
Posted By: anjovis bonus Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 07/03/20 11:39 AM
Originally Posted by Dark_Ansem
Originally Posted by vometia
Originally Posted by ThreeL
But BG2 is still an awesome game, in some points unreached until now. That's not just nostalgia.

So are a number of titles I played, particularly in my Third Gaming Phase; but that was then and while they have a lot of strengths, they were of their time. While there are elements I'd love to see again, I dunno if I'd really be that entertained with a more modern clone: once the novelty wore off I think there'd be a risk of feeling all btdt.


I feel like games quality has largely dropped since 2010, in favour of technology.


Well what kind of games do you like from back then? Because to me, the rise of indie gaming means we have bot hold school titles and big budget titles, as opposed to 10-20 years back when AAA games were on the level of indie games now.

As far as RPG's go, I think we're in a new golden age, first one being the early 90s with gold box, second being Black Isle / Interplay period and now third with a myriad of indie developers as well as AAA studios making great RPG's.

Not to mention the huge amount of awesome strategy games (Rimworld, Banished etc.), survival games or even roguelikes. If you can't find anything to play in the year 2020, maybe you're just not that interested in playing anymore?
Posted By: Raze Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 07/03/20 12:45 PM
Originally Posted by kungfukappa
How is it possible to pay tribute to that thing when you know little about it, and choose to eschew the things that made it what it was?

Did you change topics from what you quoted? I fail to see how individual people not liking particular elements of the original games (which I assume this is a reference to) means the entire team can not make a suitable game. Especially since, as I stated, some BG1&2 fans share the same opinions.
For what you quoted, with a junior environmental artist asked to make a tree, with or without knowing about a game released before they were born (when the internal announcement was made), it makes no difference to the tree.
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 07/03/20 01:04 PM
I really don't agree with a third "golden age" because I think there are not many games we'll still play/talk/remember as a legendary experience in 20 years.
That's not equal as saying there are no good game at the moment of course.

I think the main problem is the way video game industry has evolved.
Now, games to be "succesfull" has to sell millions of copy. I think It's usualy less about passion and amazing/unique video games experience (many "... -like" , same receipe and mecanics that comes again and again),...but more about money.
Just look to the amount of money they spend in marketing, this is just amazing. Video games is now one of the biggest industry in the world.

I'm really convince if Larian's was so sucessfull with DoS 1 and DoS 2, it's bacause they were a "little" studio, that had to use crowdfunding to create 2 games with so much passion. They took their time to create their own receipe and this receipe clearly works.
They showed passion can still match with the industry.

II really think they're slowly moving from passion to money now they are more confident, such many others before them.

That's a reason why I'm not confident anymore with BG3 in their hands, but this is opinion and personnal analyses, certainly not a way to open another useless discussion.

Posted By: anjovis bonus Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 07/03/20 01:14 PM
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
I really don't agree with a third "golden age" because there are not many games we'll still play/talk/remember as a legendary experience in 20 years.


Hah, you know what they say about predicting the future. There are two types of predictions, lucky or wrong.

Originally Posted by Maximuuus

I think the main problem is the way video game industry has evolved.
Now, games to be "succesfull" has to sell millions of copy. I think It's usualy less about passion and amazing/unique video games experience (many "... -like" , same receipe and mecanics that comes again and again),...but more about money.
Just look to the amount of money they spend in marketing, this is just amazing. Video games is now one of the biggest industry in the world


I take it that you don't play indie games? I suggest looking into games by Obsidian as well as Atom RPG, Pathfinder and other indie RPG's.
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 07/03/20 01:16 PM
As many here, you're really boring playing on every words.
I add a "I think", so you can just stop answering to say nothing...

And guess what ? Owlcat HAS to convince fans (passion needed) BEFORE creating ther games, such Obsidian before Microsoft enter the game...
Don't create me a life because you know nothing about me and games I'm playing...
Posted By: anjovis bonus Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 07/03/20 01:18 PM
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
As many here, you're really boring playing on every words.
I add a "I think", so you can just stop answering to say nothing...


To be fair, people weren't really playing Baldur's Gate before they got re-released. Well I was, but modding the games to run like EE's was a pain in the ass. BGTUTU for example, it took so much tinkering that your average gamer had no interest in. So I guess whether current RPG's will be played in 20 years or not depends on if they'll be kept alive by updating and possibly re-releasing them.
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 07/03/20 01:21 PM
Originally Posted by anjovis bonus
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
As many here, you're really boring playing on every words.
I add a "I think", so you can just stop answering to say nothing...


To be fair, people weren't really playing Baldur's Gate before they got re-released. Well I was, but modding the games to run like EE's was a pain in the ass. BGTUTU for example, it took so much tinkering that your average gamer had no interest in. So I guess whether current RPG's will be played in 20 years or not depends on if they'll be kept alive by updating and possibly re-releasing them.


And you're again talking about you as "poeple".
Lot's of people still played BG before EE exists... And lots of people still plays the original games even if the EE exists...
Maybe you don't, but that's not why it isn't true.

On the other hand I can absolutely agree than some players re-discover (or discover) the game with EE.
Posted By: anjovis bonus Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 07/03/20 01:22 PM
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by anjovis bonus
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
As many here, you're really boring playing on every words.
I add a "I think", so you can just stop answering to say nothing...


To be fair, people weren't really playing Baldur's Gate before they got re-released. Well I was, but modding the games to run like EE's was a pain in the ass. BGTUTU for example, it took so much tinkering that your average gamer had no interest in. So I guess whether current RPG's will be played in 20 years or not depends on if they'll be kept alive by updating and possibly re-releasing them.


And you're again talking about you as "poeple".
Lot's of people still played BG before EE exists... And lots of people still plays the original games even if the EE exists...


Not that many as it was out of print. You could only get it illegally from torrent sites for a long time, and BG1 especially wasn't a good experience due to its outdated engine. Sure now it's easy, just buy it from GOG for ten bucks and you can choose which version you want.
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 07/03/20 01:24 PM
Originally Posted by anjovis bonus
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by anjovis bonus
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
As many here, you're really boring playing on every words.
I add a "I think", so you can just stop answering to say nothing...


To be fair, people weren't really playing Baldur's Gate before they got re-released. Well I was, but modding the games to run like EE's was a pain in the ass. BGTUTU for example, it took so much tinkering that your average gamer had no interest in. So I guess whether current RPG's will be played in 20 years or not depends on if they'll be kept alive by updating and possibly re-releasing them.


And you're again talking about you as "poeple".
Lot's of people still played BG before EE exists... And lots of people still plays the original games even if the EE exists...


Not that many as it was out of print. You could only get it illegally from torrent sites for a long time, and BG1 especially wasn't a good experience due to its outdated engine.


Ok you're right again if it pleasures you.
It's just impossible to speak with someone like you...
Posted By: anjovis bonus Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 07/03/20 01:25 PM
Originally Posted by Maximuuus

Ok you're right again if it pleasures you.
It's just impossible to speak with someone like you...


I'm just stating simple facts my friend. Re-releasing a game naturally gets new players playing it. Did you actually play the games on a modern computer pre-EE's? Modding BG1 to play on the BG2 engine + wide screen support was a pain in the ass.
Posted By: Tuco Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 07/03/20 01:29 PM
Originally Posted by Raze
Did you change topics from what you quoted? I fail to see how individual people not liking particular elements of the original games (which I assume this is a reference to) means the entire team can not make a suitable game. Especially since, as I stated, some BG1&2 fans share the same opinions.
For what you quoted, with a junior environmental artist asked to make a tree, with or without knowing about a game released before they were born (when the internal announcement was made), it makes no difference to the tree.

Look, I'm on board with most of what you guys are doing. Hell, I even PREFER some of the changes you guys are introducing to the series (like the added verticality and the turn based combat). So far my only genuine bummer is the recently confirmed lack of day/night cycle (that's a massive low blow on your par, let me tell you).

THAT SAID, let's be honest here: you guys aren't even TRYING to throw a bone to the old fans, are you?

The cartoonish animations, the controls with that awkward "chain/follow" mechanic, the (allegedly placeholder) UI, the core gameplay changes, the four men party, the indirect dialogues, the lack of a day/night cycle...
It's almost starting to feel like Larian is deliberately trying to ANTAGONIZE the old fanbase.

Even ignoring the fringe group of rabid grognards that will be unhappy no matter what... My worthless advice would be: maybe you guys should start considering that there could be some merit in some of the mixed feedback you are getting.
Don't turn this is another scenario like the armor system of DOS 2 or the shitty progression system/itemization of both the previous games, where people pointed out the flaws from the beginning but the studio ignored them entirely and chose to stick to their guns at all costs.
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 07/03/20 01:31 PM
Originally Posted by anjovis bonus
Originally Posted by Maximuuus

Ok you're right again if it pleasures you.
It's just impossible to speak with someone like you...


I'm just stating simple facts my friend. Re-releasing a game naturally gets new players playing it. Did you actually play the games on a modern computer pre-EE's? Modding BG1 to play on the BG2 engine + wide screen support was a pain in the ass.


This isn not what you said... "people weren't really playing Baldur's Gate before they got re-released".

I play the games every years (or two years) for about 20 years and I can tell you I'm far to be the only one...
Now I'm trying the EE for the first time on my nintendo switch because I like playing in the train (I bought it last month, not interrested playing it on a computer).

Why are we talking about that ? Is that really interresting or is there a link with the previous messages ?
Posted By: anjovis bonus Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 07/03/20 01:34 PM
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by anjovis bonus
Originally Posted by Maximuuus

Ok you're right again if it pleasures you.
It's just impossible to speak with someone like you...


I'm just stating simple facts my friend. Re-releasing a game naturally gets new players playing it. Did you actually play the games on a modern computer pre-EE's? Modding BG1 to play on the BG2 engine + wide screen support was a pain in the ass.


This isn not what you said... "people weren't really playing Baldur's Gate before they got re-released".

I play the games every years (or two years) for about 20 years and now I'm trying the EE for the first time on my nintendo switch (I bought it last month).
Why are we talking about that ? Is that really interresting or is there a link with the previous messages ?


Yeah, people weren't really playing it much compared to say, now or especially when the EE's were just released. It had a good cult following for sure, and there was a small but loyal modding community. Still, it was the EE's that really reinvigorated the player base. The games were out of print and technically badly dated.
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 07/03/20 01:37 PM
Originally Posted by anjovis bonus
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by anjovis bonus
Originally Posted by Maximuuus

Ok you're right again if it pleasures you.
It's just impossible to speak with someone like you...


I'm just stating simple facts my friend. Re-releasing a game naturally gets new players playing it. Did you actually play the games on a modern computer pre-EE's? Modding BG1 to play on the BG2 engine + wide screen support was a pain in the ass.


This isn not what you said... "people weren't really playing Baldur's Gate before they got re-released".

I play the games every years (or two years) for about 20 years and now I'm trying the EE for the first time on my nintendo switch (I bought it last month).
Why are we talking about that ? Is that really interresting or is there a link with the previous messages ?


Yeah, people weren't really playing it much compared to say, now or especially when the EE's were just released. It had a good cult following for sure, and there was a small but loyal modding community. Still, it was the EE's that really reinvigorated the player base. The games were out of print and technically badly dated.


sources ? crystal ball ?
anyway that was not the discussion.
Posted By: anjovis bonus Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 07/03/20 01:37 PM
Originally Posted by Maximuuus

sources ? cristal ball ?


You don't need a crystal ball to know the past, buddy.
Posted By: Ratherz Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 07/03/20 01:51 PM
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by Raze
Did you change topics from what you quoted? I fail to see how individual people not liking particular elements of the original games (which I assume this is a reference to) means the entire team can not make a suitable game. Especially since, as I stated, some BG1&2 fans share the same opinions.
For what you quoted, with a junior environmental artist asked to make a tree, with or without knowing about a game released before they were born (when the internal announcement was made), it makes no difference to the tree.

Look, I'm on board with most of what you guys are doing. Hell, I even PREFER some of the changes you guys are introducing to the series (like the added verticality and the turn based combat). So far my only genuine bummer is the recently confirmed lack of day/night cycle (that's a massive low blow on your par, let me tell you).

THAT SAID, let's be honest here: you guys aren't even TRYING to throw a bone to the old fans, are you?

The cartoonish animations, the controls with that awkward "chain/follow" mechanic, the (allegedly placeholder) UI, the core gameplay changes, the four men party, the indirect dialogues, the lack of a day/night cycle...
It's almost starting to feel like Larian is deliberately trying to ANTAGONIZE the old fanbase.

Even ignoring the fringe group of rabid grognards that will be unhappy no matter what... My worthless advice would be: maybe you guys should start considering that there could be some merit in some of the mixed feedback you are getting.
Don't turn this is another scenario like the armor system of DOS 2 or the shitty progression system/itemization of both the previous games, where people pointed out the flaws from the beginning but the studio ignored them entirely and chose to stick to their guns at all costs.

Cartoonish animations are a matter of taste, and I don't think they're that cartoony. Chain/follow mechanic is a lot better than BG2 style. UI is already better than BG2. Core gameplay is way better even at this stage. Four man party I agree with but I understand why they want to do it. Dialogues could be better. Lack of day/night cycle doesn't matter.

I also enjoyed the abundance of loot in DOS2. Even with that much, I often had some really old and bad equipment for a long time.

There are a lot of opinions and trying to pander to them all just changes which people are unhappy. Better stick to their vision and iterate on it, rather than trying to pander.
Posted By: Tuco Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 07/03/20 01:59 PM
Originally Posted by Ratherz

Cartoonish animations are a matter of taste, and I don't think they're that cartoony. Chain/follow mechanic is a lot better than BG2 style. UI is already better than BG2. Core gameplay is way better even at this stage. Four man party I agree with but I understand why they want to do it. Dialogues could be better. Lack of day/night cycle doesn't matter.

I too can be superficially dismissive of anything doesn't fit my narrative, without having to prove any of my claims!

Also, the chain thing is genuinely terrible no matter how I look at it.
To position my entire party in BG all it took was few clicks.
In OS2 I hade to fight the fucking interface to unchain characters one by one, THEN click to position them. THEN fight the UI again for several seconds to relink them.
If at very least they included an hotkey to instantly chain/unchain the entire party it could somewhat be more bearable.
Posted By: Ratherz Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 07/03/20 02:01 PM
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by Ratherz

Cartoonish animations are a matter of taste, and I don't think they're that cartoony. Chain/follow mechanic is a lot better than BG2 style. UI is already better than BG2. Core gameplay is way better even at this stage. Four man party I agree with but I understand why they want to do it. Dialogues could be better. Lack of day/night cycle doesn't matter.

I too can be superficially dismissive of anything doesn't fit my narrative, without having to prove any of my claims!

What do you mean prove? Those are my opinions. My opinions aren't any better than your opinions, and your opinions aren't better than mine.
Posted By: vometia Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 07/03/20 02:29 PM
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
I really don't agree with a third "golden age" because I think there are not many games we'll still play/talk/remember as a legendary experience in 20 years.

I'm assuming that's (perhaps indirectly) with reference to my comment as I seem to be the one who brought up the subject of a "Third Gaming Phase", as I put it, which is entirely personal to me. I mean most "golden ages" are, if we want to view it in those terms. In my case, the first one was a few years post-Pong when the 8-bit games were incredibly popular thanks to the Atari 2600 being well-established and the UK's home computer scene taking off with the likes of the VIC-20 and Spectrum at its vanguard; second phase was the 3D games of the early-mid '90s like Wolfenstein, Doom and a billion other 3D first-person games; third was the early 21st century with HL2, TES and so on.

Equally personally were my gaming low points: late '80s due to being broke, going to college and discovering the internet, which almost got me expelled (ahem); late '90s due to being Serious Homeowner and career girl and the then 3D games triggered my migraines; and I'm worried that the third is upon us as there seems to be a dearth of things I'm interested in thanks to the online fixation and move away from interesting, absorbing SP games. Which is where BG3 (hopefully) comes in.
Posted By: Wiborg Sturmfels Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 07/03/20 04:08 PM
As you can see from the many threads it is a very emotional issue.

Larian Studios anounnced "Baldur´s Gate III". Of course there is a lot of hype in two different camps:

1. D:OS fans who are simply looking forward to a new Larian game

2. Baldur´s Gate veterans who expect a real Baldur´s Gate game. I would even split the BG camp again into the hardcore fans (who hope for a game in the style of the original game) and the moderate fans, who also accept changes / innovations.

In each of the two BG veteran camps, everyone has their own ideas about a Baldur's Gate game.

There are different questions here:
1. What makes a Baldur's Gate III to a Baldurs Gate game and what is a Baldur's Gate game in general?
2. Why Larian Studios called it Baldur´s Gate III?
3. Is BG3 a successor or a sequel or nothing of it and just a D:OS clone?

Some BG-fans expected a game in the spirit of Baldur´s Gate like Pillars of Eternity, Reals Beyond: Ashes of the Fallen, Black Geyser: Couriers of Darkness or Pathfinder: Kingmaker etc. Others are hoping for changes and innovations. When you see the improvement from Elder Scrolls: Arena to Elder Scrolls Skyrim you can see a lot of improvement and changes to to gameplay. Changes are generally not a bad thing.

Unlike the original games BG3 going to be TB and not RTwP. I don´t want to discuss this pro/contra because there is a own big Thread for it. Of course you have to note that the RTwP has already decisively determined the gameplay in the original Baldur´s Gate games.

Well, the decision was made that Baldur's Gate III is a TB game now. Honestly I personally could live with it. Maybe i will LOVE it because it reminds me of the old "Das Schwarze Auge" games by Attic. They were released outside of Germany as Realms of Arkania / Northlands Trilogy. The Lady, the Mage and the Knight should be a successor. Of course, I could just as easily have lived with RTwP. But the question is now is Baldur´s Gate III still a Baldur´s Gate game because it has another combat system or is it now a D:OS clone because of TB?

It is clear that with the decision TB some fans are offended but the decision was just made. However, it is not understandable for me to tell such a "very questionable" story as a reason for the decision. Larian's "BG3" senior designer and main combat designer, Edouard Imbert said this in an interview:

“I’m critical of real-time-with-pause because I think that it looks messy. It’s like a miss, pause, give three orders, a miss, pause. Also, I don’t believe that sticking to the old system can expand to a greater audience. The thing with turn-based logic is that everybody understands it. It’s my turn, it’s your turn."

In the original french interview he mentioned:

"I played BG2 at the time, but it goes back a long way. I went back to the main fights but it´s very very vague...Me, at the time, i was rather on Final Fantasy *laugh*."

So, the senior designer and main combat designer who hasn't played BG1, who barely remembers BG 2, and who prefers Final Fantasy is saying that RTwP is

a mess

hard to understand (for the D:OS Players?)

he think Larian Studios can´t reach a greater audience with it.

Ok, i just replayed Baldur´s Gate EE, SoD and Baldur´s Gate II EE. In over 350 hours I never thought it was a mess. The combat system was also very easy to understand and I don't have a high school diploma. Yes, i read the manual, maybe that was my advantage. Again, i don´t want to discuss TB vs. RTwP, i accept the decision but I am bothered by the way that is used as a reason. I don't really see any constructive basics here, but rather arguments that are pulled by the hair.

But what worries me most: If you don´t have a clue what the game, not just the name, "Baldur´s Gate" mean then you are the blind man who speaks of the color. Then you can’t understand what the others are talking about and you don´t have any passion of making a Baldur´s Gate III! If you are going for a "Dungeons&Dragons: New Adventure in Baldur´s Gate" game be my guest but not a "Baldur´s Gate III". Don´t get me wrong. Of course, many things have to be redone. For example, a bear looks different in Baldur's Gate 1 than it will be look in Baldur's Gate 3. For the graphic designer it is therefore irrelevant what the bear looked like in the original games. But if you make a decision without being able to identify yourself with the game whose sequel you should make then I think it’s wrong.

So if the combat system has been changed, how does Larian Studios think that old Baldur's Gate veterans recognize Baldur's Gate in a third part?
Larian's David Walgrave, executive producer said in this interview:

"So, I think that in spirit it's still the successor of Baldur's Gate 1 and 2. Because there are so many things that people who did play and like Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 will still recognise in the new one. It's still about your party. It's still about big personalities clashing with each other and relationships. It's still a party-based game, you still need to do combat, you will recognise a lot of D&D rules - even if you haven't played D&D in 20 years. You will still recognise all the spells, et cetera. So, to me it's a true sequel*, but we are bringing it into the 21st century by saying, "Look, it's glorious 3D."


Can we define a Baldur´s Gate game by these above key-features or are these also D:OS features? Will we have with the TB system but the above features still a Baldur´s Gate game?

Baldur's Gate III, a spiritual successor (not a real successor, so I would call it a sequel), can and must then be differentiated through the story! In the same interview David Walgrave mentioned that Larian Studios don´t have any Baldur´s Gate writers like Chris Avellones on board. I was expecting some help from driving D&D experts but Larian Studios also got good writers, so i guess we can looking forward to the story, the lore, the books etc. I´m sure that Adam Smith and his team will dive deep into the D&D Lore an will surprise us.

In this interview also David Walgrave said:

"We wanted to make Baldur’s Gate 3D and we wanted to make sure it was not just a nostalgia trip...There’s a whole new audience out there and they don’t want to play stuff made in the 80s and 90s. They want to play modern stuff that appeals to them... I don’t know how we keep old-school fans happy [laughs]. They’re hard to please. We noticed a lot of our player-base is people in their teens and 20s..."

Ok, Larian Studios player base are people in their teens and 20s and spent their pocket money on their games and Baldur´s Gate III will not just be a nostalgia trip because of a new audience (teens and 20s). This new audience wasn´t even born when Baldur´s Gate 1 or 2 were released. They don´t care about the "Baldur´s Gate" because they don´t know it. Are many decisions just made to make this new audience so enjoyable? So can Larian Studios make a Baldur's Gate III that satisfies all sides? You will not be able to satisfy all camps. You will have to compromise like in a marriage. But you also have to be ready for that - from all sites.

So, Larian Studios call Baldur´s Gate III a spirital successor and sequel. Is that justified?

Let´s have a closer look at these Baldur´s Gate:

Baldur´s Gate is a city at the Sword Coast in Faerûn in the Forgotten Realms. It´s been revisited in other medias too.

Let´s have a closer look to the games because we are talking about a video game here called Baldur´s Gate III and not a novel, a comic, a pen&paper game or any other media:

Baldur´s Gate is playing in and around the city of Baldur´s Gate.

Baldur´s Gate: Tales of the Sword Coast like the name said it´s playing around the city of Baldur´s Gate.

Baldur´s Gate: Siege of Dragonspear is also playing in and around Baldur´s Gate.

Baldur´s Gate II: Shadow of Amn is playing in the city of Athkatla in the country of Amn and it´s playing in the country of Tethyr.

Baldur´s Gate II: Throne of Bhaal is playing also in Tethyr aswell the planar.

As we see the games Baldur´s Gate II: Shadow of Amn and Baldur´s Gate II: Throne of Bhaal are not playing in or around Baldur´s Gate, so why are they used the name Baldur´s Gate II? Well, i can import my savegame from BG to BG:TotSC to BG:SoD to BGII:SoA to BG:ToB and continue the story about the Maincharacter. It has a reference, something continues. So we can call the respective parts - i guess - as real successors and aswell sequels. At the cover of "Baldur´s Gate II: Throne of Bhaal" you can read "The final chapter" because it´s ending the Bhaalspawn-Story. In the outro of BG II:ToB, however, it is said that THIS adventure is over, but more will follow. That´s interesting.

If we take a quick look at other D&D games, e.g. Eye of the Beholder, we will see something similar:

Eye of the Beholder I

Eye of the Beholder II: The Legend of Darkmoon

Eye of the Beholder III: Assault on Myth Drannor

In each part I can transfer my character / group into the next adventure which always connects to the previous adventure. So we can call the respective parts also as successors and the numbering I, II, III make sense.

But there other D&D game series like

Pool of Radiance Vol. 1

Curse of the Azure Bonds Vol. 2

Secret of the Silver Blades Vol. III

Pools of Darkness Vol. IV

The story always continued of the events from the respective predecessor. You could always import your characters from the predecessor. As you can see the names were always different but the numbering was continuous and make sense.

But if we look at

Icewind Dale

Icewind Dale II

we only have a sequel and not a successor. We can´t transfer any characters or continue a story. Part II it´s just a game in the same setting. The same is at Neverwinter Nights after the first expansion.

Just a nice sidenote:
Black Isle themselves, the creators of the Baldur's Gate series, wasn't willing to call their game "Baldur´s Gate 3: The Black Hound" (which should play in the Dalelands like Curse of the Azure Bonds)

I personally would have liked a real successor for Baldur's Gate III. But you can´t transfer your save game from Baldur´s Gate II: Throne of Bhaal to Baldur´s Gate 3. Because you can’t directly import your old save file you could do it like in the Witcher games and choose your decisions before starting the game or something similar like Dragon Age, to transfer it to the DA Keep or just get forced for a decision by the game. Of course the chapter of the Bhaalspawn is closed but i personally hoped for some connection, like e.g. the Maincharacter is having a romance (or did it like Bhaal did back then), a child is born, as an adult he is kidnapped, INTRO BG3. The story could have been continued considering Baldur's Gate: Descent in Avernus. To the different endings in BG2 it make sense to go further with the hero's descendant and so you having the directly connection to BG 2. Unfortunaly none of this will happen but the good at a RPG is, you could write your own background story wink

After these personal wishes, we come back to the question "Why call it a sequel"?

In this interview Adam Smith said:

"One of the questions that comes up again and again is, 'why is it called Baldur's Gate 3?' and it's because it is a true sequel. All the events of the past games, we studied thoroughly and what their impact in the world was...We're on the Sword Coast. So we start 200 miles east of Baldur's Gate. You're not gonna travel the whole 200 miles, but you're going to see a lot of stuff on the way there. Then when you get there, there's going to be things that are recognized within the city, there'll be specific places, and taverns. You'll see things and say "I recognize that. Oh, that's changed a little bit", or "what's happened here", and you can dig into that. Some of it will just be visual, some of it will be in dialogue.We're on the Sword Coast. So we start 200 miles east of Baldur's Gate. You're not gonna travel the whole 200 miles, but you're going to see a lot of stuff on the way there."

Have we now found the Baldur's Gate ingredients through the lore and story?

But Adam also said in the interview:
"I think the Origin characters are something that Divinity did incredibly well, we took that further...So there's a lot of things where there are elements of Divinity that you will see. But a lot of that is in terms of how we treat the environment. And a lot of the reasons that stuff works in Divinity is because that's how the world works...We want to make our own story...That's important to us, that we say we know the core values of what the name Baldur's Gate means: to do something innovative and to do something that feels fresh"

Everyone has to decide for himself how he feels about the game. BUT it should be borne in mind that we are still at the very beginning.

Even though I may be a bit critical of some things i´m still looking forward to the development this game (like the last 20 years). I´m looking forward to a new adventure. I hope that Larian Studios will continue the old traditions of D&D games and then make a whole series. A series of games in which I can import my character / group into the following game for a new adventure. I hope Larian Studios succeeds in creating an independent game, Baldur's Gate III and not just a D:OS III in D&D guise.
I hope that Larian´s employees will play the complete Baldur´s Gate series themselves, so that they know what they are working on. It's different whether I see a Star Wars movie in the cinema or just someone telling me the story about it.

There are people who are not interested in the whole Baldur's Gate thing and are only looking forward to a new Larian game. There are the hardcore Baldur´s Gate fans who prefer an infinity game and who like me, who are also looking forward to innovations but who want to connect to Baldur´s Gate 1+2 or want to see the III deserved.
Posted By: kungfukappa Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 07/03/20 05:16 PM
This wholesale rejection of anything to do with BG1&2 except setting because "times change" is absolutely ludicrous.

Should we turn all RT games into TB games?
Posted By: Tuco Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 07/03/20 05:23 PM
Originally Posted by kungfukappa

Should we turn all RT games into TB games?

In a better world.
But once again that's not the topic here, is it?
Posted By: Boeroer Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 07/03/20 05:26 PM
Great idea, let's roll with it. Who's "we" though?
Posted By: kungfukappa Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 07/03/20 05:40 PM
Right, more evidence that this game is actually being made for people who never liked BG to begin with.
Posted By: KillerRabbit Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 07/03/20 07:01 PM
Originally Posted by kungfukappa
Right, more evidence that this game is actually being made for people who never liked BG to begin with.


Hey now smile I agree with many of the things you've said but I don't think you can boil down BG2 to RTwP. I always played BG as if it were a turn based game. I literally have a place on my space bar that is worn away from all the times I hit pause. RTwP was always a way of splitting the difference between fans. Real time fans could play fastest reflex, turn based fans could agonize over strategy.

One of the reasons I didn't like the *first* version of the PoE engine was that it leaned so heavily towards the "real time" -- it was really an engine for real time fans who liked to pause from time to time.

Now Obsidian got it's act together and gave turn based fans a great engine. I really hope it's used to make a new BG game in the future. (bring back painted backgrounds!)

For me, to be BG it needs good character development, epic story, to be loaded down with side quests and to be "kitchen sink" like. Bioware threw *everything*, *everything* it could find in the rulebooks at BG2 and I think Larian needs to do the same.

BG3 needs to have high replay value, multiple ways to complete tasks . . . so many things other than combat
Posted By: Eguzky Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 07/03/20 07:08 PM
Originally Posted by kungfukappa
Right, more evidence that this game is actually being made for people who never liked BG to begin with.


Here we go with the 'you're not a real fan unless you agree with me' mentality so many RTwP defenders have.

People can like the old BG and still be happy with the changes to the new one, you know.

People need to bloody wait until the game comes out and is playable. THAT is the point in which Larian has said 'This is what we feel is a good enough BG3 to show the world'.

Anything right now is complaining about 'might be' and 'probably will be'. Both of which are as solid as smoke.
Posted By: TheInfinitySock Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 07/03/20 07:17 PM
Funny thing is that a lot of people are complaining about how BG3 looking like DOS2 but this does not bother me why it does not bother is that it means there can forces on the story more than making a new engine for BG3 do you lot have any idea how long it takes to make a new engine and story Dragon Age Origins take six years to come out why make a new engine when you already have a good engine to bring with?
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 07/03/20 07:36 PM
engine is just "the core" of the game... At least they said they only took 20 to 30% of the DoS2 engine... so....
Posted By: Eguzky Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 07/03/20 07:40 PM
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
engine is just a part of the game... At least they said they only took 20 to 30% of the DoS2 engine... so....

Yes and no. the Unity 'engine' and Unreal Engine have made everything from FPS's to RPGs.

The engine has nothing to do with the assets, story, voice acting, or such. It's just a framework for what can be done to make a game.
So people should not get so angry over 'the DoS Engine' because it has nothing to do with DoS except having been made FOR DoS, and thus the name.

The Unreal Engine was first made for Unreal, then Unreal Tournament, and now has games like Ace Combat and Adventure Pinball: Forgotten Island. Which is as far from Unreal as you can get.

So the name of the engine means little other than the games potential, in a VERY loose sense.
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 07/03/20 07:43 PM
Originally Posted by Eguzky
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
engine is just a part of the game... At least they said they only took 20 to 30% of the DoS2 engine... so....

Yes and no. the Unity 'engine' and Unreal Engine have made everything from FPS's to RPGs.

The engine has nothing to do with the assets, story, voice acting, or such. It's just a framework for what can be done to make a game.
So people should not get so angry over 'the DoS Engine' because it has nothing to do with DoS except having been made FOR DoS, and thus the name.

The Unreal Engine was first made for Unreal, then Unreal Tournament, and now has games like Ace Combat and Adventure Pinball: Forgotten Island. Which is as far from Unreal as you can get.

So the name of the engine means little other than the games potential, in a VERY loose sense.


Wow, first time I agree with you.
This was the meanings of my message : engine is not enough to define what a game is.
Posted By: Eguzky Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 07/03/20 07:46 PM
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by Eguzky
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
engine is just a part of the game... At least they said they only took 20 to 30% of the DoS2 engine... so....

Yes and no. the Unity 'engine' and Unreal Engine have made everything from FPS's to RPGs.

The engine has nothing to do with the assets, story, voice acting, or such. It's just a framework for what can be done to make a game.
So people should not get so angry over 'the DoS Engine' because it has nothing to do with DoS except having been made FOR DoS, and thus the name.

The Unreal Engine was first made for Unreal, then Unreal Tournament, and now has games like Ace Combat and Adventure Pinball: Forgotten Island. Which is as far from Unreal as you can get.

So the name of the engine means little other than the games potential, in a VERY loose sense.


Wow, first time I agree with you.
This was the meanings of my message : engine is not enough to define what a game is.


Agreed, and I misunderstood the gist of your post. Apologies.
Posted By: LaserOstrich Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 07/03/20 08:00 PM
Originally Posted by Wiborg Sturmfels
[...] Of course there is a lot of hype in two different camps:

1. D:OS fans who are simply looking forward to a new Larian game

2. Baldur´s Gate veterans who expect a real Baldur´s Gate game. I would even split the BG camp again into the hardcore fans (who hope for a game in the style of the original game) and the moderate fans, who also accept changes / innovations.

In each of the two BG veteran camps, everyone has their own ideas about a Baldur's Gate game. [...]

If you need to do this, than there is in
camp 2 in addition this 'BG isn't just about DnD-movement, this is based too much on the DnD rule'-movement

and you completely left out
camp 3. 'This isn't close enough to the current 5e rules' - camp, so the DnD-purists.

and then, and then....
What a conflict of goals, alone 2 & 3? Is it?
Seen from that perspective, let's just hope that Larian sticks true to their vision, since everybody's darling is everybody's bit*h.
And really no one would like that.

Anyway, I am pretty sure, that nobody ever intended BG or DnD or cRPGs to be something that splits people into camps fight each other personally.

In my handbook of the original saga, right on page 3, within the introduction by David Cook, he says about the game (translated from german):

Quote
That you play it, and have fun with it, that's the point of it.
And I wish you this fun.

I can't find a remark that means to become nasty from playing.
There's an adventure waiting.
This should bring us together.
Camps need a bonfire.
Posted By: Boeroer Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 07/03/20 08:04 PM
Originally Posted by kungfukappa
Right, more evidence that this game is actually being made for people who never liked BG to begin with.


It's just evidence that your broken record shtick beguiles me into teasing you.

I loved BG I & II and presumably did put more hours into RTwP games than any other forum user here (unless there's QA folks for RTwP games here - I know they put humongous amounts of hours into their games). But still: I don't play the fanatic RTwP zealot because TB games can be great, too. D:OS I & II I didn't like that much unfortunately.
Posted By: LaserOstrich Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 07/03/20 08:10 PM
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
BG3 needs to have high replay value, multiple ways to complete tasks . . . so many things other than combat

I just felt like throwing this in, when I read your sentence:

[Linked Image]
It's from page 40 in the Original Manual smile
Posted By: kyrthorsen Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 07/03/20 09:14 PM
Hey, really appreciate your post.

To cut it short, innovation in games YES - always, but copy/pasting 90% DOS2 mechanics while totally ignoring BG vibe, look, gameplay, and calling the game BG3 - HELL NO!
Posted By: kyrthorsen Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 07/03/20 09:18 PM
This is really not about the engine. But to make the game practically IDENTICAL to DOS2??

I mean - if you didnt know that BG3 was coming out and you saw the gameplay demo - would you guest it was a BG game or a DOS game. Enough said.

I have nothing against Larian using their engine - but if they are doing that then obviously they should AT LEAST make the game look and feel different than DOS.
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 07/03/20 09:29 PM
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
This is really not about the engine. But to make the game practically IDENTICAL to DOS2??

I mean - if you didnt know that BG3 was coming out and you saw the gameplay demo - would you guest it was a BG game or a DOS game. Enough said.

I have nothing against Larian using their engine - but if they are doing that then obviously they should AT LEAST make the game look and feel different than DOS.


This.

Incoming people to say you're wrong because it obviously look and feel totally different than DoS smile
Posted By: Raze Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 08/03/20 08:18 AM
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
This is really not about the engine. But to make the game practically IDENTICAL to DOS2??

It was not made to look like D:OS 2, and there are significant differences. During development, games don't start off looking like the final state. The first presentations of D:OS 2 looked like D:OS 1 in a lot of respects, as well. As the core components / systems get finished, and assets are created, they get added to the game.
The save system wasn't added yet in the build used in the presentation, so why do you assume the lighting and camera systems, character models, et al, are finished?
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 08/03/20 08:35 AM
Originally Posted by Raze
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
This is really not about the engine. But to make the game practically IDENTICAL to DOS2??

It was not made to look like D:OS 2, and there are significant differences. During development, games don't start off looking like the final state. The first presentations of D:OS 2 looked like D:OS 1 in a lot of respects, as well. As the core components / systems get finished, and assets are created, they get added to the game.
The save system wasn't added yet in the build used in the presentation, so why do you assume the lighting and camera systems, character models, et al, are finished?


Ok so please, can you then inform us on "how it was made to look like BG" according to the first view we had with the game ?
(assuming "visual" things are not done yet and we don't know much about story).

And please don't answer with what's only from D&D. Of course D&D is (an important) part of a BG game but every games using D&D aren't BG.
(This game is named Baldur's Gate 3, not NWN3, Tales of the Sword Coast 2,..... and not D&D video game).


Posted By: Raze Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 08/03/20 09:15 AM

What does looking like BG mean? There have been several topics related to this, and I don't know. A small minority of people mean an isometric camera with 2D graphics. The area around the riverbank in BG3 was too bright and colourful to be BG, despite bright and colourful areas in the first 2 games, and dark areas in the presentation.
I'm not the person to ask about the graphics design for BG3, though, not being involved in the design or development.
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 08/03/20 10:19 AM
Originally Posted by Raze

What does looking like BG mean? There have been several topics related to this, and I don't know. A small minority of people mean an isometric camera with 2D graphics. The area around the riverbank in BG3 was too bright and colourful to be BG, despite bright and colourful areas in the first 2 games, and dark areas in the presentation.
I'm not the person to ask about the graphics design for BG3, though, not being involved in the design or development.


I really find interresting Larian Studio ask "what does looking like BG means" according you decided to create a game named Baldur's Gate 3... Can't you explain why you choose this name and convince players that find this name important ?
Is it me that has to explain why this new game had this name ?

I can also answer questions with questions...
(EDIT : that's why I didnt answer here, but Darkatarn do it quiete well under)

What you showed looks nothing like a BG game and Swen nearly didn't mention anything about it.

You can answer without talking about anything "visual" (such as isometric camera with 2D graphics).
I agree with you, it's too early to talk about that.
Posted By: DaKatarn Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 08/03/20 10:36 AM
Originally Posted by Raze

What does looking like BG mean? There have been several topics related to this, and I don't know. A small minority of people mean an isometric camera with 2D graphics. The area around the riverbank in BG3 was too bright and colourful to be BG, despite bright and colourful areas in the first 2 games, and dark areas in the presentation.
I'm not the person to ask about the graphics design for BG3, though, not being involved in the design or development.


TY for your presence, it is always interesting to feel listened to and to be able to participate in a real feedback.

I think the main plot is doing a Baldur's Gate game and not just a DD5 game ( Baldur's Gate identity before Dungeons and Dragons identity). It's an important nuance.

I propose a small list to answer your question:

- Incantations for spell!!!!!! Not just click and KABOOM FIRE EFFECT!

- A little less colorful ambiance, BG universe is more realistic and less shiny and high fantasy than Divinity.

- Of course the UI is too close of Divinity. We want an UI with wood and stone, a little more gloomy and traditional.

- "Ahh, the Child of Bhaal has awoken."

A VERY VERY BADASS MAIN VILAIN! Sarevok and Irenicus was deep and very iconic, like Hitchcock said "A good story is a story with a good vilain". I hope Illithid Master isn't the real final boss. I have big hope with Cult of the Dead Three (a very good connexion with the Bhaal Legacy and the new context of DD5).

- BG Music' style or remix! Even today the first notes of the main theme of BG1 or BG2 still very iconic.

- One map for one location to visit with a big world map and the possibility of returning from former areas. The system of ONE BIG Map for one Act in Divinity isn't BG friendly and it's an immersion breaker.

- Custom portrait and real character sheet.

- A LOT of charismatic NPC Companions and not just 5 or 6 Origin Divinity' style NPC.... And please true ROMANCES and a lot of PARTY BANTERS.

- A very good and long adventure with local issues and not just ultra epic and cosmic issue, it's an other immersion breacker imo. Less epic for epicness and more coherent and realistic background. Less High Fantasy and more MEDIEVAL fantasy with historic soul and deep conflicts.

In summary, a good glass of old-fashioned wiskhy in front of a crackling fireplace, an old library and a hunting trophy. Not a smooth and clean atmosphere like the design of the latest iphone.

- Of course, a lot of easter eggs with the BG series (Viconia, Sarevok, events, locations, ...).

- Less WTF moments and jokes than Divinity, BG universe is serious and deep with subtle touches of humor like Jan Jansen and Minsc quotes.

An attack of shoes is fun but it's also useless and not the spirit of the licence.

- A true group of 6 adventurers ( During the demo I have seen only 4 slots of characters...). ( we can make a concession with this point I think...)

Posted By: Riandor Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 08/03/20 12:29 PM
Originally Posted by DaKatarn
Originally Posted by Raze

What does looking like BG mean? There have been several topics related to this, and I don't know. A small minority of people mean an isometric camera with 2D graphics. The area around the riverbank in BG3 was too bright and colourful to be BG, despite bright and colourful areas in the first 2 games, and dark areas in the presentation.
I'm not the person to ask about the graphics design for BG3, though, not being involved in the design or development.


TY for your presence, it is always interesting to feel listened to and to be able to participate in a real feedback.

I think the main plot is doing a Baldur's Gate game and not just a DD5 game ( Baldur's Gate identity before Dungeons and Dragons identity). It's an important nuance.

I propose a small list to answer your question:

- Incantations for spell!!!!!! Not just click and KABOOM FIRE EFFECT!

- A little less colorful ambiance, BG universe is more realistic and less shiny and high fantasy than Divinity.

- Of course the UI is too close of Divinity. We want an UI with wood and stone, a little more gloomy and traditional.

- "Ahh, the Child of Bhaal has awoken."

A VERY VERY BADASS MAIN VILAIN! Sarevok and Irenicus was deep and very iconic, like Hitchcock said "A good story is a story with a good vilain". I hope Illithid Master isn't the real final boss. I have big hope with Cult of the Dead Three (a very good connexion with the Bhaal Legacy and the new context of DD5).

- BG Music' style or remix! Even today the first notes of the main theme of BG1 or BG2 still very iconic.

- One map for one location to visit with a big world map and the possibility of returning from former areas. The system of ONE BIG Map for one Act in Divinity isn't BG friendly and it's an immersion breaker.

- Custom portrait and real character sheet.

- A LOT of charismatic NPC Companions and not just 5 or 6 Origin Divinity' style NPC.... And please true ROMANCES and a lot of PARTY BANTERS.

- A very good and long adventure with local issues and not just ultra epic and cosmic issue, it's an other immersion breacker imo. Less epic for epicness and more coherent and realistic background. Less High Fantasy and more MEDIEVAL fantasy with historic soul and deep conflicts.

In summary, a good glass of old-fashioned wiskhy in front of a crackling fireplace, an old library and a hunting trophy. Not a smooth and clean atmosphere like the design of the latest iphone.

- Of course, a lot of easter eggs with the BG series (Viconia, Sarevok, events, locations, ...).

- Less WTF moments and jokes than Divinity, BG universe is serious and deep with subtle touches of humor like Jan Jansen and Minsc quotes.

An attack of shoes is fun but it's also useless and not the spirit of the licence.

- A true group of 6 adventurers ( During the demo I have seen only 4 slots of characters...). ( we can make a concession with this point I think...)


Whilst you’re list includes good points, I have to ask whether you realised that what you saw was a demo right? That means copied assets, missing animations, incomplete voices and effects and lighting and and and.

The showcase was to highlight the TB system and the kind of things you can do with it within the 5e rules. What we are yet to see other than the cinematic sand some early plot devices is, well, the entire game! We are no where near release.

People should be cautious about getting too precious about this until much later on. Not that I disapprove of poking and asking difficult questions!
Posted By: DaKatarn Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 08/03/20 01:13 PM
Originally Posted by Riandor
Originally Posted by DaKatarn
Originally Posted by Raze

What does looking like BG mean? There have been several topics related to this, and I don't know. A small minority of people mean an isometric camera with 2D graphics. The area around the riverbank in BG3 was too bright and colourful to be BG, despite bright and colourful areas in the first 2 games, and dark areas in the presentation.
I'm not the person to ask about the graphics design for BG3, though, not being involved in the design or development.


TY for your presence, it is always interesting to feel listened to and to be able to participate in a real feedback.

I think the main plot is doing a Baldur's Gate game and not just a DD5 game ( Baldur's Gate identity before Dungeons and Dragons identity). It's an important nuance.

I propose a small list to answer your question:

- Incantations for spell!!!!!! Not just click and KABOOM FIRE EFFECT!

- A little less colorful ambiance, BG universe is more realistic and less shiny and high fantasy than Divinity.

- Of course the UI is too close of Divinity. We want an UI with wood and stone, a little more gloomy and traditional.

- "Ahh, the Child of Bhaal has awoken."

A VERY VERY BADASS MAIN VILAIN! Sarevok and Irenicus was deep and very iconic, like Hitchcock said "A good story is a story with a good vilain". I hope Illithid Master isn't the real final boss. I have big hope with Cult of the Dead Three (a very good connexion with the Bhaal Legacy and the new context of DD5).

- BG Music' style or remix! Even today the first notes of the main theme of BG1 or BG2 still very iconic.

- One map for one location to visit with a big world map and the possibility of returning from former areas. The system of ONE BIG Map for one Act in Divinity isn't BG friendly and it's an immersion breaker.

- Custom portrait and real character sheet.

- A LOT of charismatic NPC Companions and not just 5 or 6 Origin Divinity' style NPC.... And please true ROMANCES and a lot of PARTY BANTERS.

- A very good and long adventure with local issues and not just ultra epic and cosmic issue, it's an other immersion breacker imo. Less epic for epicness and more coherent and realistic background. Less High Fantasy and more MEDIEVAL fantasy with historic soul and deep conflicts.

In summary, a good glass of old-fashioned wiskhy in front of a crackling fireplace, an old library and a hunting trophy. Not a smooth and clean atmosphere like the design of the latest iphone.

- Of course, a lot of easter eggs with the BG series (Viconia, Sarevok, events, locations, ...).

- Less WTF moments and jokes than Divinity, BG universe is serious and deep with subtle touches of humor like Jan Jansen and Minsc quotes.

An attack of shoes is fun but it's also useless and not the spirit of the licence.

- A true group of 6 adventurers ( During the demo I have seen only 4 slots of characters...). ( we can make a concession with this point I think...)


Whilst you’re list includes good points, I have to ask whether you realised that what you saw was a demo right? That means copied assets, missing animations, incomplete voices and effects and lighting and and and.

The showcase was to highlight the TB system and the kind of things you can do with it within the 5e rules. What we are yet to see other than the cinematic sand some early plot devices is, well, the entire game! We are no where near release.

People should be cautious about getting too precious about this until much later on. Not that I disapprove of poking and asking difficult questions!


I'm agree with you but it's the goal of a preview to have a feedback and this is my feedback: "Prevention is better than cure".
Posted By: Riandor Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 08/03/20 01:44 PM
Yeah that’s fair...
In fact a lot of the criticism is fair, it’s just not always very constructively put :hihi: (aimed at the forum in general, not You)
Posted By: Emrikol Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 08/03/20 04:38 PM
Is this game being made first and foremost for those who hold BG1 & 2 as the apex of computer RPGs? If not, there is no reason to be so beholden to the original (in whatever way the aforementioned group thinks that should or even can be achieved).
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 08/03/20 04:44 PM
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Is this game being made first and foremost for those who hold BG1 & 2 as the apex of computer RPGs? If not, there is no reason to be so beholden to the original (in whatever way the aforementioned group thinks that should or even can be achieved).


Do you care about the name of this new game ?
No ? so please stay open minded with those waiting it as the messiah for about 20 years and that are really really dissapointed.

(Im' not saying those have all the same opinions, and I really don't want to open new discussions, they are all somewhere on the forum)
Posted By: Emrikol Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 08/03/20 04:56 PM
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Is this game being made first and foremost for those who hold BG1 & 2 as the apex of computer RPGs? If not, there is no reason to be so beholden to the original (in whatever way the aforementioned group thinks that should or even can be achieved).


Do you care about the name of this new game ?


I was going to include something on this, but I figured I would wait for it to be asked (as I knew it would). So, to answer, no really I don't care. I know it does to the BG1 &2 devotees. But again, unless this game is being made first and foremost for that group, the doesn't matter. "Baldur's Gate" means nothing to newer gamers, and it doesn't mean to plenty of others (if not a massive majority of others) what it means to the niche group that holds the game so high.
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 08/03/20 05:03 PM
That's right, I think (and you seem to be agree) using another name than Baldur's Gate "3" wouldn't have changed a thing for them.

That's the exact reason why many people think Larian spit on them (and why discussions are so hard and emotional)

They have the rights, WoTC blabla, I know those things of course.
Posted By: Emrikol Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 08/03/20 05:20 PM
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
That's right, I think (and you seem to be agree) using another name than Baldur's Gate "3" wouldn't have changed a thing for them.

That's the exact reason why many people think Larian spit on them (and why discussions are so hard and emotional)

They have the rights, WoTC blabla, I know those things of course.


We don't know what their marketing research told them, so we cannot say if it would or would not have changed anything for them. It is certainly possible that using BG3 is a marketing tactic (not a "cash grab" as some others have said), and that's fine if so. It's a business too.

You're disappointed the game isn't going to be the way you envisioned. I get it and I'm not unsympathetic. But, that doesn't mean it won't come. And I am sure the name doesn't mean as much to the other side either. If Larian was making a game to suite the BG1&2 devotees, but called it something other than BG "3", I doubt there would be much discussion on the matter.
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 08/03/20 05:48 PM
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
That's right, I think (and you seem to be agree) using another name than Baldur's Gate "3" wouldn't have changed a thing for them.

That's the exact reason why many people think Larian spit on them (and why discussions are so hard and emotional)

They have the rights, WoTC blabla, I know those things of course.


We don't know what their marketing research told them, so we cannot say if it would or would not have changed anything for them. It is certainly possible that using BG3 is a marketing tactic (not a "cash grab" as some others have said), and that's fine if so. It's a business too.

You're disappointed the game isn't going to be the way you envisioned. I get it and I'm not unsympathetic. But, that doesn't mean it won't come. And I am sure the name doesn't mean as much to the other side either. If Larian was making a game to suite the BG1&2 devotees, but called it something other than BG "3", I doubt there would be much discussion on the matter.



I think you're right again with the last sentences. They won't be such discussions if "the waited game" wasn't named Baldur's Gate 3...
Except many wouldn't understand why it's not named BG3.

BG3 is a legendary name for those that waited for it. They were many illusions during this time, many "spiritual sons", many rumors... It's not something that was waited because of only nostalgia. Some BG3 forum on video games website were created in 2001 and have discussions (more or less due to circumstences) every years and this is the same for BG1 and BG2 forums before the EE comes out.

This name "BG3" is really something important for some players and everyone enjoyed to know it was really coming.

But what we see and what they say about it looks nearly nothing like a Baldur's Gate game... That's why I'm dissapointed.
(please don't say I waited for a game of another ages etc... This is not the point, and this is not true).
Posted By: Blade238 Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 08/03/20 06:06 PM
Originally Posted by Maximuuus

I think you're right again with the last sentences. They won't be such discussions if "the waited game" wasn't named Baldur's Gate 3...
Except many wouldn't understand why it's not named BG3.

But what we see and what they say about it looks nearly nothing like a Baldur's Gate game... That's why I'm dissapointed.
(please don't say I waited for a game of another ages etc... This is not the point, and this is not true).

There would likely be some complaints still, but not to the degree that is currently being seen. The main problem is that people are currently making these conclusions without all of the evidence.

What we have right now may look to some more like DOS than BG, but as mentioned by numerous posters and Larian themselves, this is pre-alpha with little to no context, using placeholder assets and without a deal of the content being finalized.

Even when the game is finally released in an alpha early-access state, it will still be utilizing placeholder content, characters, quests, art, gameplay, etc. will still be under development and subject to change.

From what I've gathered the development steps are to 1.) Lay down the lore, narrative, get a plan together, 2.) Get the game in a playable state so that systems can be tested. 3.) Get maps, quests, races, setting and art constructed and slowly implement into the game. 4.) Finalize content and begin polishing. 5.) Release

What we've seen is still at step number 2. When the early access is released, it will still be step number 2 with some of step number 3 being done. Meanwhile step 5 might potentially look like an entirely different game than what was just shown.
Posted By: Raze Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 08/03/20 09:09 PM
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
I really find interresting Larian Studio ask "what does looking like BG means"

I specifically said I was not involved in the development of BG3 so what I said would not be attributed to Larian as a whole.
Let me clarify further:
- I work remotely, not out of one of the offices.
- I was not present when the internal announcement was made.
- I knew of the project, and stuff was mentioned in passing, but otherwise I made zero effort to learn anything about it.
- I started following the development of the game shortly before the public announcement, because that was when it started to become relevant to my duties.
- I have yet to be consulted on design decisions, and while I can certainly weigh in where applicable, I expect that will continue to be the case for the remainder of development.
- When BG3 is finishing and work starts on project xyz, whatever that may be, this pattern is extremely like to repeat.


Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Can't you explain why you choose this name and convince players that find this name important ?

The CEO wanted to make BG3 and asked WotC, who initially declined the proposal. A couple years later, WotC contacted Larian and asked if we still wanted to do BG3.
The name is important because that is the project. That came first.



Originally Posted by DaKatarn
I think the main plot is doing a Baldur's Gate game and not just a DD5 game ( Baldur's Gate identity before Dungeons and Dragons identity). It's an important nuance.

Replacing one subjective term with another doesn't really help; the list is better, though.

Incantations should be ready by Early Access.
Lighting/decorations are not finished, and there are various environments in the game, including at the start, which were not shown.
As stated previously, the UI is not done.
You should be happy with the main villain(s).
I'm not sure if level design has been mentioned (will likely be asked in the AMA if not). You could return to earlier regions in D:OS, so there is no engine limit for that, and in D:OS 2 you were escaping a prison, etc, so it didn't make sense in the narrative to return to previous regions.
We are aiming for a similar amount of content as D:OS 2, so 50 to 100+ hours, depending on difficulty level and playstyle. Of course there are going to be side quests and local issues.
Posted By: kyrthorsen Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 08/03/20 09:35 PM
Originally Posted by Raze
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
This is really not about the engine. But to make the game practically IDENTICAL to DOS2??

It was not made to look like D:OS 2, and there are significant differences. During development, games don't start off looking like the final state. The first presentations of D:OS 2 looked like D:OS 1 in a lot of respects, as well. As the core components / systems get finished, and assets are created, they get added to the game.
The save system wasn't added yet in the build used in the presentation, so why do you assume the lighting and camera systems, character models, et al, are finished?


Are you kidding or what?

DOS2 looks a lot like DOS1, the same art style, the same map style, the same story-telling style, the same combat, same items etc.

And now GUESS WHAT - BG3 will have he same art style, the same map style, the same story-telling style, the same combat, same items AS DOS2.

The only tiny little problem with this is that BG is not DOS, and BG3 is actually DOS3.

Of course the Larian fanboys in the house LOVE the fact that DOS3 in disguise as BG3 is being produced.

On the other hand normal people that liked BG games are SHOCKED and STUNNED by the audacity of Larian to sell snake oil like this and promote blatant FALSE ADVERTISING.
Posted By: kyrthorsen Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 08/03/20 09:38 PM
Originally Posted by Raze

What does looking like BG mean? There have been several topics related to this, and I don't know. A small minority of people mean an isometric camera with 2D graphics. The area around the riverbank in BG3 was too bright and colourful to be BG, despite bright and colourful areas in the first 2 games, and dark areas in the presentation.
I'm not the person to ask about the graphics design for BG3, though, not being involved in the design or development.


Well, I dont mean to be rude but...why dont you go and play BG1 and 2 games and then imagine them with brutally enhanced 3d graphics 20 years later.

But, one word of advice, dont be like Larian and just copy/paste your imagination and creativity from the last game Larian published...because that game is not a BG game.
Posted By: korotama Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 08/03/20 09:40 PM
Give them a chance, kyrthorsen. I have bad vibes about some of the design choices that have been made and much more but it doesn't qualify as false advertising.
Posted By: kyrthorsen Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 08/03/20 09:44 PM
Originally Posted by Raze

What does looking like BG mean? There have been several topics related to this, and I don't know. A small minority of people mean an isometric camera with 2D graphics. The area around the riverbank in BG3 was too bright and colourful to be BG, despite bright and colourful areas in the first 2 games, and dark areas in the presentation.
I'm not the person to ask about the graphics design for BG3, though, not being involved in the design or development.


First of all, it means not looking like DOS1 and DOS2.

When you get that out of the way...everything else opens up.

If Larian says that BG were darker games...well then, you make a darker looking game (ever played Diablo 1, Diablo 2, Demon Souls, Dark Souls, Bloodborne, Baldurs Gate, most of Infinity Black Isle Games).

These are games that have a darker tone to it...more sinister, serious look.

Larian games on the other hand, have a more light a bit funny looking look.

This is also the art directors and the game designers fault...because really come on...the game looks identical to DOS2, there is no denying this fact.
Posted By: kyrthorsen Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 08/03/20 09:48 PM
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Is this game being made first and foremost for those who hold BG1 & 2 as the apex of computer RPGs? If not, there is no reason to be so beholden to the original (in whatever way the aforementioned group thinks that should or even can be achieved).


Oh please STOP.

This is not about the original games.

This is SIMPLY about the FACT that the game looks exactly like DOS2.

I wouldnt care less if the game didnt resemble the originals at all.

But what really strikes me hard is that Larian takes the BG franchise and makes it look like DOS2.

I mean really...put some creativity and originality in this game PLEASE.
Posted By: Eguzky Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 08/03/20 09:49 PM
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
Originally Posted by Raze

What does looking like BG mean? There have been several topics related to this, and I don't know. A small minority of people mean an isometric camera with 2D graphics. The area around the riverbank in BG3 was too bright and colourful to be BG, despite bright and colourful areas in the first 2 games, and dark areas in the presentation.
I'm not the person to ask about the graphics design for BG3, though, not being involved in the design or development.


Well, I dont mean to be rude but...why dont you go and play BG1 and 2 games and then imagine them with brutally enhanced 3d graphics 20 years later.

But, one word of advice, dont be like Larian and just copy/paste your imagination and creativity from the last game Larian published...because that game is not a BG game.


One word of advice? Don't base your comments off of an early demo. (Pre-Alpha means ALLOT) and don't be hostile to one of the crew taking time out to answer questions.

This is not a copy/paste, and it will not look like a copy/paste when it hits early access. Just bloody wait
Posted By: Eguzky Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 08/03/20 09:53 PM
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Is this game being made first and foremost for those who hold BG1 & 2 as the apex of computer RPGs? If not, there is no reason to be so beholden to the original (in whatever way the aforementioned group thinks that should or even can be achieved).


Oh please STOP.

This is not about the original games.

This is SIMPLY about the FACT that the game looks exactly like DOS2.

I wouldnt care less if the game didnt resemble the originals at all.

But what really strikes me hard is that Larian takes the BG franchise and makes it look like DOS2.

I mean really...put some creativity and originality in this game PLEASE.


It. claphands Is. claphands Pre. claphands Alpha. claphands

It. claphands Will. claphands Look. claphands Less. claphands Like. claphands DoS claphands After. claphands More. claphands Time. claphands Being. claphands Worked. claphands On! claphands

(I could not find a normal clap emote)

Posted By: kyrthorsen Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 08/03/20 09:56 PM
Originally Posted by korotama
Give them a chance, kyrthorsen. I have bad vibes about some of the design choices that have been made and much more but it doesn't qualify as false advertising.


The point of this thread is to "give them a chance" as you put it friend.

I would really really like if Larian made a great BG3. That would be great.

However, currently Larian is making DOS3 disguised as BG3 - and I as a consumer and fan BOTH of BG and DOS series, will definitely raise my voice and point out the obvious facts.

The emperor has no clothes people.

Larian - start talking hard with your art people and world design people - they are just making another DOS game.

Also, please for the love of GOD - remove that childish jumping mechanic out of the game ASAP. This is not a Spider man game.
Posted By: korotama Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 08/03/20 10:00 PM
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
Originally Posted by korotama
Give them a chance, kyrthorsen. I have bad vibes about some of the design choices that have been made and much more but it doesn't qualify as false advertising.


The point of this thread is to "give them a chance" as you put it friend.

I would really really like if Larian made a great BG3. That would be great.

However, currently Larian is making DOS3 disguised as BG3 - and I as a consumer and fan BOTH of BG and DOS series, will definitely raise my voice and point out the obvious facts.

The emperor has no clothes people.

Larian - start talking hard with your art people and world design people - they are just making another DOS game.

Also, please for the love of GOD - remove that childish jumping mechanic out of the game ASAP. This is not a Spider man game.

The gameplay presentation at PAX was only held to showcase combat to my understanding. Larian could have done a better job emphasizing that most of the visuals and assets were just placeholders though so I don't have much pity for them.
Posted By: Eguzky Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 08/03/20 10:01 PM
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
Originally Posted by korotama
Give them a chance, kyrthorsen. I have bad vibes about some of the design choices that have been made and much more but it doesn't qualify as false advertising.


The point of this thread is to "give them a chance" as you put it friend.

I would really really like if Larian made a great BG3. That would be great.

However, currently Larian is making DOS3 disguised as BG3 - and I as a consumer and fan BOTH of BG and DOS series, will definitely raise my voice and point out the obvious facts.

The emperor has no clothes people.

Larian - start talking hard with your art people and world design people - they are just making another DOS game.

Also, please for the love of GOD - remove that childish jumping mechanic out of the game ASAP. This is not a Spider man game.


Y-you do know that players can jump in D&D, right?
Across gaps, to reach upper ledges. From a higher area onto an enemy to save a friend.

Stop whining about things before the freaking game comes out. I'm sorry but there's no polite way to say it anymore:
You are complaining about a game that IS NOT OUT YET.
If this was early access, then fine; fears would be founded. But it's PRE DAMN ALPHA. 95% of the game WILL change or be added or removed.

Just. Bloody. Wait.
Posted By: kyrthorsen Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 08/03/20 10:08 PM
Originally Posted by Eguzky
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
Originally Posted by Raze

What does looking like BG mean? There have been several topics related to this, and I don't know. A small minority of people mean an isometric camera with 2D graphics. The area around the riverbank in BG3 was too bright and colourful to be BG, despite bright and colourful areas in the first 2 games, and dark areas in the presentation.
I'm not the person to ask about the graphics design for BG3, though, not being involved in the design or development.


Well, I dont mean to be rude but...why dont you go and play BG1 and 2 games and then imagine them with brutally enhanced 3d graphics 20 years later.

But, one word of advice, dont be like Larian and just copy/paste your imagination and creativity from the last game Larian published...because that game is not a BG game.


One word of advice? Don't base your comments off of an early demo. (Pre-Alpha means ALLOT) and don't be hostile to one of the crew taking time out to answer questions.

This is not a copy/paste, and it will not look like a copy/paste when it hits early access. Just bloody wait


Wait what - another joke?

They are taking the game EARLY ACCESS this year mate!

This game is already in very mature stages of production.

And YEAH, I WILL base my comment of the demo because that is the only thing I can currently base my comments on.

I was not hostile to anybody...i'm just being sarcastic.

If you or the Larian team member cant take a little bit of sarcasm...well, cant help you with that.

But, I DID NOT make this thread so that Larian's team would answer any questions.

I dont want them to answer questions.

I want them to do their JOBS, make word on their MARKETING and make a REAL BG3, not some DOS clone.

So, Larian team members listen up!!! Stop answering questions and get back to work!
Posted By: kyrthorsen Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 08/03/20 10:11 PM
Originally Posted by Eguzky
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Is this game being made first and foremost for those who hold BG1 & 2 as the apex of computer RPGs? If not, there is no reason to be so beholden to the original (in whatever way the aforementioned group thinks that should or even can be achieved).


Oh please STOP.

This is not about the original games.

This is SIMPLY about the FACT that the game looks exactly like DOS2.

I wouldnt care less if the game didnt resemble the originals at all.

But what really strikes me hard is that Larian takes the BG franchise and makes it look like DOS2.

I mean really...put some creativity and originality in this game PLEASE.


It. claphands Is. claphands Pre. claphands Alpha. claphands

It. claphands Will. claphands Look. claphands Less. claphands Like. claphands DoS claphands After. claphands More. claphands Time. claphands Being. claphands Worked. claphands On! claphands

(I could not find a normal clap emote)



And how exactly do you know how the game will look later? What you have a magic sphere and you can see in the future.

What the devs need is constructive fanbase feedback...if they continue like this the game will look like this in the end.
Posted By: kyrthorsen Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 08/03/20 10:13 PM
Originally Posted by korotama
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
Originally Posted by korotama
Give them a chance, kyrthorsen. I have bad vibes about some of the design choices that have been made and much more but it doesn't qualify as false advertising.


The point of this thread is to "give them a chance" as you put it friend.

I would really really like if Larian made a great BG3. That would be great.

However, currently Larian is making DOS3 disguised as BG3 - and I as a consumer and fan BOTH of BG and DOS series, will definitely raise my voice and point out the obvious facts.

The emperor has no clothes people.

Larian - start talking hard with your art people and world design people - they are just making another DOS game.

Also, please for the love of GOD - remove that childish jumping mechanic out of the game ASAP. This is not a Spider man game.

The gameplay presentation at PAX was only held to showcase combat to my understanding. Larian could have done a better job emphasizing that most of the visuals and assets were just placeholders though so I don't have much pity for them.


Well if they intended to showcase only combat then GUESS WHAT - the combat looks exactly like DOS1 and DOS2 combat as well.
Posted By: Emrikol Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 08/03/20 10:14 PM
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
On the other hand normal people that liked BG games...


Normal people, huh? Oh boy.

The game will be a synthesis of DOS2 and D&D. Neither a pure reflection of BG2 nor a clone of DOS2.

The only people who care about the name and 'feel' and how unique it does or does not look are the BG 1 & 2 devotees, who represent a small minority of those who will be interested in this game. It would be counter productive to cater the game to their tastes when doing so might drive away the larger number of prospective customers who would otherwise be very interested in it.


Posted By: korotama Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 08/03/20 10:14 PM
Yep, all they intended was to reveal it was turn-based is my guess.
Posted By: kyrthorsen Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 08/03/20 10:17 PM
Originally Posted by Eguzky
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
Originally Posted by korotama
Give them a chance, kyrthorsen. I have bad vibes about some of the design choices that have been made and much more but it doesn't qualify as false advertising.


The point of this thread is to "give them a chance" as you put it friend.

I would really really like if Larian made a great BG3. That would be great.

However, currently Larian is making DOS3 disguised as BG3 - and I as a consumer and fan BOTH of BG and DOS series, will definitely raise my voice and point out the obvious facts.

The emperor has no clothes people.

Larian - start talking hard with your art people and world design people - they are just making another DOS game.

Also, please for the love of GOD - remove that childish jumping mechanic out of the game ASAP. This is not a Spider man game.


Y-you do know that players can jump in D&D, right?
Across gaps, to reach upper ledges. From a higher area onto an enemy to save a friend.

Stop whining about things before the freaking game comes out. I'm sorry but there's no polite way to say it anymore:
You are complaining about a game that IS NOT OUT YET.
If this was early access, then fine; fears would be founded. But it's PRE DAMN ALPHA. 95% of the game WILL change or be added or removed.

Just. Bloody. Wait.


Do players jump like spider man or batman in D&D?

Never IMAGINED it looked like that in FR.

Im not whining my friend...im giving the devs some hard and objective critisism.

Judging by this and other threads...most people agree that the game (BG3):

1. does look like DOS2
2. doesnt look like BG1and2

So - here, now if the devs want to improve the game they should FIRST resolve the above mentioned points 1 and 2.

Posted By: korotama Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 08/03/20 10:18 PM
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
On the other hand normal people that liked BG games...


Normal people, huh? Oh boy.

The game will be a synthesis of DOS2 and D&D. Neither a pure reflection of BG2 nor a clone of DOS2.

The only people who care about the name and 'feel' and how unique it does or does not look are the BG 1 & 2 devotees, who represent a small minority of those who will be interested in this game. It would be counter productive to cater the game to their tastes when doing so might drive away the larger number of prospective customers who would otherwise be very interested in it.



Can you prove this? It's okay to make predictions I was just wondering if you had any hard data.
Posted By: Wiborg Sturmfels Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 08/03/20 10:19 PM
Originally Posted by Emrikol
"Baldur's Gate" means nothing to newer gamers, and it doesn't mean to plenty of others (if not a massive majority of others) what it means to the niche group that holds the game so high.


Well, if "Baldur´s Gate" means nothing to newer games then they can log out of the forum and wait until the game is out because it doesn't matter what it looks like anyway.

Because you saying this, are you able to quantify the "plenty of others" or "niche group"?


Originally Posted by Emrikol
95% of the game WILL change or be added or removed.


Are you an official Larian Studios employee who makes decisions about the game or is that just a personal "guess" of you?
Posted By: kyrthorsen Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 08/03/20 10:30 PM
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
On the other hand normal people that liked BG games...


Normal people, huh? Oh boy.

The game will be a synthesis of DOS2 and D&D. Neither a pure reflection of BG2 nor a clone of DOS2.

The only people who care about the name and 'feel' and how unique it does or does not look are the BG 1 & 2 devotees, who represent a small minority of those who will be interested in this game. It would be counter productive to cater the game to their tastes when doing so might drive away the larger number of prospective customers who would otherwise be very interested in it.




Wow, you are such a business person arent you.

So what you are actually saying is that DOS1 and DOS2 were a success, and that Larian should just make DOS3, but call it BG3? That is what they are doing right?

Making a game called Baldurs gate THREE and ignoring the COMPLETE fanbase of BG ONE and TWO sounds like a pretty dumb business idea to me.

But who knows, maybe old BG fans will play the new BG3/DOS3 and realize how great the new game is, and how the old games just had to be completely thrown out the window (Dont fix what aint broken right!).
Posted By: kyrthorsen Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 08/03/20 10:34 PM
Originally Posted by korotama
Yep, all they intended was to reveal it was turn-based is my guess.


Haha, but they revealed a lot more that that!

For instance, they revealed its a game based on DOS2 that looks and feels exactly like DOS2 (should make the DOS fanboys very happy)

Next time, if they ONLY want to reveal what the combat system is like, maybe it would be better if they just say or write it...no need to show the demo just for that, especially if the combat system is exactly the same as DOS2 combat (because we already seen that)
Posted By: Eguzky Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 08/03/20 10:35 PM
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
Originally Posted by Eguzky
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Is this game being made first and foremost for those who hold BG1 & 2 as the apex of computer RPGs? If not, there is no reason to be so beholden to the original (in whatever way the aforementioned group thinks that should or even can be achieved).


Oh please STOP.

This is not about the original games.

This is SIMPLY about the FACT that the game looks exactly like DOS2.

I wouldnt care less if the game didnt resemble the originals at all.

But what really strikes me hard is that Larian takes the BG franchise and makes it look like DOS2.

I mean really...put some creativity and originality in this game PLEASE.


It. claphands Is. claphands Pre. claphands Alpha. claphands

It. claphands Will. claphands Look. claphands Less. claphands Like. claphands DoS claphands After. claphands More. claphands Time. claphands Being. claphands Worked. claphands On! claphands

(I could not find a normal clap emote)



And how exactly do you know how the game will look later? What you have a magic sphere and you can see in the future.

What the devs need is constructive fanbase feedback...if they continue like this the game will look like this in the end.


It's called knowing, roughly, how much of a game is complete for various Builds (Beta, pre-alpha, Alpha, etc). It's called using my brain to realize that a game in a pre-alpha state is nowhere near playable, because that's what it means to BE in a pre-alpha state.

Therefor, I can infer, again; using my logic, that many, MANY things were not yet in the game in that state they showed us. That pre-alpha state, if you will.

And yelling that a game is a copy/paste, or demanding the devs 'get back to work' or 'get on (their) art team, NOW' is not 'constructive feedback' because it's not constructive.

It's the yelling of a person angry he's not getting what he wants.
Posted By: Emrikol Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 08/03/20 10:36 PM
Originally Posted by Wiborg Sturmfels
Originally Posted by Emrikol
"Baldur's Gate" means nothing to newer gamers, and it doesn't mean to plenty of others (if not a massive majority of others) what it means to the niche group that holds the game so high.


Well, if "Baldur´s Gate" means nothing to newer games then they can log out of the forum and wait until the game is out because it doesn't matter what it looks like anyway.

Because you saying this, are you able to quantify the "plenty of others" or "niche group"?


Originally Posted by Emrikol
95% of the game WILL change or be added or removed.


Are you an official Larian Studios employee who makes decisions about the game or is that just a personal "guess" of you?


The second quote was not mine. As to the first...

I suspect an overwhelming number of those who find BG2 the apex of RPGs are roughly 32-38 years of age (born between 82-88), based on a premise (which certainly could be wrong) that our formative years (roughly 10-16) are the most impactful. Most (by a large margin I suspect) born after 88 probably never even played BG1&2, with there being so many more 'modern' alternatives like EverQuest. Most (by a large margin I suspect) born before 82 had plenty of previous games to fill the sacred slot of 'best game ever' (e.g. table top D&D). So, if the range of possible gamers who might play BG is (say) 10 to 70, that 7 year range of 32-38 are a small minority. I could certainly be off by these figures a bit, but I see no reason to suspect that many gamers younger than 32 or older than 38 hold BG1&2 so high. Hence, the niche.
Posted By: Emrikol Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 08/03/20 10:38 PM
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
Making a game called Baldurs gate THREE and ignoring the COMPLETE fanbase of BG ONE and TWO sounds like a pretty dumb business idea to me.


I'm saying that fanbase doesn't matter nearly as much as you think it does.
Posted By: Eguzky Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 08/03/20 10:40 PM
Gods, it shows the mentality of those who are upset:

They literally make demands and snide comments about 'better GET WORKING!' and 'this is a lazy copy/paste!' and think it's 'constructive criticism' instead of what it is; outright insults and childish demands.
Posted By: korotama Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 08/03/20 10:44 PM
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
Making a game called Baldurs gate THREE and ignoring the COMPLETE fanbase of BG ONE and TWO sounds like a pretty dumb business idea to me.


I'm saying that fanbase doesn't matter nearly as much as you think it does.

Do you think younger folks have more money to spend on luxury products, video games, computers etc. than those in their thirties and forties? I don't see what's wrong with being a niche as long as you can make money off them.
Posted By: kyrthorsen Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 08/03/20 10:44 PM

Okay, now I understand, you are such an expert that you already know how the game will look when it releases. Good for you.

Me, I just want the game not to look like DOS2 and to look...maybe...a bit similar to BG1and2.

And I disagree...demanding that the devs go back to work is constructive, because only by working can they make the game better.
Posted By: Eguzky Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 08/03/20 10:48 PM
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
[/quote] It's called knowing, roughly, how much of a game is complete for various Builds (Beta, pre-alpha, Alpha, etc). It's called using my brain to realize that a game in a pre-alpha state is nowhere near playable, because that's what it means to BE in a pre-alpha state.

Therefor, I can infer, again; using my logic, that many, MANY things were not yet in the game in that state they showed us. That pre-alpha state, if you will.

And yelling that a game is a copy/paste, or demanding the devs 'get back to work' or 'get on (their) art team, NOW' is not 'constructive feedback' because it's not constructive.

It's the yelling of a person angry he's not getting what he wants.


Okay, now I understand, you are such an expert that you already know how the game will look when it releases. Good for you.

Me, I just want the game not to look like DOS2 and to look...maybe...a bit similar to BG1and2.

And I disagree...demanding that the devs go back to work is constructive, because only by working can they make the game better.[/quote]

I'm saying I can use logic to know that a game in PRE ALPHA is usually changed, allot, before release into early, or even full, access.

You, on the other hand, are screaming about a game in PRE ALPHA, which, AGAIN, by the standard of every videogame to do pre alpha before this one, means it has allot of work to go.

You are whining to the chefs that the eggs & milk & sugar they just put down don't look like that delicious $500 wedding cake you ordered.

You need to calm down and freaking wait to see what it looks like in early access.

Posted By: kyrthorsen Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 08/03/20 10:49 PM
Originally Posted by Eguzky
Gods, it shows the mentality of those who are upset:

They literally make demands and snide comments about 'better GET WORKING!' and 'this is a lazy copy/paste!' and think it's 'constructive criticism' instead of what it is; outright insults and childish demands.


Eguzky I insulted nobody and demand nothing.

Im just giving suggestions to the devs if they even want my humble opinion.

They have the BG franchise and nothing can stop them from making another DOS game under the BG3 name.

It their legal right and I respect that.
Posted By: Eguzky Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 08/03/20 10:51 PM
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
Originally Posted by Eguzky
Gods, it shows the mentality of those who are upset:

They literally make demands and snide comments about 'better GET WORKING!' and 'this is a lazy copy/paste!' and think it's 'constructive criticism' instead of what it is; outright insults and childish demands.


Eguzky I insulted nobody and demand nothing.

Im just giving suggestions to the devs if they even want my humble opinion.

They have the BG franchise and nothing can stop them from making another DOS game under the BG3 name.

It their legal right and I respect that.

Every time you comment how it 'looks like DOS3' you are showing how little you know of game making to have your 'humble opinion'.

You can HAVE that opinion, but it can be wrong. You know why I don't give my opinion on art & drawings? Because I can't draw, so I know better than to stomp around demanding artists change their art style to cater to my uninformed opinion.
Posted By: Emrikol Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 08/03/20 10:52 PM
Originally Posted by korotama
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
Making a game called Baldurs gate THREE and ignoring the COMPLETE fanbase of BG ONE and TWO sounds like a pretty dumb business idea to me.


I'm saying that fanbase doesn't matter nearly as much as you think it does.

Do you think younger folks have more money to spend on luxury products, video games, computers etc. than those in their thirties and forties? I don't see what's wrong with being a niche as long as you can make money off them.



Teen $ + 20s $ + 40s $ + 50s $+ 60s $ > 30s$
Posted By: kyrthorsen Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 08/03/20 10:53 PM
Originally Posted by Eguzky
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
It's called knowing, roughly, how much of a game is complete for various Builds (Beta, pre-alpha, Alpha, etc). It's called using my brain to realize that a game in a pre-alpha state is nowhere near playable, because that's what it means to BE in a pre-alpha state.

Therefor, I can infer, again; using my logic, that many, MANY things were not yet in the game in that state they showed us. That pre-alpha state, if you will.

And yelling that a game is a copy/paste, or demanding the devs 'get back to work' or 'get on (their) art team, NOW' is not 'constructive feedback' because it's not constructive.

It's the yelling of a person angry he's not getting what he wants.


Okay, now I understand, you are such an expert that you already know how the game will look when it releases. Good for you.

Me, I just want the game not to look like DOS2 and to look...maybe...a bit similar to BG1and2.

And I disagree...demanding that the devs go back to work is constructive, because only by working can they make the game better.[/quote]

I'm saying I can use logic to know that a game in PRE ALPHA is usually changed, allot, before release into early, or even full, access.

You, on the other hand, are screaming about a game in PRE ALPHA, which, AGAIN, by the standard of every videogame to do pre alpha before this one, means it has allot of work to go.

You are whining to the chefs that the eggs & milk & sugar they just put down don't look like that delicious $500 wedding cake you ordered.

You need to calm down and freaking wait to see what it looks like in early access.

[/quote]

I can also use logic and memory.

I remember the games that Larian did before DOS.

They were all ok games, but never did good commercially.

Now Larian/Swen Vincke think they have the GOLDEN FORMULA so they want to milk it as much as they can with BG3.

The only problem is that it can backfire in a way that critics and fans realize that what was sold to them was not BG3 but DOS3.

I do hope that does not happen.
Posted By: korotama Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 08/03/20 10:55 PM
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Originally Posted by korotama
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
Making a game called Baldurs gate THREE and ignoring the COMPLETE fanbase of BG ONE and TWO sounds like a pretty dumb business idea to me.


I'm saying that fanbase doesn't matter nearly as much as you think it does.

Do you think younger folks have more money to spend on luxury products, video games, computers etc. than those in their thirties and forties? I don't see what's wrong with being a niche as long as you can make money off them.



Teen $ + 20s $ + 40s $ + 50s $+ 60s $ > 30s$

It's all a string of unfounded claims and speculation so it's best not to dwell on this topic anymore.
Posted By: Madscientist Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 08/03/20 11:18 PM
Originally Posted by Emrikol

I suspect an overwhelming number of those who find BG2 the apex of RPGs are roughly 32-38 years of age (born between 82-88), based on a premise (which certainly could be wrong) that our formative years (roughly 10-16) are the most impactful. Most (by a large margin I suspect) born after 88 probably never even played BG1&2, with there being so many more 'modern' alternatives like EverQuest. Most (by a large margin I suspect) born before 82 had plenty of previous games to fill the sacred slot of 'best game ever' (e.g. table top D&D). So, if the range of possible gamers who might play BG is (say) 10 to 70, that 7 year range of 32-38 are a small minority. I could certainly be off by these figures a bit, but I see no reason to suspect that many gamers younger than 32 or older than 38 hold BG1&2 so high. Hence, the niche.


Those are quite a lot assumptions.

I would say:
- A lot of people know about BG1+2 or have even played it, at least among those who are interested in computer RPGs at all, no matter how old they are.
When players are interested in this genre and they are not completely blind, they will find lots of people who will say that BG1+2 are the best games ever. It does not matter if this is true or if those people are a small minority, all that matters is that it is impossible not to hear them for example if you look at any forum, such as this one. Every new game is compared to them and some people will always say that BG1+2 are better than anything else. You can buy the original games or the EE editions, they are often on sale and there is lots of advertisement for them.
So if you can get the games for a few bucks and several people say its the best game ever, many people will buy them and most of those probably like them.

I have absolutely no idea how large is the group of "fanboys" among all BG players, but I guess its rather small. One reason is that only a small number of players is very active in forums anyway.

my opinion:
BG1+2 were games that defined the genre and they are very good, but they are not perfect.
It is absolutely needed that devs try something new from time to time and it is absolutely normal that a game made now will look very different than a game made 20 years ago. It uses a different rule set (there is absolutely no reason to use DnD 2E now, alone the concept thaco is hard to understand for new players for example).
The technical limitation are completely different now. In BG you could not kick an enemy off a cliff or throw random items at them, but you could definitely do it in a PnP session. It is fine that devs include stuff when they think it looks cool, at least it makes at least some sense in this context.

my prediction:
- Larian will make lots of money with this game.
- The press and players reviews will be very good in general
- Some people will say that BG1+2 were the best games ever, until the end of time.
- Some players will not like it (which is totally normal) and some of those will find the most absurd reasons why it is junk.
Posted By: azarhal Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 08/03/20 11:58 PM
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen

Do players jump like spider man or batman in D&D?


Because you asked...

Running long jump (with a run of 10 feet) distance is your Strength score in feet, half if there is no running. Gear weight and height doesn't matter. Someone with 20 of Strength will cover 20 feet (that's 6.096 meters) on a running long jump. The male world record is 8.95 meters (1991) and that's was done with 131 feets of railway to sprint on and basically naked. Some classes have feature that increase jump distance as well.

Someone amused themselves at making the perfect D&D jumper character : https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/4uz53d/the_ultimate_guide_to_the_highest_jumping/

And there is a funny calculator too: https://fexlabs.com/5ejump/

In the BG3 gameplay we have seen, movement was consumed by jumping as per the rule, but the distance was a few feet longer than it should be for the characters. Swen said that was because of the tadpole.
Posted By: Raze Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 09/03/20 12:15 AM
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
Well, I dont mean to be rude but...why dont you go and play BG1 and 2 games and then imagine them with brutally enhanced 3d graphics 20 years later.

So, another entirely subjective criteria, then. People can not even agree on what the original games look like (see the grimdark discussions), and extrapolating 20 years from that is suppose to be useful?


Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
This is SIMPLY about the FACT that the game looks exactly like DOS2.

I'm not sure you know what the word exact means.


Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
And how exactly do you know how the game will look later?

How do you? At least changes and updates are a reasonable position for a pre-alpha build of the game where the save system hadn't been implemented yet.


Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
Making a game called Baldurs gate THREE and ignoring the COMPLETE fanbase of BG ONE and TWO

Complete? Except of course the BG fans that have posted in various topics that they approve of the current direction, are ok with it, on the fence or would have done things differently but it isn't quite time to get the torches and pitchforks.

Also, given that it is literally impossible to please everyone, any features not to your particular preference does not mean you were ignored. The people making the game are gamers, and like any group have various preferences and opinions. With D:OS 1 and 2, various features and design decisions were debated internally before showing up in public sometimes to be echoed in forums, and points raised in forums have triggered internal debates. That will likely be the case when Early Access starts for BG3, as well.
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 09/03/20 05:37 AM
Originally Posted by Raze
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Can't you explain why you choose this name and convince players that find this name important ?

The CEO wanted to make BG3 and asked WotC, who initially declined the proposal. A couple years later, WotC contacted Larian and asked if we still wanted to do BG3.
The name is important because that is the project. That came first.



This is really an unexpected anwer again...
If first is because it's the project, what came next ? What looks like BG in the "general gameplay overview" we had ?

PS : Sorry if you look "to be" Larian, you're the only one with their name here smile

Originally Posted by Raze
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
Making a game called Baldurs gate THREE and ignoring the COMPLETE fanbase of BG ONE and TWO

Complete? Except of course the BG fans that have posted in various topics that they approve of the current direction, are ok with it, on the fence or would have done things differently but it isn't quite time to get the torches and pitchforks.

Also, given that it is literally impossible to please everyone, any features not to your particular preference does not mean you were ignored. The people making the game are gamers, and like any group have various preferences and opinions. With D:OS 1 and 2, various features and design decisions were debated internally before showing up in public sometimes to be echoed in forums, and points raised in forums have triggered internal debates. That will likely be the case when Early Access starts for BG3, as well.


You'll probably pleased Larian's fanbase, you'll probably please D&D fanbase... But I still never see any "only" BG video game fan that is happy wherever I read discussions about BG3.

Some BG fans are only video games players. They aren't fans of D&D and neither fans of your games. (Or maybe they are, but they consider BG as BG, no as D&D. Larian's game is something else)
It looks you completely forget them or don't care about them and spit on them.

If this was your intention to pleased them while creating this new game as it is, you would probably just haven't named this BG3.... because it's probably only us that cares about the name of this game. Of course it's impossible to pleased everyone, but here you won't please (m)any video game players that waited BG3 for years.

That's why nearly each thread everywhere arround the world talking about BG3 sucks at the moment.
Posted By: Emrikol Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 09/03/20 05:42 AM
Originally Posted by Madscientist
Originally Posted by Emrikol

I suspect an overwhelming number of those who find BG2 the apex of RPGs are roughly 32-38 years of age (born between 82-88), based on a premise (which certainly could be wrong) that our formative years (roughly 10-16) are the most impactful. Most (by a large margin I suspect) born after 88 probably never even played BG1&2, with there being so many more 'modern' alternatives like EverQuest. Most (by a large margin I suspect) born before 82 had plenty of previous games to fill the sacred slot of 'best game ever' (e.g. table top D&D). So, if the range of possible gamers who might play BG is (say) 10 to 70, that 7 year range of 32-38 are a small minority. I could certainly be off by these figures a bit, but I see no reason to suspect that many gamers younger than 32 or older than 38 hold BG1&2 so high. Hence, the niche.


Those are quite a lot assumptions.


Admittedly. But, I do give what I think are legitimate grounds for those assumptions. To put it differently, with the explosion of 3D rpgs around 1999, I suspect many rpg fans born after 88 wouldn't even give a game like BG the time of day; it very quickly looked archaic compared to the likes of Everquest. On the other side, by the time BG was released, those born before 82 likely had the pedestal reserved for something else (most likely D&D itself). BG just couldn't rival the substance of what came before it (D&D) nor the technology that quickly came after it (FF7, Everquest, Zelda Ocarina, Ultima 9).

Posted By: Nyanko Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 09/03/20 05:50 AM
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Originally Posted by Madscientist
Originally Posted by Emrikol

I suspect an overwhelming number of those who find BG2 the apex of RPGs are roughly 32-38 years of age (born between 82-88), based on a premise (which certainly could be wrong) that our formative years (roughly 10-16) are the most impactful. Most (by a large margin I suspect) born after 88 probably never even played BG1&2, with there being so many more 'modern' alternatives like EverQuest. Most (by a large margin I suspect) born before 82 had plenty of previous games to fill the sacred slot of 'best game ever' (e.g. table top D&D). So, if the range of possible gamers who might play BG is (say) 10 to 70, that 7 year range of 32-38 are a small minority. I could certainly be off by these figures a bit, but I see no reason to suspect that many gamers younger than 32 or older than 38 hold BG1&2 so high. Hence, the niche.


Those are quite a lot assumptions.


Admittedly. But, I do give what I think are legitimate grounds for those assumptions. To put it differently, with the explosion of 3D rpgs around 1999, I suspect many rpg fans born after 88 wouldn't even give a game like BG the time of day; it very quickly looked archaic compared to the likes of Everquest. On the other side, by the time BG was released, those born before 82 likely had the pedestal reserved for something else (most likely D&D itself). BG just couldn't rival the substance of what came before it (D&D) nor the technology that quickly came after it (FF7, Everquest, Zelda Ocarina, Ultima 9).



Once again, if Wizards of the coast had wanted BG3 to look and feel like BG1&2, they would have hired Obsidian and not Larian Studios. Which tells a lot on what their expectations are for the game.
Posted By: Emrikol Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 09/03/20 05:53 AM
Originally Posted by Nyanko
Once again, if Wizards of the coast had wanted BG3 to look and feel like BG1&2, they would have hired Obsidian and not Larian Studios. Which tells a lot on what their expectations are for the game.


Yeah. I doubt very much that a company of that size went into this without a good amount of research on the matter.
Posted By: TheInfinitySock Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 09/03/20 07:00 AM
Originally Posted by Raze
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
Well, I dont mean to be rude but...why dont you go and play BG1 and 2 games and then imagine them with brutally enhanced 3d graphics 20 years later.

So, another entirely subjective criteria, then. People can not even agree on what the original games look like (see the grimdark discussions), and extrapolating 20 years from that is suppose to be useful?


Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
This is SIMPLY about the FACT that the game looks exactly like DOS2.

I'm not sure you know what the word exact means.


Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
And how exactly do you know how the game will look later?

How do you? At least changes and updates are a reasonable position for a pre-alpha build of the game where the save system hadn't been implemented yet.


Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
Making a game called Baldurs gate THREE and ignoring the COMPLETE fanbase of BG ONE and TWO

Complete? Except of course the BG fans that have posted in various topics that they approve of the current direction, are ok with it, on the fence or would have done things differently but it isn't quite time to get the torches and pitchforks.

Also, given that it is literally impossible to please everyone, any features not to your particular preference does not mean you were ignored. The people making the game are gamers, and like any group have various preferences and opinions. With D:OS 1 and 2, various features and design decisions were debated internally before showing up in public sometimes to be echoed in forums, and points raised in forums have triggered internal debates. That will likely be the case when Early Access starts for BG3, as well.

I do find it funny how people think that Baldur's Gate 3 was going to be more or less like Baldur's Gate 1 & 2 I mean there's games come out like over 20 years ago I do agree with you on you can't please everyone you are going to get people happy but you are also going to get people who are mad at the new look of Baldur's Gate 3 personally I am looking forward to playing Baldur's Gate 3 I have been waiting for a triple A DND video game for a long time I hope Larian Studios does not disappointed me I still have nightmare from Sword Coast Legends
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 09/03/20 07:06 AM
That's what I said earlier, you are waiting a big new D&D video game.Not Baldur's Gate 3. You're a few that tend to confirm I'm right.

I add just a thing : Looking like is not (only) about visual thingd, please keep that in mind.
Posted By: TheInfinitySock Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 09/03/20 07:29 AM
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
That's what I said earlier, you are waiting a big new D&D video game.Not Baldur's Gate 3. You're a few that tend to confirm I'm right.

I add just a thing : Looking like is not (only) about visual thingd, please keep that in mind.

Yup pretty much I really wish people would stop jumping the gun and wait until Baldur's Gate 3 comes out first all we have seen so far is the pre alpha of Baldur's Gate 3 you can hardly make a judgment on a game when it is still in it's pre alpha stage
Posted By: vometia Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 09/03/20 07:50 AM
Originally Posted by TheInfinitySock
all we have seen so far is the pre alpha of Baldur's Gate 3 you can hardly make a judgment on a game when it is still in it's pre alpha stage

Quite; and as has been pointed out repeatedly. I'm still not entirely sure what BG is "supposed" to look like anyway, having only seen a tangential debate about whether or not it's supposed to be "grimdark", and not unreasonable observations that it's perhaps largely futile endeavour to try to transpose 20+ year old graphics to a different generation of games.

But at this point it seems to mostly be going round in circles with BG/DOS comparisons being little more than "yes it is/no it isn't".
Posted By: Raze Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 09/03/20 07:53 AM
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
What looks like BG in the "general gameplay overview" we had ?

This is how our discussion here started. It may be more productive to ask in the AMA, or wait for Early Access to see if the game is closer to what you are looking for.
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 09/03/20 09:58 AM
Originally Posted by vometia
Originally Posted by TheInfinitySock
all we have seen so far is the pre alpha of Baldur's Gate 3 you can hardly make a judgment on a game when it is still in it's pre alpha stage

Quite; and as has been pointed out repeatedly. I'm still not entirely sure what BG is "supposed" to look like anyway, having only seen a tangential debate about whether or not it's supposed to be "grimdark", and not unreasonable observations that it's perhaps largely futile endeavour to try to transpose 20+ year old graphics to a different generation of games.

But at this point it seems to mostly be going round in circles with BG/DOS comparisons being little more than "yes it is/no it isn't".


Nearly each topics gave exemple on what it was in BG.
We have lots of informations on what BG3 won't look like the previous opus.
Maybe "visual" is finally note so interresting for every dissapointed people.
Posted By: Dark_Ansem Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 09/03/20 10:25 AM
Originally Posted by Raze
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
What looks like BG in the "general gameplay overview" we had ?

This is how our discussion here started. It may be more productive to ask in the AMA, or wait for Early Access to see if the game is closer to what you are looking for.


We dont know where the AMA will take place
Posted By: Raze Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 09/03/20 11:05 AM
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Nearly each topics gave exemple on what it was in BG.

Which in many cases there was disagreement about. That's why I referenced the grimdark debate. There was also discussion of whether the games were often silly and lighthearted or serious with occasional subtle humour, etc.


Originally Posted by Dark_Ansem
We dont know where the AMA will take place

I'm pretty sure that'll be announced before it starts.
Posted By: YezCrusader Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 09/03/20 11:35 AM
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Originally Posted by Madscientist
Originally Posted by Emrikol

I suspect an overwhelming number of those who find BG2 the apex of RPGs are roughly 32-38 years of age (born between 82-88), based on a premise (which certainly could be wrong) that our formative years (roughly 10-16) are the most impactful. Most (by a large margin I suspect) born after 88 probably never even played BG1&2, with there being so many more 'modern' alternatives like EverQuest. Most (by a large margin I suspect) born before 82 had plenty of previous games to fill the sacred slot of 'best game ever' (e.g. table top D&D). So, if the range of possible gamers who might play BG is (say) 10 to 70, that 7 year range of 32-38 are a small minority. I could certainly be off by these figures a bit, but I see no reason to suspect that many gamers younger than 32 or older than 38 hold BG1&2 so high. Hence, the niche.


Those are quite a lot assumptions.


Admittedly. But, I do give what I think are legitimate grounds for those assumptions. To put it differently, with the explosion of 3D rpgs around 1999, I suspect many rpg fans born after 88 wouldn't even give a game like BG the time of day; it very quickly looked archaic compared to the likes of Everquest. On the other side, by the time BG was released, those born before 82 likely had the pedestal reserved for something else (most likely D&D itself). BG just couldn't rival the substance of what came before it (D&D) nor the technology that quickly came after it (FF7, Everquest, Zelda Ocarina, Ultima 9).



Just in my close inner circle of 4 friends, we all like (especially me) BG and none of us have reached 30 yet.

Those are quite a lot of assumptions after all...

Boom!
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 09/03/20 11:56 AM
Originally Posted by Raze
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Nearly each topics gave exemple on what it was in BG.

Which in many cases there was disagreement about. That's why I referenced the grimdark debate. There was also discussion of whether the games were often silly and lighthearted or serious with occasional subtle humour, etc.


Originally Posted by Dark_Ansem
We dont know where the AMA will take place

I'm pretty sure that'll be announced before it starts.


Disagreement between who ? those waiting for a BG game, those waiting the new larian game, those waiting for the new D&D game.

Posted By: Minsc1122 Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 09/03/20 12:43 PM
Originally Posted by Raze
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Nearly each topics gave exemple on what it was in BG.

Which in many cases there was disagreement about. That's why I referenced the grimdark debate. There was also discussion of whether the games were often silly and lighthearted or serious with occasional subtle humour, etc.


I think the main issue was, that people did not feel, that the game has enough similarities with the Baldur s Gate series.
Of course a lot of things will change, but based on the demo people are not, that convinced.
After this people, became overly demanding, like me for similarities.... xD xD

If they would have seen a bit some more smaller or some bigger resemblance to the original game, this would not be such a hot topic.
Not necessary for gameplay reasons, but for the reason to show the community, that the original BG
was just as big influence on the game as DAO.

Subjective stuffs was not on the demo like:
1) UI, spell/ability icons, inventory screen, or just bit less flashy/bass heavy divinity ability animations.
UI for artstyle, not necessary for size of UI.
2) BG and/or dnd items.
3) Travel between maps, or an art of concept of the world map.
4) Similar BG style music at menu screen.
5) Combat system totally different, which influence a lot of gameplay mechanism.
Related to animations for spells ect...
6) A huge skull symbol in front of the dungeon, which could have been connected to BG2 lore.
An abandoned temple/cript of bhaal, or
if the game would have started near to city like candelkeep, Athkatla, or some iconic area.
To remind people which game they play.
7) Meeting our main charismatic Villain in the beginning, like Saverok, Jon Irenicus.
8) Way of narrative, chapter introductions, were amazing, in BG, and it ages very-very well despite of its simplicity:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBrn1PxPaQ0 - Chapter 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yWLf2lE1Os - Chapter 5
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvVMSUEvA68 - Chapter 6

I am not saying everything should be the same, I am saying, that if there would be more similarities to BG1&2,
this DOS2/3 vs BG3 debate would be less intense.

Of course the game looked amazing, interactions with companions were amazing and it will change a lot till release.
Posted By: Abits Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 09/03/20 12:58 PM
Again, I implore you all to check out the pre - alpha version of DOS 2. it was really different from the final product. the UI was completely replaced, all the armor system was not even there yet, and all the characters were changed... It's not like this game is gonna come out tomorrow... We don't even have a release date for the early access yet...
Posted By: Riandor Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 09/03/20 12:59 PM
Originally Posted by Minsc1122
Originally Posted by Raze
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Nearly each topics gave exemple on what it was in BG.

Which in many cases there was disagreement about. That's why I referenced the grimdark debate. There was also discussion of whether the games were often silly and lighthearted or serious with occasional subtle humour, etc.


I think the main issue was, that people did not feel, that the game has enough similarities with the Baldur s Gate series.
Of course a lot of things will change, but based on the demo people are not, that convinced about that.
After this people, became overly demanding, like me for similarities.... xD xD

If they would have seen a bit some more smaller or some bigger resemblance to the original game, this would not be such a hot topic.
Not necessary for gameplay reasons, but for the reason to show the community, that the original BG
was just as big influence on the game as DAO.

Subjective stuffs was not on the demo like:
1) UI, spell/ability icons, inventory screen, or just bit less flashy/bass heavy divinity ability animations.
UI for artstyle, not necessary for size of UI.
2) BG and/or dnd items.
3) Travel between maps, or an art of concept of the world map.
4) Similar BG style music at menu screen.
5) Combat system totally different, which influence a lot of gameplay mechanism.
Related to animations for spells ect...
6) A huge skull symbol in front of the dungeon, which could have been connected to BG2 lore.
An abandoned temple/cript of bhaal, or
if the game would have started near to city like candelkeep, Athkatla, or some iconic area.
To remind people which game they play.
7) Meeting our main charismatic Villain in the beggining, like Saverok, Jon Irenicus.
8) Way of narrative, chapter introductions, were amazing, in BG, and it ages very-very well despite of its simplicity:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBrn1PxPaQ0 - Chapter 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yWLf2lE1Os - Chapter 5
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvVMSUEvA68 - Chapter 6

I am not saying everything should be the same, I am saying, that if there would be more similarities to BG1&2,
this DOS2/3 vs BG3 debate would be less intense.

Of course the game looked amazing, interactions with companions were amazing and it will change a lot till release.


Whether or not Larian should have been more vocal about how pre-alpha this was and how much assets would change going forward is up for debate. I think they were a little naive in the presentation, but one thing I don’t want is to have the juicy details spoiled to me before the game is released grin

I know what you mean, but other than the threat of the Mindflayers, who are still nameless and plotless at this point, I don’t personally want anything beyond visual, changes going into Early Access etc... of course as we get closer to release details will be marketed, YouTube videos etc etc... but we don’t even really have all the details about Doom Eternal and that game is only just over a week away from release and that’s how it should be.
Posted By: korotama Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 09/03/20 02:35 PM
What should the game be renamed then? Baldur's Gate: Cash Grab? Baldur's Gate: Divinity Reboot? I'll be waiting for your reply, kyrthorsen.
Posted By: Archaven Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 09/03/20 02:53 PM
Originally Posted by korotama
What should the game be renamed then? Baldur's Gate: Cash Grab? Baldur's Gate: Divinity Reboot? I'll be waiting for your reply, kyrthorsen.


Divinity Gate: Baldur's Sin cool
Posted By: Emrikol Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 09/03/20 03:25 PM
Originally Posted by YezCrusader
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Originally Posted by Madscientist
Originally Posted by Emrikol

I suspect an overwhelming number of those who find BG2 the apex of RPGs are roughly 32-38 years of age (born between 82-88), based on a premise (which certainly could be wrong) that our formative years (roughly 10-16) are the most impactful. Most (by a large margin I suspect) born after 88 probably never even played BG1&2, with there being so many more 'modern' alternatives like EverQuest. Most (by a large margin I suspect) born before 82 had plenty of previous games to fill the sacred slot of 'best game ever' (e.g. table top D&D). So, if the range of possible gamers who might play BG is (say) 10 to 70, that 7 year range of 32-38 are a small minority. I could certainly be off by these figures a bit, but I see no reason to suspect that many gamers younger than 32 or older than 38 hold BG1&2 so high. Hence, the niche.


Those are quite a lot assumptions.


Admittedly. But, I do give what I think are legitimate grounds for those assumptions. To put it differently, with the explosion of 3D rpgs around 1999, I suspect many rpg fans born after 88 wouldn't even give a game like BG the time of day; it very quickly looked archaic compared to the likes of Everquest. On the other side, by the time BG was released, those born before 82 likely had the pedestal reserved for something else (most likely D&D itself). BG just couldn't rival the substance of what came before it (D&D) nor the technology that quickly came after it (FF7, Everquest, Zelda Ocarina, Ultima 9).



Just in my close inner circle of 4 friends, we all like (especially me) BG and none of us have reached 30 yet.

Those are quite a lot of assumptions after all...

Boom!


I make no claims to certainty. Even so, the issue is with those who hold BG1&2 to be the irreplaceable pinnacle of RPG gaming, not just people who liked the game (among whom I can be counted and probably virtually everyone on both sides of every debate).
Posted By: Madscientist Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 09/03/20 03:27 PM
Originally Posted by Maximuuus


You'll probably pleased Larian's fanbase, you'll probably please D&D fanbase... But I still never see any "only" BG video game fan that is happy wherever I read discussions about BG3.



I think Larian is very happy if they can please Larian and DnD fans.
They can definitely live with having some angry BG lovers.
Posted By: Madscientist Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 09/03/20 03:30 PM
Originally Posted by Archaven
Originally Posted by korotama
What should the game be renamed then? Baldur's Gate: Cash Grab? Baldur's Gate: Divinity Reboot? I'll be waiting for your reply, kyrthorsen.


Divinity Gate: Baldur's Sin cool


I stll prefer my own suggestions:

- Baldurs Gate: The DIVINITYve Edition
- Divinity Original Sin: The Gate of Baldur
- Day of the Tentacle 2: Invasion of the Brain Eaters
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 09/03/20 07:28 PM
Originally Posted by Madscientist
Originally Posted by Maximuuus


You'll probably pleased Larian's fanbase, you'll probably please D&D fanbase... But I still never see any "only" BG video game fan that is happy wherever I read discussions about BG3.



I think Larian is very happy if they can please Larian and DnD fans.
They can definitely live with having some angry BG lovers.


Of course they will, but it could be so easy to pleased everyone calling this game Baldur's Gate : The divinityve edition.
I like the suggestion.
Posted By: kyrthorsen Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 09/03/20 09:32 PM
Originally Posted by azarhal
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen

Do players jump like spider man or batman in D&D?


Swen said that was because of the tadpole.


Fanboy alert.
Posted By: kyrthorsen Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 09/03/20 09:41 PM
Originally Posted by Raze
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
Well, I dont mean to be rude but...why dont you go and play BG1 and 2 games and then imagine them with brutally enhanced 3d graphics 20 years later.

So, another entirely subjective criteria, then. People can not even agree on what the original games look like (see the grimdark discussions), and extrapolating 20 years from that is suppose to be useful?


Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
This is SIMPLY about the FACT that the game looks exactly like DOS2.

I'm not sure you know what the word exact means.


Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
And how exactly do you know how the game will look later?

How do you? At least changes and updates are a reasonable position for a pre-alpha build of the game where the save system hadn't been implemented yet.


Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
Making a game called Baldurs gate THREE and ignoring the COMPLETE fanbase of BG ONE and TWO

Complete? Except of course the BG fans that have posted in various topics that they approve of the current direction, are ok with it, on the fence or would have done things differently but it isn't quite time to get the torches and pitchforks.

Also, given that it is literally impossible to please everyone, any features not to your particular preference does not mean you were ignored. The people making the game are gamers, and like any group have various preferences and opinions. With D:OS 1 and 2, various features and design decisions were debated internally before showing up in public sometimes to be echoed in forums, and points raised in forums have triggered internal debates. That will likely be the case when Early Access starts for BG3, as well.


Excuses, excuses, excuses.

I understand you mate, you work for Larian so you have to defend your company.

But saying its hard to please everyone is a bit two-faced. Larian's team is just taking the easy route and doing what they know how to do, a DOS game.

They are playing it "safe".

Nothing wrong with playing it "safe", but you choose to make a legendary title like BG3, and get the opportunity, then a bit more ambition is expected.
Posted By: kyrthorsen Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 09/03/20 09:49 PM
Originally Posted by Nyanko
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Originally Posted by Madscientist
Originally Posted by Emrikol

I suspect an overwhelming number of those who find BG2 the apex of RPGs are roughly 32-38 years of age (born between 82-88), based on a premise (which certainly could be wrong) that our formative years (roughly 10-16) are the most impactful. Most (by a large margin I suspect) born after 88 probably never even played BG1&2, with there being so many more 'modern' alternatives like EverQuest. Most (by a large margin I suspect) born before 82 had plenty of previous games to fill the sacred slot of 'best game ever' (e.g. table top D&D). So, if the range of possible gamers who might play BG is (say) 10 to 70, that 7 year range of 32-38 are a small minority. I could certainly be off by these figures a bit, but I see no reason to suspect that many gamers younger than 32 or older than 38 hold BG1&2 so high. Hence, the niche.


Those are quite a lot assumptions.


Admittedly. But, I do give what I think are legitimate grounds for those assumptions. To put it differently, with the explosion of 3D rpgs around 1999, I suspect many rpg fans born after 88 wouldn't even give a game like BG the time of day; it very quickly looked archaic compared to the likes of Everquest. On the other side, by the time BG was released, those born before 82 likely had the pedestal reserved for something else (most likely D&D itself). BG just couldn't rival the substance of what came before it (D&D) nor the technology that quickly came after it (FF7, Everquest, Zelda Ocarina, Ultima 9).



Once again, if Wizards of the coast had wanted BG3 to look and feel like BG1&2, they would have hired Obsidian and not Larian Studios. Which tells a lot on what their expectations are for the game.


True, we shall see how they like it now when it looks like DOS1 and 2.
Posted By: kyrthorsen Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 09/03/20 09:53 PM
Originally Posted by TheInfinitySock
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
That's what I said earlier, you are waiting a big new D&D video game.Not Baldur's Gate 3. You're a few that tend to confirm I'm right.

I add just a thing : Looking like is not (only) about visual thingd, please keep that in mind.

Yup pretty much I really wish people would stop jumping the gun and wait until Baldur's Gate 3 comes out first all we have seen so far is the pre alpha of Baldur's Gate 3 you can hardly make a judgment on a game when it is still in it's pre alpha stage


Yeah it would be better for everyone to just shut up and let the devs do what they want right?

The point of this is to let the devs know what we the fans want before the game comes out, imo.

We are the end-consumers after all, and you know that old saying: the customer is always right.
Posted By: kyrthorsen Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 09/03/20 09:58 PM
Originally Posted by vometia
Originally Posted by TheInfinitySock
all we have seen so far is the pre alpha of Baldur's Gate 3 you can hardly make a judgment on a game when it is still in it's pre alpha stage

Quite; and as has been pointed out repeatedly. I'm still not entirely sure what BG is "supposed" to look like anyway, having only seen a tangential debate about whether or not it's supposed to be "grimdark", and not unreasonable observations that it's perhaps largely futile endeavour to try to transpose 20+ year old graphics to a different generation of games.

But at this point it seems to mostly be going round in circles with BG/DOS comparisons being little more than "yes it is/no it isn't".


No, its actually pretty straightforward:

First, BG3 should not look like DOS1 and/or DOS2.

Second, BG3 should have its own visual identity, with "resemblance" to what has been seen in BG1 and 2.

Third, yes it should be grimdark, and no, don't see a problem with transposing a style of a game 20 years old (look what they did to DOOM for example)

Quite simple guidelines actually.
Posted By: kyrthorsen Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 09/03/20 10:03 PM
Originally Posted by korotama
What should the game be renamed then? Baldur's Gate: Cash Grab? Baldur's Gate: Divinity Reboot? I'll be waiting for your reply, kyrthorsen.


Thanks for waiting bro.

In its current "pre-alpha" state this game's title should be obvious:

Divinity: Original Sin 3 - D&D Edition.
Posted By: Emrikol Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 09/03/20 10:12 PM
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
First, BG3 should not look like DOS1 and/or DOS2.


Or maybe it should

Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
Second, BG3 should have its own visual identity, with "resemblance" to what has been seen in BG1 and 2.


Or not

Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
don't see a problem with transposing a style of a game 20 years old


I do

Point is, this is all opinion. Bigger issue is, though, there is good reason to suspect the opinions you state are held by no more than a tiny minority, whose satisfaction could easily be counterproductive and detrimental to the whole undertaking.
Posted By: Waeress Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 09/03/20 10:17 PM
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
and you know that old saying: the customer is always right.


Well, that saying is not really true if it is meant as a carte blanche 'every (potential) customer is right', because every single customer and potential customer certainly can not be the person to decide what the product is or should be. That can in no way work.
Posted By: Eguzky Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 09/03/20 10:20 PM
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
Originally Posted by azarhal
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen

Do players jump like spider man or batman in D&D?


Swen said that was because of the tadpole.


Fanboy alert.

Really? Someone listens to the devs and forms an opinion based in facts, so they are a fanboy?

As opposed to..what? Someone like you; screaming about a game not even half finished?

I'd rather be a fanboy instead of a miserable person screaming at game developers online because they're not making a multi-million dollar game to cater specifically to you.
Posted By: kyrthorsen Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 09/03/20 10:34 PM
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
First, BG3 should not look like DOS1 and/or DOS2.


Or maybe it should

Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
Second, BG3 should have its own visual identity, with "resemblance" to what has been seen in BG1 and 2.


Or not

Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
don't see a problem with transposing a style of a game 20 years old


I do

Point is, this is all opinion. Bigger issue is, though, there is good reason to suspect the opinions you state are held by no more than a tiny minority, whose satisfaction could easily be counterproductive and detrimental to the whole undertaking.


As one famous philosopher once said: "Better are the opinions of the thoughtful and critical minority, then the fanboy zero-IQ masses".

But you are right in one thing - it would be detrimental for this DOS clone in case the devs start accepting some of the suggestions made here.
Posted By: kyrthorsen Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 09/03/20 10:35 PM
Originally Posted by Waeress
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
and you know that old saying: the customer is always right.


Well, that saying is not really true if it is meant as a carte blanche 'every (potential) customer is right', because every single customer and potential customer certainly can not be the person to decide what the product is or should be. That can in no way work.


No it was not meant as a carte blanche.

It was said by a person that has a lot of gaming history and experience specifically within the fantasy rpg genre.
Posted By: kyrthorsen Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 09/03/20 10:38 PM
Originally Posted by Eguzky
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
Originally Posted by azarhal
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen

Do players jump like spider man or batman in D&D?


Swen said that was because of the tadpole.


Fanboy alert.

Really? Someone listens to the devs and forms an opinion based in facts, so they are a fanboy?

As opposed to..what? Someone like you; screaming about a game not even half finished?

I'd rather be a fanboy instead of a miserable person screaming at game developers online because they're not making a multi-million dollar game to cater specifically to you.


Aha, so when Swen said that the PC's jump like spider man because of tadpoles that is a fact.

But when some one like me points out some obvious things that can be seen in the gameplay demo - that that is just a miserable person screaming.

Well Eguzky, obviously you are are a very unbiased and objective person (just kidding, you are a fanboy).
Posted By: Waeress Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 09/03/20 10:42 PM
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
Originally Posted by Waeress
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
and you know that old saying: the customer is always right.


Well, that saying is not really true if it is meant as a carte blanche 'every (potential) customer is right', because every single customer and potential customer certainly can not be the person to decide what the product is or should be. That can in no way work.


No it was not meant as a carte blanche.

It was said by a person that has a lot of gaming history and experience specifically within the fantasy rpg genre.


Well, that is something that I have too. Over 30 years since I read LOTR for the first time as a little kid and over 30 years of gaming that has leaned a lot towards the fantasy and rpg games. And most of the things that you have listed and said from the posts I have seen is not what I agree with.

So, who's opinion of our two opinions is the one to listen to for Larian?
Posted By: Adgaroth Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 09/03/20 11:33 PM
I don't understand why is so hard to understand people asking a game of a series to resemble the previous installments of said series,we must be crazy indeed and we are ''blinded by nostalgia'' and a ''minority''

First of all YOU saying we're a minority is also an opinion. Want to hear a fact instead of an opinion? A lot of people everywhere is complaining about the same things,I wonder why. And you can come and repeat the same ''There's no consensus on original bg fans opinions'' mantra,but is nothing more than something you tell yourselves to fell better,there has been a lot of feedback on how BG3 can resemble BG1 and 2 WITHOUT taking any crazy measures making the game appeal to everyone but you just choose to ignore it and keep repeating your same old mantras ''it looks like DOS3 and that's a good thing'' ''It's only pre-alpha'' ''You want the game to look like a 20 year old game'' and plenty of other nonsense.

And while I agree is on pre-alpha and some things are bound to change is PRECISELY why is the perfect moment to adress this,not 2 years from now when the game is complete and not undergoing any more changes,really,it's not that hard to understand.

The only thing you do with your unreasonable fanboyism is giving BG original fans more reasons to keep ''fighting'' for the improvement of a new installment of a well known series of games. In fact,I considered myself quite neutral,but seeing such refusal when BG1 and 2 are mentioned makes me feel that most defenders of BG3 are just fanbois with the only intent of play another DOS game and that makes me turn my back on neutrality in favor of old BG people.

Originally Posted by Waeress
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
Originally Posted by Waeress
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
and you know that old saying: the customer is always right.


Well, that saying is not really true if it is meant as a carte blanche 'every (potential) customer is right', because every single customer and potential customer certainly can not be the person to decide what the product is or should be. That can in no way work.


No it was not meant as a carte blanche.

It was said by a person that has a lot of gaming history and experience specifically within the fantasy rpg genre.


Well, that is something that I have too. Over 30 years since I read LOTR for the first time as a little kid and over 30 years of gaming that has leaned a lot towards the fantasy and rpg games. And most of the things that you have listed and said from the posts I have seen is not what I agree with.

So, who's opinion of our two opinions is the one to listen to for Larian?


None,because one of their goals is to appeal to new players outside the genre and that's why they want to make the game ''approachable for everyone'' (Their words,not mine) They're well aware of what DOS2 fans want and they've delivered that already.

Posted By: Emrikol Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 10/03/20 12:41 AM
Originally Posted by Adgaroth
I don't understand why is so hard to understand people asking a game of a series to resemble the previous installments of said series


I don't think it is a question of understanding why they would want it to resemble the originals; it is a question of why they would expect so many others to want it.

Originally Posted by Adgaroth
we are ''blinded by nostalgia''


It's a reasonable explanation.

Originally Posted by Adgaroth
and [we're] a ''minority''


Do you think many people in their teens and 20s are clamoring for BG3 to look and play like a game that was made when or before they were born? Do you think the many people over 40 who already felt about something else (e.g D&D) the way you do about BG1&2 are clamoring for BG3 to look and play like something that was just another good game in the history of their RPG playing experience? Why on earth do you think you are anything but a minority?



Posted By: Eguzky Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 10/03/20 01:00 AM
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen


Aha, so when Swen said that the PC's jump like spider man because of tadpoles that is a fact.

But when some one like me points out some obvious things that can be seen in the gameplay demo - that that is just a miserable person screaming.

Well Eguzky, obviously you are are a very unbiased and objective person (just kidding, you are a fanboy).


No, I say you're screaming because of the tone of your posts, from demanding the devs get to work, or do this, or do that, to using 'fanboy' as an insult.

You're a troll who's doing nothing but insulting anyone who disagrees with him. Nothing you do is constructive, because you don't want to listen to any opposing views. You dismiss them as 'fanboys' so you can keep telling yourself that these 'fanboys' will just say anything to defend Larian, and therefor will never say anything you need to listen to.
Posted By: Nyanko Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 10/03/20 01:10 AM
Originally Posted by Eguzky
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen


Aha, so when Swen said that the PC's jump like spider man because of tadpoles that is a fact.

But when some one like me points out some obvious things that can be seen in the gameplay demo - that that is just a miserable person screaming.

Well Eguzky, obviously you are are a very unbiased and objective person (just kidding, you are a fanboy).


No, I say you're screaming because of the tone of your posts, from demanding the devs get to work, or do this, or do that, to using 'fanboy' as an insult.

You're a troll who's doing nothing but insulting anyone who disagrees with him. Nothing you do is constructive, because you don't want to listen to any opposing views. You dismiss them as 'fanboys' so you can keep telling yourself that these 'fanboys' will just say anything to defend Larian, and therefor will never say anything you need to listen to.


As a follow up, what's wrong with being a fanboy of Larian exactly? They delivered some gems in recent years. Why wouldn't we? Just like CDPR, they've proven countless times they could be trusted on consumer friendly policies and their last games are good. I would back them again any time.

So we like their games, we know them very well and I assume we are qualified to discuss whether their systems and mechanics are good or not. Because, well, we had hundreds if not thousands of hours testing their products.

And besides, as a D&D player and DM since 1987, I have no lessons to receive from people who think they know D&D better than me. So some folks are disappointed, fair enough. Just like I was with BG, BG2, Pillars of Eternity and the like being RTwP. And so it's maybe time, we, turn based lovers, enjoy some good D&D video game too.
Posted By: Eguzky Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 10/03/20 01:56 AM
Originally Posted by Nyanko
Originally Posted by Eguzky
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen


Aha, so when Swen said that the PC's jump like spider man because of tadpoles that is a fact.

But when some one like me points out some obvious things that can be seen in the gameplay demo - that that is just a miserable person screaming.

Well Eguzky, obviously you are are a very unbiased and objective person (just kidding, you are a fanboy).


No, I say you're screaming because of the tone of your posts, from demanding the devs get to work, or do this, or do that, to using 'fanboy' as an insult.

You're a troll who's doing nothing but insulting anyone who disagrees with him. Nothing you do is constructive, because you don't want to listen to any opposing views. You dismiss them as 'fanboys' so you can keep telling yourself that these 'fanboys' will just say anything to defend Larian, and therefor will never say anything you need to listen to.


As a follow up, what's wrong with being a fanboy of Larian exactly? They delivered some gems in recent years. Why wouldn't we? Just like CDPR, they've proven countless times they could be trusted on consumer friendly policies and their last games are good. I would back them again any time.

So we like their games, we know them very well and I assume we are qualified to discuss whether their systems and mechanics are good or not. Because, well, we had hundreds if not thousands of hours testing their products.

And besides, as a D&D player and DM since 1987, I have no lessons to receive from people who think they know D&D better than me. So some folks are disappointed, fair enough. Just like I was with BG, BG2, Pillars of Eternity and the like being RTwP. And so it's maybe time, we, turn based lovers, enjoy some good D&D video game too.


There is nothing wrong with being a fanboy.

The problem is that people use the term to mean 'someone irrationally devoted to <x>', as a method of dismissing whoever it is, along with whatever argument they have or points that they made.
Mostly as a means to avoid being proven wrong; if they file someone away as 'fanboy', nothing they say is valid anymore. Therefor, any point the 'fanboy' made are no longer destroying their argument.
Posted By: Omegaphallic Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 10/03/20 02:32 AM
Originally Posted by Eguzky
Originally Posted by Nyanko
Originally Posted by Eguzky
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen


Aha, so when Swen said that the PC's jump like spider man because of tadpoles that is a fact.

But when some one like me points out some obvious things that can be seen in the gameplay demo - that that is just a miserable person screaming.

Well Eguzky, obviously you are are a very unbiased and objective person (just kidding, you are a fanboy).


No, I say you're screaming because of the tone of your posts, from demanding the devs get to work, or do this, or do that, to using 'fanboy' as an insult.

You're a troll who's doing nothing but insulting anyone who disagrees with him. Nothing you do is constructive, because you don't want to listen to any opposing views. You dismiss them as 'fanboys' so you can keep telling yourself that these 'fanboys' will just say anything to defend Larian, and therefor will never say anything you need to listen to.


As a follow up, what's wrong with being a fanboy of Larian exactly? They delivered some gems in recent years. Why wouldn't we? Just like CDPR, they've proven countless times they could be trusted on consumer friendly policies and their last games are good. I would back them again any time.

So we like their games, we know them very well and I assume we are qualified to discuss whether their systems and mechanics are good or not. Because, well, we had hundreds if not thousands of hours testing their products.

And besides, as a D&D player and DM since 1987, I have no lessons to receive from people who think they know D&D better than me. So some folks are disappointed, fair enough. Just like I was with BG, BG2, Pillars of Eternity and the like being RTwP. And so it's maybe time, we, turn based lovers, enjoy some good D&D video game too.


There is nothing wrong with being a fanboy.

The problem is that people use the term to mean 'someone irrationally devoted to <x>', as a method of dismissing whoever it is, along with whatever argument they have or points that they made.
Mostly as a means to avoid being proven wrong; if they file someone away as 'fanboy', nothing they say is valid anymore. Therefor, any point the 'fanboy' made are no longer destroying their argument.


Well said. I've seen other ways folks do that, like being called an "incel". Some folks are intellectually lazy.
Posted By: Eguzky Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 10/03/20 02:47 AM
Originally Posted by Omegaphallic

Well said. I've seen other ways folks do that, like being called an "incel". Some folks are intellectually lazy.


Not to be insulting, but an 'incel' is an actual person. And a dangerous one.
They are people who think they are OWED sex, and that the opposite gender is actively working to deny them sex. They can be dangerous, because this mindset of 'It's not me; it's THEM making sure I never get laid' means many incels get actually physically demanding or violent if they are turned down, because they cannot admit that THEY are the reason they can't get a date or sex.
To them it's always 'everyone else's fault.
Posted By: vometia Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 10/03/20 02:53 AM
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
Fanboy alert.

Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
As one famous philosopher once said: "Better are the opinions of the thoughtful and critical minority, then the fanboy zero-IQ masses".

Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
Well Eguzky, obviously you are are a very unbiased and objective person (just kidding, you are a fanboy).

Stop insulting people or I'll ban you.
Posted By: Raze Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 10/03/20 08:43 AM
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Disagreement between who ? those waiting for a BG game, those waiting the new larian game, those waiting for the new D&D game.

BG1+2 fans, most or all of whom played and formed opinions of those games before BG3 was announced.
Sorting people into groups based on their opinions doesn't change the fact that there are differing opinions.



Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
Fanboy alert.

It was a factually correct statement with no opinion or comment added.
The warning may have been a bit generous.



Originally Posted by Adgaroth
And you can come and repeat the same ''There's no consensus on original bg fans opinions'' mantra,but is nothing more than something you tell yourselves to fell better,there has been a lot of feedback on how BG3 can resemble BG1 and 2

There has been a lot of feedback, some people agree on some things, a lot of people agree on some things, but there is no universal consensus, unless you are defining away people who don't agree with you as not being BG fans.
I need no mantra; it would make my job easier if there was a clear consensus. Regardless, I'm not involved in the game design, so the only thing that effects is how precise the feedback collected is.


Originally Posted by Adgaroth
The only thing you do with your unreasonable fanboyism

When you were neutral, did you not see any 'unreasonable fanboyism' from BG fans?


Originally Posted by Adgaroth
seeing such refusal

What refusal, people disagreeing with opinions on the internet?
Posted By: Razorback Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 10/03/20 09:40 AM
With all this controversy, hopefully BG3 will not take as long as Duke Nukem Forever to be released wink
Posted By: AranSIRE Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 10/03/20 09:40 AM
Larian needs to realize, that they are dealing with a franchise that has a long history of the franchise, same as Final Fantasy VII, it has nostalgia among its fanbase. The reason for the criticism of mine and many of the fans really is their "imaginative memory" it's very hard to put in words it's a feeling that they want to relive in the sequel. It, of course, hard to step into the shoes, of "old Bioware". People want to feel some nostalgia from the Baldur's gate Franchise like every sequel has to balance between old and new. The problem of this game it needs to establish itself as the sequel of the legendary story and live up to those memories as well as introducing something new as well and it needs to reintroduce itself, to new players that never played the originals. I think that larian has understood that Baldur's gate is about existential crisis conflict as dealing about as the original game the monster within. One thing that could help, is to give nostalgia music some familiar themes, from older games within new arrangements.


Posted By: Maximuuus Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 10/03/20 10:19 AM
Originally Posted by Raze
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Disagreement between who ? those waiting for a BG game, those waiting the new larian game, those waiting for the new D&D game.

BG1+2 fans, most or all of whom played and formed opinions of those games before BG3 was announced.
Sorting people into groups based on their opinions doesn't change the fact that there are differing opinions.


You're right, but maybe this can help you understand why nearly everywhere consumers talk about BG3 is not a happy place wink
Whatever you know it or you don't care, that's another point.


I think you're not totally right or totally false about nostalgia.
BG was created when games were different than now. The industry was not the same, the players were not the same, the "age" was not the same.
This doens't mean that the receipe can't work now. Old School RPG show it to us. Their public is not only old fans, but players that love playing another way.
That's what I expected and that's why I was so hyped when I learned Larian had the game in his hands : the mix between an "old school way of playing RPG" and the larian's touch, including new macanics, graphics,...

I read somewhere on the forum something I find interresting.. Someone said something like in BG3, you'll probably have a story telling more "impressive", with video during dialogues, events, something more like a film... But the inconvenient of that is that you'll have less choices to create your story (This is probably not the right words, but this was the idea).

That's what BG is according to me : a story... YOUR story in a really coherent and "real" world.
It's not about "accessibility", multiplayer,... It's not only about gameplay and visual effects, it's about your imagination, the way you want to do things in the story.
This freedom, this explorations, this sensations you're in a real rude world you have to deal with, you don't really find it in new games.
As said before it's hard to explain because it's all about feelings...

And this is where I don't totally agree with nostalgia because it don't think it should always be the only way. This is just how it is NOW, because no one try something else at the moment and because they are receipe that actually sells well so, why to try something else ?
I'm convinced that a real modern BG-like game could be a great sucess... This is just not the way Larian and WoTC took for BG3.
Posted By: Boeroer Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 10/03/20 10:27 AM
Originally Posted by vometia

Stop insulting people or I'll ban you.

I would really like this forum to have "like" buttons.
Posted By: Riandor Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 10/03/20 10:28 AM
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by Raze
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Disagreement between who ? those waiting for a BG game, those waiting the new larian game, those waiting for the new D&D game.

BG1+2 fans, most or all of whom played and formed opinions of those games before BG3 was announced.
Sorting people into groups based on their opinions doesn't change the fact that there are differing opinions.


You're right, but maybe this can help you understand why nearly everywhere consumers talk about BG3 is not a happy place wink
Whatever you know it or you don't care, that's another point.

Sorry but that is normal for a alot of new games that inherit older franchises. The unhappy are ALWAYS more vocal on any medium. Those that are happy at what they saw often don't even go on forums. Several I have spoken to are simply happy to wait until more presentation videos come out, they don't have time for forums, certainly not with a project still so far in its infancy.

I have been involved in a fair few pre-alpha / Alpha tests for games and it's often the same. Big shouting at the start, acceptance later on and even like when things are actually ready, when it counts. Not everyone sure, but this is why the hyperbole here is dissapointing, it's unnecessary. BG means so many different things to so many. Raze is right there is no 1 group here.

Baldur's Gate 2 was the pinncle of my late teens in terms of gaming, no other RPG came close since until Mass Effect2 or the Witcher series (mostly W3). Not because there weren't good games, but because of the story and timing and my life etc... BG2 was defining. But my reasons for liking it aren't yours and that's fine, but it is why trying to label groups into hardcore or D&D enthusiasts or whatever serves zero purpose.

Comment on what you like and dislike for you, not anyone else and accept that your comments will find traction or not and be apart of the process, but don't be a part of a vocal hate group who are too precious about a cherished childhood memory, because we all have those memories, not 1 person's is more important than anyone elses.
Posted By: Boeroer Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 10/03/20 10:32 AM
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen

It was said by a person that has a lot of gaming history and experience specifically within the fantasy rpg genre.


Oh wait - I have a longer gaming history and more experience specifially within the fantasy RPG genre. Does that mean I automatically win the debate if I disagree with you?

Well that was easy...
Posted By: Riandor Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 10/03/20 10:39 AM
Originally Posted by Boeroer
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen

It was said by a person that has a lot of gaming history and experience specifically within the fantasy rpg genre.


Oh wait - I have a longer gaming history and more experience specifially within the fantasy RPG genre. Does that mean I automatically win the debate if I disagree with you?

Well that was easy...

Oooh ooh, let's compare let's compare!!! ;-P
Posted By: Adgaroth Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 10/03/20 01:17 PM
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Originally Posted by Adgaroth
I don't understand why is so hard to understand people asking a game of a series to resemble the previous installments of said series


I don't think it is a question of understanding why they would want it to resemble the originals; it is a question of why they would expect so many others to want it.

Originally Posted by Adgaroth
we are ''blinded by nostalgia''


It's a reasonable explanation.

Originally Posted by Adgaroth
and [we're] a ''minority''


Do you think many people in their teens and 20s are clamoring for BG3 to look and play like a game that was made when or before they were born? Do you think the many people over 40 who already felt about something else (e.g D&D) the way you do about BG1&2 are clamoring for BG3 to look and play like something that was just another good game in the history of their RPG playing experience? Why on earth do you think you are anything but a minority?





Thq question is not why they would expect so many others to want it, the question is why would you be against it. There's a reason why a game become a series and why the game of the same series resemble each other,there's none for the opposite.

Again,you claim is a reasonable explanation just because you choose to ignore all the extensive explanations people have offered already, you're just proving my point here.

Yes,I am 29 (28 last month) and I played the originals,I got BG1 as a present when I was like...around 10yo and I could barely play it, but still enjoyed it. Then a few years later when I had more gaming knowledge reinstalled it and beated it,same goes for BG2 and later I've played them both over the years from time to time because they're still solid games 20 years after. The EE editions came around...2012-2013? I know for a fact that a lot of people got their first experience with the EE and really liked BG and those people are a lot younger than older BG fans but still won't recognise BG in BG3. Just take a look at people saying they're going to try BG1 and 2 because they're thrilled by BG3 and when they do they won't understand why BG3 is called BG3.

So,long story short,yes I don't think we're a minority,this situation would never had happened if we were,and nobody would have complained about a new D&D game called Baldur's Gate:Divinity Sin but when they choose to call it BG3 to grab old BG fans attention and money and they don't deliver anything that resembles that,then the problem arises. The marketing technique basically backfired,they could have had the same success without it and none of the argument going on now.
Posted By: Madscientist Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 10/03/20 01:19 PM
This discussion reminds me a lot of the monk companion quest in Pillars of Eternity1.

Many players do not seek to experience a good RPG.
The seek to have the same impressive experience they had when playing BG for the first time ages ago.
They are doomed to fail, because they are different people now. The fact that they have played BG (and probably other games) have changed their feelings and opinions about those games since then.
No game will ever satisfy them because it feels different than the feeling they had when playing BG 20 years ago.

PS: I do not suggest to take the same kind of therapy as this char did.
He walks around completely stoned, the world is full of funny colors and he talks to animals, plants and ghosts. Quite a horror trip.
Posted By: Adgaroth Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 10/03/20 01:57 PM
Originally Posted by Raze
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Disagreement between who ? those waiting for a BG game, those waiting the new larian game, those waiting for the new D&D game.

BG1+2 fans, most or all of whom played and formed opinions of those games before BG3 was announced.
Sorting people into groups based on their opinions doesn't change the fact that there are differing opinions.


Originally Posted by Adgaroth
And you can come and repeat the same ''There's no consensus on original bg fans opinions'' mantra,but is nothing more than something you tell yourselves to fell better,there has been a lot of feedback on how BG3 can resemble BG1 and 2

There has been a lot of feedback, some people agree on some things, a lot of people agree on some things, but there is no universal consensus, unless you are defining away people who don't agree with you as not being BG fans.
I need no mantra; it would make my job easier if there was a clear consensus. Regardless, I'm not involved in the game design, so the only thing that effects is how precise the feedback collected is.


Originally Posted by Adgaroth
The only thing you do with your unreasonable fanboyism

When you were neutral, did you not see any 'unreasonable fanboyism' from BG fans?


Originally Posted by Adgaroth
seeing such refusal

What refusal, people disagreeing with opinions on the internet?


Of course everyone have his own oppinion, that's why we're individuals and not a collective mind,but even if some people want different combat mechanics or different color palet or whatever other thing said on this or other forum they all agree the game does not look like a BG game do they not? I see a 100% agreement on that.
If you know there's no universal consensus you should understand why is normal to have some disagreements even between BG fans.

Again,of course there's no universal consensus,that's the whole point xD and I'm not saying who is or who isn't a BG fan,but when the ''This looks like DOS3 and that's not a bad thing'' phrase exist I think we can safely say 90% of the people,fan or BG or not,don't see BG in this new BG game. And obviously I can safely say too that people who haven't played BG1 and 2 are not BG fans for obvious reasons so they don't care at all about it,and that would be fine,but I'm not fine with them coming here or other forums to pick fights with BG fans just because they want to recognise this game as a part of the series wich is a very reasonable thing, tell me why not if I'm wrong. (It's just an example but even with your eyes closed when you hear the music you hear DOS2,I'm preeetty sure Larian is using the same composer,wich is not bad,but he should try to do somethig a little bit different in my opinion,or maybe I'm wrong and it's not the same composer but then I wonder why I keep hearing DOS2 music)

And again (again) of course I saw and I SEE ''unreasonable fanboyism'' from BG fans, every product has its fanboys, but I think it's not that hard to recognise the demands of fanboys and ''normal fans'' (Just for the sake of differentiate groups,I don't even consider myself a fan of BG1) are very diferent. When one person ask for a change of the engine and other ask for voiced spellcasting and assets that resemble BG1 and 2 I think the line is pretty clear.

What refusal you ask. The refusal of having the game resemble its predecesor without putting at risk Swen/Larian vision for the game. I cannot be more clear.

I know they have a clear view of what they want the game to be and I know they want it to be THEIR game (I'm not in their mind so I don't know exactly what they want) but if a few visual changes (and some other things people is asking for) are in conflict with their overall idea of the game it has to be a very shallow idea (and I don't think that's the case for the record and that's precisely why I don't understand said refusal)


Originally Posted by Madscientits
This discussion reminds me a lot of the monk companion quest in Pillars of Eternity1.

Many players do not seek to experience a good RPG.
The seek to have the same impressive experience they had when playing BG for the first time ages ago.
They are doomed to fail, because they are different people now. The fact that they have played BG (and probably other games) have changed their feelings and opinions about those games since then.
No game will ever satisfy them because it feels different than the feeling they had when playing BG 20 years ago.

PS: I do not suggest to take the same kind of therapy as this char did.
He walks around completely stoned, the world is full of funny colors and he talks to animals, plants and ghosts. Quite a horror trip.


You're assuming way too much but feel free to keep trying to psychoanalyze people instead of actually reading what they say.

''Many players do not seek to experience a good RPG.'' Seriously?
''The seek to have the same impressive experience they had when playing BG for the first time ages ago.'' Or they simply expect a new game of the series that resembles said series,nothing wrong with that.
''They are doomed to fail, because they are different people now. The fact that they have played BG (and probably other games) have changed their feelings and opinions about those games since then.'' Weird that you know better than themselves the kind of people they were and the kind of people they're now. And what about the people that still play BG,are they the same they were now?have they change? I really need your insight here.
''No game will ever satisfy them because it feels different than the feeling they had when playing BG 20 years ago.'' It's nothing more than your opinion wich is far from the truth but neither of us can prove it.
Posted By: LaserOstrich Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 10/03/20 02:14 PM
Originally Posted by Riandor
[...]Sorry but that is normal for a lot of new games that inherit older franchises. The unhappy are ALWAYS more vocal on any medium. Those that are happy at what they saw often don't even go on forums. [...]

The same effect as why angry customers are X times (I can't recall) more likely to leave a (accordingly bad) review on everything in general.

Originally Posted by Riandor
BG means so many different things to so many. [...] But my reasons for liking it aren't yours and that's fine. [...] ...because we all have those memories, not 1 person's is more important than anyone elses.

Originally Posted by Madscientist
Many players [...] seek to have the same impressive experience they had when playing BG for the first time ages ago. They are doomed to fail, because they are different people now. No game will ever satisfy them because it feels different than the feeling they had when playing BG 20 years ago.

Well said.
In addition, there is no developer on this earth, who can write code that exactly recreates memories which were already created by the experience of something good in the past.
And a fool who would even try.
Posted By: Archaven Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 10/03/20 02:18 PM
Originally Posted by LaserOstrich
Originally Posted by Riandor
[...]Sorry but that is normal for a lot of new games that inherit older franchises. The unhappy are ALWAYS more vocal on any medium. Those that are happy at what they saw often don't even go on forums. [...]

The same effect as why angry customers are X times (I can't recall) more likely to leave a (accordingly bad) review on everything in general.

Originally Posted by Riandor
BG means so many different things to so many. [...] But my reasons for liking it aren't yours and that's fine. [...] ...because we all have those memories, not 1 person's is more important than anyone elses.

Originally Posted by Madscientist
Many players [...] seek to have the same impressive experience they had when playing BG for the first time ages ago. They are doomed to fail, because they are different people now. No game will ever satisfy them because it feels different than the feeling they had when playing BG 20 years ago.

Well said.
In addition, there is no developer on this earth, who can write code that exactly recreates memories which were already created by the experience of something good in the past.
And a fool who would even try.


you are wrong. i have that old school feeling with pathfinder kingmaker.
Posted By: azarhal Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 10/03/20 02:19 PM
Originally Posted by Riandor
Originally Posted by Boeroer
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen

It was said by a person that has a lot of gaming history and experience specifically within the fantasy rpg genre.


Oh wait - I have a longer gaming history and more experience specifially within the fantasy RPG genre. Does that mean I automatically win the debate if I disagree with you?

Well that was easy...

Oooh ooh, let's compare let's compare!!! ;-P


Having seen Boeroer's Steam time on certain fantasy RPGs. Good luck! You'll need it.
Posted By: Riandor Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 10/03/20 02:23 PM
Originally Posted by azarhal
Originally Posted by Riandor
Originally Posted by Boeroer
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen

It was said by a person that has a lot of gaming history and experience specifically within the fantasy rpg genre.


Oh wait - I have a longer gaming history and more experience specifially within the fantasy RPG genre. Does that mean I automatically win the debate if I disagree with you?

Well that was easy...

Oooh ooh, let's compare let's compare!!! ;-P


Having seen Boeroer's Steam time on certain fantasy RPGs. Good luck! You'll need it.

I played most of mine outside of Steam, including Witcher 3 on PS4 because my PC needed an upgrade at the time it came out, but yeah... I was only jesting really. Plus I am quite glad I don't have it all on Steam, not sure I want to know how many hours I have invested in certain games (yeah I'm looking at you Homeworld 2, Overwatch, Star Craft 2 and all things Diablo...!!!)
Posted By: Adgaroth Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 10/03/20 02:24 PM
Originally Posted by LaserOstrich
Originally Posted by Riandor
[...]Sorry but that is normal for a lot of new games that inherit older franchises. The unhappy are ALWAYS more vocal on any medium. Those that are happy at what they saw often don't even go on forums. [...]

The same effect as why angry customers are X times (I can't recall) more likely to leave a (accordingly bad) review on everything in general.

Originally Posted by Riandor
BG means so many different things to so many. [...] But my reasons for liking it aren't yours and that's fine. [...] ...because we all have those memories, not 1 person's is more important than anyone elses.

Originally Posted by Madscientist
Many players [...] seek to have the same impressive experience they had when playing BG for the first time ages ago. They are doomed to fail, because they are different people now. No game will ever satisfy them because it feels different than the feeling they had when playing BG 20 years ago.

Well said.
In addition, there is no developer on this earth, who can write code that exactly recreates memories which were already created by the experience of something good in the past.
And a fool who would even try.


I don't understand all this childhood memories thing you so adamant use as an argument.
Harry Potter fans expect Harry Potter things, Witcher fans expect Witcher things,BG fans expect BG things, that's why franchises and series exist,because people know what to expect when buy/consume something from that franchise/series.
For some people it may be the case,but if you think it's all about feelings and unreachable emotional goals for everyone you're very wrong.


I live a lucky life and I live my days playing videogames for 14+h a day,and it's been like that for almost 10 years (been playing since I was 7 tho) and that means nothing,in fact as I said earlier,the opinion of veteran gamers are worth nothing compared to the new gamers for most companies so in any case it may be even detrimental.

I avoid using steam,origin,epic,or any platform like a plague so if you base gaming experience on steam hours...let's say it may not be the most accurate. (Not even mentioning consoles as Riandor pointed out)
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 10/03/20 02:26 PM
Originally Posted by Archaven
Originally Posted by LaserOstrich
Originally Posted by Riandor
[...]Sorry but that is normal for a lot of new games that inherit older franchises. The unhappy are ALWAYS more vocal on any medium. Those that are happy at what they saw often don't even go on forums. [...]

The same effect as why angry customers are X times (I can't recall) more likely to leave a (accordingly bad) review on everything in general.

Originally Posted by Riandor
BG means so many different things to so many. [...] But my reasons for liking it aren't yours and that's fine. [...] ...because we all have those memories, not 1 person's is more important than anyone elses.

Originally Posted by Madscientist
Many players [...] seek to have the same impressive experience they had when playing BG for the first time ages ago. They are doomed to fail, because they are different people now. No game will ever satisfy them because it feels different than the feeling they had when playing BG 20 years ago.

Well said.
In addition, there is no developer on this earth, who can write code that exactly recreates memories which were already created by the experience of something good in the past.
And a fool who would even try.


you are wrong. i have that old school feeling with pathfinder kingmaker.


Well said wink

Ask Larian to create a new Baldur's Gate game with their touch and you'll probably have the same feelings with modern layout and mecanics.

Oh wait..... I was naive.
Posted By: LaserOstrich Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 10/03/20 02:28 PM
Originally Posted by Archaven
you are wrong. i have that old school feeling with pathfinder kingmaker.

I may not have expressed myself so well.
If I understand you correctly, you had a good old experience with a new game.
That would be what I mean by not trying to touch old feelings, but to give ourselves the chance to experience something new, which may end up just as good.
Posted By: Riandor Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 10/03/20 02:40 PM
Originally Posted by Adgaroth
Originally Posted by LaserOstrich
Originally Posted by Riandor
[...]Sorry but that is normal for a lot of new games that inherit older franchises. The unhappy are ALWAYS more vocal on any medium. Those that are happy at what they saw often don't even go on forums. [...]

The same effect as why angry customers are X times (I can't recall) more likely to leave a (accordingly bad) review on everything in general.

Originally Posted by Riandor
BG means so many different things to so many. [...] But my reasons for liking it aren't yours and that's fine. [...] ...because we all have those memories, not 1 person's is more important than anyone elses.

Originally Posted by Madscientist
Many players [...] seek to have the same impressive experience they had when playing BG for the first time ages ago. They are doomed to fail, because they are different people now. No game will ever satisfy them because it feels different than the feeling they had when playing BG 20 years ago.

Well said.
In addition, there is no developer on this earth, who can write code that exactly recreates memories which were already created by the experience of something good in the past.
And a fool who would even try.


I don't understand all this childhood memories thing you so adamant use as an argument.
Harry Potter fans expect Harry Potter things, Witcher fans expect Witcher things,BG fans expect BG things, that's why franchises and series exist,because people know what to expect when buy/consume something from that franchise/series.
For some people it may be the case,but if you think it's all about feelings and unreachable emotional goals for everyone you're very wrong.


Diablo 2 to Diablo 3
Elite to Elite Dangerous
Witcher 2 to Witcher 3

All games I was more cloesely linked to and can attest to seeing the same discussions. It's not my game because (Not dark enough, persistent online, open world, etc...) This always happens when there is a change and these are examples where games stayed within the same company, where the makers of the original games looked to change things up, because they don't just want to make the same thing again. The uproar on may of these things was over proportinally huge. Think Doom 2016 was already mentioned elsewhere.

Oh NWN to NWN2, sheesh... forums will always be forums. Too often too heated for no good reason.
Posted By: vometia Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 10/03/20 02:43 PM
Originally Posted by Riandor
Elite to Elite Dangerous

I remember playing Elite in 1984. Any version of Elite that doesn't require saving to crinkly cassette tape is for lightweights etc.
Posted By: Riandor Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 10/03/20 02:57 PM
Originally Posted by vometia
Originally Posted by Riandor
Elite to Elite Dangerous

I remember playing Elite in 1984. Any version of Elite that doesn't require saving to crinkly cassette tape is for lightweights etc.

Yeah I remember having to deal with your types, pfff, hardcore fangirl edgelord! ;-D

But as we are from the same city, I'll cut you some slack.
Posted By: Adgaroth Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 10/03/20 02:58 PM
Originally Posted by Riandor
Originally Posted by Adgaroth
Originally Posted by LaserOstrich
Originally Posted by Riandor
[...]Sorry but that is normal for a lot of new games that inherit older franchises. The unhappy are ALWAYS more vocal on any medium. Those that are happy at what they saw often don't even go on forums. [...]

The same effect as why angry customers are X times (I can't recall) more likely to leave a (accordingly bad) review on everything in general.

Originally Posted by Riandor
BG means so many different things to so many. [...] But my reasons for liking it aren't yours and that's fine. [...] ...because we all have those memories, not 1 person's is more important than anyone elses.

Originally Posted by Madscientist
Many players [...] seek to have the same impressive experience they had when playing BG for the first time ages ago. They are doomed to fail, because they are different people now. No game will ever satisfy them because it feels different than the feeling they had when playing BG 20 years ago.

Well said.
In addition, there is no developer on this earth, who can write code that exactly recreates memories which were already created by the experience of something good in the past.
And a fool who would even try.


I don't understand all this childhood memories thing you so adamant use as an argument.
Harry Potter fans expect Harry Potter things, Witcher fans expect Witcher things,BG fans expect BG things, that's why franchises and series exist,because people know what to expect when buy/consume something from that franchise/series.
For some people it may be the case,but if you think it's all about feelings and unreachable emotional goals for everyone you're very wrong.


Diablo 2 to Diablo 3
Elite to Elite Dangerous
Witcher 2 to Witcher 3

All games I was more cloesely linked to and can attest to seeing the same discussions. It's not my game because (Not dark enough, persistent online, open world, etc...) This always happens when there is a change and these are examples where games stayed within the same company, where the makers of the original games looked to change things up, because they don't just want to make the same thing again. The uproar on may of these things was over proportinally huge. Think Doom 2016 was already mentioned elsewhere.

Oh NWN to NWN2, sheesh... forums will always be forums. Too often too heated for no good reason.


I can't say for the first 2 because I've never played them, and I'm not saying all the witcher games are the same, but I can recognise them at a glance on the first 5 minutes as being part of the same series,I've played them and enjoyed all without ANY issue (and I player witcher 1 when it came out,not after playing 3,so you could tag me as a purist in that regard)
I'm not against change in videogames,I'm against dishonest marketing.
Posted By: Riandor Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 10/03/20 03:03 PM
Originally Posted by Adgaroth
[quote=Riandor][quote=Adgaroth][quote=LaserOstrich][quote=Riandor][...]

I can't say for the first 2 because I've never played them, and I'm not saying all the witcher games are the same, but I can recognise them at a glance on the first 5 minutes as being part of the same series,I've played them and enjoyed all without ANY issue (and I player witcher 1 when it came out,not after playing 3,so you could tag me as a purist in that regard)
I'm not against change in videogames,I'm against dishonest marketing.


And I'm against hyperbole.
Can we perhaps agree that for now it isn't looking good enough for you and we all wait a little until we see some more before reaching for the pitchforks?
Posted By: Adgaroth Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 10/03/20 03:13 PM
Originally Posted by Riandor
Originally Posted by Adgaroth
[quote=Riandor][quote=Adgaroth][quote=LaserOstrich][quote=Riandor][...]

I can't say for the first 2 because I've never played them, and I'm not saying all the witcher games are the same, but I can recognise them at a glance on the first 5 minutes as being part of the same series,I've played them and enjoyed all without ANY issue (and I player witcher 1 when it came out,not after playing 3,so you could tag me as a purist in that regard)
I'm not against change in videogames,I'm against dishonest marketing.


And I'm against hyperbole.
Can we perhaps agree that for now it isn't looking good enough for you and we all wait a little until we see some more before reaching for the pitchforks?


I've said it multiple times,I can only give my opinion based on what I've seen and a few interviews,and I don't have any problem on changing my opinion if or when I'm proved wrong,maybe one year from now the game screams BG everywhere but divination is not my school of magic so until then this is what it is. And I think is better to give feedback now that things can easily change and not when the game releases, if ''wait and see'' worked they wouldn't be undergoing an EA period.

I can't agree on that because is looking good enough,I'm not saying the game is or will be bad,I'm saying it's not BG enough (or at all) to be called BG3,thus my dishonest marketing problem.
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 10/03/20 03:14 PM
Originally Posted by Riandor
Originally Posted by Adgaroth
[quote=Riandor][quote=Adgaroth][quote=LaserOstrich][quote=Riandor][...]

I can't say for the first 2 because I've never played them, and I'm not saying all the witcher games are the same, but I can recognise them at a glance on the first 5 minutes as being part of the same series,I've played them and enjoyed all without ANY issue (and I player witcher 1 when it came out,not after playing 3,so you could tag me as a purist in that regard)
I'm not against change in videogames,I'm against dishonest marketing.


And I'm against hyperbole.
Can we perhaps agree that for now it isn't looking good enough for you and we all wait a little until we see some more before reaching for the pitchforks?


Why are you trying to convince anyone who's not satisfyed to what they saw to "wait and see" ?
Can't you admit we nearly see nothing remembering BG ? This is a BG game, can't you admit this is disspointing for many ?
This is a fact, not an opinion. As sure as you're positive about the game.

Every negative critics aren't based on hypothesis. *
The first general idea is that... We didn't see anything about BG...
Posted By: Riandor Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 10/03/20 03:20 PM
Originally Posted by Adgaroth
Originally Posted by Riandor
Originally Posted by Adgaroth
[quote=Riandor][quote=Adgaroth][quote=LaserOstrich][quote=Riandor][...]

I can't say for the first 2 because I've never played them, and I'm not saying all the witcher games are the same, but I can recognise them at a glance on the first 5 minutes as being part of the same series,I've played them and enjoyed all without ANY issue (and I player witcher 1 when it came out,not after playing 3,so you could tag me as a purist in that regard)
I'm not against change in videogames,I'm against dishonest marketing.


And I'm against hyperbole.
Can we perhaps agree that for now it isn't looking good enough for you and we all wait a little until we see some more before reaching for the pitchforks?


I've said it multiple times,I can only give my opinion based on what I've seen and a few interviews,and I don't have any problem on changing my opinion if or when I'm proved wrong,maybe one year from now the game screams BG everywhere but divination is not my school of magic so until then this is what it is. And I think is better to give feedback now that things can easily change and not when the game releases, if ''wait and see'' worked they wouldn't be undergoing an EA period.

I can't agree on that because is looking good enough,I'm not saying the game is or will be bad,I'm saying it's not BG enough (or at all) to be called BG3,thus my dishonest marketing problem.

Im not saying don't criticise, heck there are things I am not yet impressed by... I am just saying let's not reach for terms like dishonest marketing whilst we are still in pre-alpha and assets are known to be borrowed/completely missing.

I must admit, whilst I love early previews and being involved in alphas etc... I do sometimes yearn for the time when all we saw was an article in a magazine regarding upcoming titles and then release. Often showcasing early work to the public seems more trouble than it's worth (not aimed at you Adgaroth, just talking out loud).



Posted By: Riandor Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 10/03/20 03:21 PM
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by Riandor
Originally Posted by Adgaroth
[quote=Riandor][quote=Adgaroth][quote=LaserOstrich][quote=Riandor][...]

I can't say for the first 2 because I've never played them, and I'm not saying all the witcher games are the same, but I can recognise them at a glance on the first 5 minutes as being part of the same series,I've played them and enjoyed all without ANY issue (and I player witcher 1 when it came out,not after playing 3,so you could tag me as a purist in that regard)
I'm not against change in videogames,I'm against dishonest marketing.


And I'm against hyperbole.
Can we perhaps agree that for now it isn't looking good enough for you and we all wait a little until we see some more before reaching for the pitchforks?


Why are you trying to convince anyone who's not satisfyed to what they saw to "wait and see" ?
Can't you admit we nearly see nothing remembering BG ? This is a BG game, can't you admit this is disspointing for many ?
This is a fact, not an opinion. As sure as you're positive about the game.

Every negative critics aren't based on hypothesis. *
The first general idea is that... We didn't see anything about BG...


Im saying to wait and see before going overboard, not wait and see before criticising.
Posted By: LaserOstrich Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 10/03/20 03:28 PM
Originally Posted by Adgaroth
Originally Posted by LaserOstrich
[...]


I don't understand all this childhood memories thing you so adamant use as an argument.
Harry Potter fans expect Harry Potter things, Witcher fans expect Witcher things,BG fans expect BG things, that's why franchises and series exist,because people know what to expect when buy/consume something from that franchise/series.
For some people it may be the case,but if you think it's all about feelings and unreachable emotional goals for everyone you're very wrong.

Because it is a very emotional thing.
And is a very human error to the seek to the relive of individual emotional experiences, by trying to recreate the scene that is tangled with it.
The error is to systemtically overestimte anything that describe the scene in materialisitc, quantifiybale way.

Originally Posted by Riandor
[...] It's not my game because (Not dark enough, persistent online, open world, etc...) This always happens when there is a change and these are examples where games stayed within the same company, where the makers of the original games looked to change things up, because they don't just want to make the same thing again.

Polygons have no soul. We the people, we make things beautiful, and we make them ugly. It is us human beeings who keep memories. The can't be transfered. The same can't get more. There can be new ones, others. Which end up beeing what we were looking for.

I keep certain things, because they remind me of something. It would be possible to copy that thing. But then it is an other thing, that looks the same, but it has no value for me and the the attemp to recreate the memory by recreating the thing, was meant to fail.

But I can seek another adventure (without expecting it to be crap), because that was what I did when something became special for the first time.
Posted By: vometia Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 10/03/20 03:31 PM
Originally Posted by Riandor
Yeah I remember having to deal with your types, pfff, hardcore fangirl edgelord! ;-D

But as we are from the same city, I'll cut you some slack.

We are? How slightly random. Because obviously there are no other gamers here. biggrin Yeah, I have been clocked wearing an N7 hoodie while out and about.

And guilty as charged: I don't get much opportunity as I mostly like all the unfashionable games. I need to reply to that topic listing my top five as Oblivion, Doom 3, HL2, Inquisition and FO3 to feel the derision without anybody even having to comment. Okay, it's not a strictly accurate list (and not just because it changes with my mood) but I am That Person™ who finds herself on the wrong side of most of these debates.
Posted By: Adgaroth Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 10/03/20 03:31 PM
Originally Posted by Riandor
Originally Posted by Adgaroth
Originally Posted by Riandor
Originally Posted by Adgaroth
[quote=Riandor][quote=Adgaroth][quote=LaserOstrich][quote=Riandor][...]

I can't say for the first 2 because I've never played them, and I'm not saying all the witcher games are the same, but I can recognise them at a glance on the first 5 minutes as being part of the same series,I've played them and enjoyed all without ANY issue (and I player witcher 1 when it came out,not after playing 3,so you could tag me as a purist in that regard)
I'm not against change in videogames,I'm against dishonest marketing.


And I'm against hyperbole.
Can we perhaps agree that for now it isn't looking good enough for you and we all wait a little until we see some more before reaching for the pitchforks?


I've said it multiple times,I can only give my opinion based on what I've seen and a few interviews,and I don't have any problem on changing my opinion if or when I'm proved wrong,maybe one year from now the game screams BG everywhere but divination is not my school of magic so until then this is what it is. And I think is better to give feedback now that things can easily change and not when the game releases, if ''wait and see'' worked they wouldn't be undergoing an EA period.

I can't agree on that because is looking good enough,I'm not saying the game is or will be bad,I'm saying it's not BG enough (or at all) to be called BG3,thus my dishonest marketing problem.

Im not saying don't criticise, heck there are things I am not yet impressed by... I am just saying let's not reach for terms like dishonest marketing whilst we are still in pre-alpha and assets are known to be borrowed/completely missing.

I must admit, whilst I love early previews and being involved in alphas etc... I do sometimes yearn for the time when all we saw was an article in a magazine regarding upcoming titles and then release. Often showcasing early work to the public seems more trouble than it's worth (not aimed at you Adgaroth, just talking out loud).





I know what you mean and it pains me more than you know to call it dishonest marketing but the only things I've seen so far are Swen saying he took BG3 because he thought it could reach more people than DOS2 ever did and that could make more people to play Larian's older games and the demo not showing anything that could remotely resemble BG. Based on that I'm only adding 1+1 (If I'm wrong I'll be the happiest boi in town)

When I heard Larian was making BG3 I was as happy as I could get because I had HUGE respect for Larian and their games (not only DOS and DOS2) I knew they had character,and they were passionate about their trade so the game was in good hands. Now I'm just disappointed but like I said,if things change I'll be the first to acknowledge it and be happy about it
Posted By: Adgaroth Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 10/03/20 03:37 PM
Originally Posted by LaserOstrich
Originally Posted by Adgaroth
Originally Posted by LaserOstrich
[...]


I don't understand all this childhood memories thing you so adamant use as an argument.
Harry Potter fans expect Harry Potter things, Witcher fans expect Witcher things,BG fans expect BG things, that's why franchises and series exist,because people know what to expect when buy/consume something from that franchise/series.
For some people it may be the case,but if you think it's all about feelings and unreachable emotional goals for everyone you're very wrong.

Because it is a very emotional thing.
And is a very human error to the seek to the relive of individual emotional experiences, by trying to recreate the scene that is tangled with it.
The error is to systemtically overestimte anything that describe the scene in materialisitc, quantifiybale way.

Originally Posted by Riandor
[...] It's not my game because (Not dark enough, persistent online, open world, etc...) This always happens when there is a change and these are examples where games stayed within the same company, where the makers of the original games looked to change things up, because they don't just want to make the same thing again.

Polygons have no soul. We the people, we make things beautiful, and we make them ugly. It is us human beeings who keep memories. The can't be transfered. The same can't get more. There can be new ones, others. Which end up beeing what we were looking for.

I keep certain things, because they remind me of something. It would be possible to copy that thing. But then it is an other thing, that looks the same, but it has no value for me and the the attemp to recreate the memory by recreating the thing, was meant to fail.

But I can seek another adventure (without expecting it to be crap), because that was what I did when something became special for the first time.


The fact that you feel like that doesn't mean every other person is as ''emotional'' about games, if the next...let's say witcher (again) game looks like fallout or vice versa I won't be pleased,not because I don't like witcher or fallout,it will be because they're simply not.

EDIT: Sorry for the double post,the page doesn't allow too many quotes xD
Posted By: Riandor Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 10/03/20 03:50 PM
Originally Posted by Adgaroth

I know what you mean and it pains me more than you know to call it dishonest marketing but the only things I've seen so far are Swen saying he took BG3 because he thought it could reach more people than DOS2 ever did and that could make more people to play Larian's older games and the demo not showing anything that could remotely resemble BG. Based on that I'm only adding 1+1 (If I'm wrong I'll be the happiest boi in town)

When I heard Larian was making BG3 I was as happy as I could get because I had HUGE respect for Larian and their games (not only DOS and DOS2) I knew they had character,and they were passionate about their trade so the game was in good hands. Now I'm just disappointed but like I said,if things change I'll be the first to acknowledge it and be happy about it

Fair enough! Let's hope so hehe
Posted By: Ignatius Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 10/03/20 04:07 PM
I agree that BG 1 and 2 aren't reproducible, the spirit is tied up in the people who made it and played it, people pour meaning into these things. So, the best you can do is make a homage of sorts, like a party-based D&D game set in the Forgotten Realms. Which, unsurprisingly, is what Larian is making.
Posted By: Emrikol Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 10/03/20 04:07 PM
Originally Posted by Adgaroth
Thq question is not why they would expect so many others to want it, the question is why would you be against it.


Because without the rose tinted glasses, you see the game for what it is: out-dated.

Originally Posted by Adgaroth
Again,you claim is a reasonable explanation just because you choose to ignore all the extensive explanations people have offered already, you're just proving my point here.


I have not ignored the excuses that have been given; I see nostalgia as the reason these excuses exist.

Originally Posted by Adgaroth
So,long story short ... this situation would never had happened


What has happened? 5-10 upset people are making hundreds of posts in opposition to what was seen in the pre-alpha release? Hardly a calamity.

Originally Posted by Adgaroth
yes I don't think we're a minority


Okay, let's try a different approach. I suspect none, or at most an insignificant number of the hardcore BG1&2 fans would want BG3 to have TB instead of RTwP. If that's the case, the PC Gamer poll showing 53.5% want TB indicates that the BG1&2 camp are a minority. Of the 46.5% who want RTwP, it is reasonable to expect that not all of them are BG1&2 fans, but just RTwP fans (Dragon Age fans, for example), probably even a good amount. So, no matter how you slice, you seem to be the minority.
Posted By: Eguzky Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 10/03/20 04:10 PM
Originally Posted by Adgaroth
Originally Posted by Riandor
Originally Posted by Adgaroth
[quote=Riandor][quote=Adgaroth][quote=LaserOstrich][quote=Riandor][...]

I can't say for the first 2 because I've never played them, and I'm not saying all the witcher games are the same, but I can recognise them at a glance on the first 5 minutes as being part of the same series,I've played them and enjoyed all without ANY issue (and I player witcher 1 when it came out,not after playing 3,so you could tag me as a purist in that regard)
I'm not against change in videogames,I'm against dishonest marketing.


And I'm against hyperbole.
Can we perhaps agree that for now it isn't looking good enough for you and we all wait a little until we see some more before reaching for the pitchforks?


I've said it multiple times,I can only give my opinion based on what I've seen and a few interviews,and I don't have any problem on changing my opinion if or when I'm proved wrong,maybe one year from now the game screams BG everywhere but divination is not my school of magic so until then this is what it is. And I think is better to give feedback now that things can easily change and not when the game releases, if ''wait and see'' worked they wouldn't be undergoing an EA period.

I can't agree on that because is looking good enough,I'm not saying the game is or will be bad,I'm saying it's not BG enough (or at all) to be called BG3,thus my dishonest marketing problem.


It's not dishonest marketing because they're not selling what we saw.
What we saw is meant to drum up interest. Get people thinking 'Hey! A new Baldur's Gate! Let's see how it looks on launch!'
Not 'Let's buy exactly what we see, right at this moment.'

They're not marketing, or selling, the pre-alpha. Save your criticisms for when the game actually releases. THAT is when Larian is saying 'We are happy with what we have done so far, and think you will be, as well.'

Once again; my analogy works:
You are complaining that milk, eggs, flour & sugar don't look like the $500 wedding cake you saw in the photo.
It has to be mixed & baked first. There's still a long way to go.
Posted By: Emrikol Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 10/03/20 04:17 PM
Originally Posted by Madscientist
The seek to have the same impressive experience they had when playing BG for the first time ages ago.They are doomed to fail, because they are different people now.


This is it. The one group I would not try to satisfy are the hardcore BG1&2 fans because nothing will ever be good enough. The experience cannot be reproduced because of the missing crucial ingredient of them being who they were when they first experienced the games. The same goes for all of us, just with different games, but in all manner of things (music, movies, etc.). You can't get it back.
Posted By: Adgaroth Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 10/03/20 04:29 PM
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Originally Posted by Adgaroth
Thq question is not why they would expect so many others to want it, the question is why would you be against it.


Because without the rose tinted glasses, you see the game for what it is: out-dated.

Originally Posted by Adgaroth
Again,you claim is a reasonable explanation just because you choose to ignore all the extensive explanations people have offered already, you're just proving my point here.


I have not ignored the excuses that have been given; I see nostalgia as the reason these excuses exist.

Originally Posted by Adgaroth
So,long story short ... this situation would never had happened


What has happened? 5-10 upset people are making hundreds of posts in opposition to what was seen in the pre-alpha release? Hardly a calamity.

Originally Posted by Adgaroth
yes I don't think we're a minority


Okay, let's try a different approach. I suspect none, or at most an insignificant number of the hardcore BG1&2 fans would want BG3 to have TB instead of RTwP. If that's the case, the PC Gamer poll showing 53.5% want TB indicates that the BG1&2 camp are a minority. Of the 46.5% who want RTwP, it is reasonable to expect that not all of them are BG1&2 fans, but just RTwP fans (Dragon Age fans, for example), probably even a good amount. So, no matter how you slice, you seem to be the minority.


Thank you for being the perfect example of what I said.

The game does not have to be done on the same engine or use any assets from the old ones,the game can look like BG without being updated,you are saying the same old excuses (you want RTwP you want old graphics me no like waaah)

You call those arguments excuses and nostalgia,I call them reasonable feedback,we agree to disagree.

Or 5-10 people adamantly defending the game and arguing with BG fan for no reason? It's not a calamity and it's not going to make the game ''fail'',but it wasn't a good decion.

I'm not going to even bother answering the last one,it's not only about RTwP or not,keep focusing on that if you want. I like both,TB and RTwP.
A poll on PC gamer...wow,Im sure the numbers are very accurate (I didn't even know about it)

Originally Posted by Eguzky
IOnce again; my analogy works:
You are complaining that milk, eggs, flour & sugar don't look like the $500 wedding cake you saw in the photo.
It has to be mixed & baked first. There's still a long way to go.


The photo was a strawberry cake and so far I've only seen chocolate,they may add the strawberies later but so far is what it is. We have seen the game working,not random pieces of it without context,wich is your ingredients. But I get what you mean I just don't agree with it.
Posted By: Emrikol Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 10/03/20 04:43 PM
Originally Posted by Adgaroth
the game can look like BG without being updated


What?

Originally Posted by Adgaroth
I'm not going to even bother answering the last one,it's not only about RTwP or not,keep focusing on that if you want. I like both,TB and RTwP.
A poll on PC gamer...wow,Im sure the numbers are very accurate (I didn't even know about it)


TB vs RTwP isn't directly the point; the poll is (which had over 33k responses on and was conducted on a neutral site, so yes, we can be confident it is accurate).
Posted By: vometia Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 10/03/20 04:48 PM
Enough talk about TB/RTwP. Any posts not in the pinned topic will be deleted.
Posted By: Emrikol Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 10/03/20 04:52 PM
Originally Posted by vometia
Enough talk about TB/RTwP. Any posts not in the pinned topic will be deleted.


It was mentioned in service of a greater point, not as an argument of which is better or which should be in BG3. TB/RTwP is indirectly related to the topic of this thread, so it's going to need to be brought up here to some extent from time to time.
Posted By: Adgaroth Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 10/03/20 04:56 PM
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Originally Posted by Adgaroth
the game can look like BG without being updated


What?

Originally Posted by Adgaroth
I'm not going to even bother answering the last one,it's not only about RTwP or not,keep focusing on that if you want. I like both,TB and RTwP.
A poll on PC gamer...wow,Im sure the numbers are very accurate (I didn't even know about it)


TB vs RTwP isn't directly the point; the poll is (which had over 33k responses on and was conducted on a neutral site, so yes, we can be confident it is accurate).


I meant to say the game can look like BG without looking outdated,my bad.

''TB vs RTwP isn't directly the point'' The poll is RTwP vs TB if I understand correctly and it's almost a 50-50, I can't see how that prove people asking for more BG on BG3 are a minority, I don't specifically want one system or the other so I can't even vote on that poll. You want accurate results? Show me this poll on PC gamer ''Does BG3 looks like it's a game of the BG series?'' then we can discuss numbers.

Originally Posted by vometia
Enough talk about TB/RTwP. Any posts not in the pinned topic will be deleted.


I never intended to bring it up because it's not what I'm discussing,I'm only giving my answer.
Posted By: Emrikol Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 10/03/20 05:10 PM
Originally Posted by Adgaroth
I meant to say the game can look like BG without looking outdated


Originally Posted by Adgaroth
Show me this poll on PC gamer ''Does BG3 looks like it's a game of the BG series?'' then we can discuss numbers.


That isn't where the dispute lies. The dispute lies in if it should "like a BG game." Part of the problem has been trying to define what a "BG looks like." The clearest answer might be something like "it should look more like Pillars of Eternity" to at least bring it current. If that's what you mean, then sure, that's a fair point. In response I would say that PoE 2 and DOS2 came out six months apart; one flopped, one was a huge hit. Based on that, it should be clear on which model to follow. But even so, games in a franchise can change. The most recent God of War game played very different from the predecessors, but was a resounding success. Another problem with the BG2 to BG3 issue is the time difference. How many games in a franchise are more then twenty years apart?
Posted By: Adgaroth Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 10/03/20 05:27 PM
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Originally Posted by Adgaroth
I meant to say the game can look like BG without looking outdated


Originally Posted by Adgaroth
Show me this poll on PC gamer ''Does BG3 looks like it's a game of the BG series?'' then we can discuss numbers.


That isn't where the dispute lies. The dispute lies in if it should "like a BG game." Part of the problem has been trying to define what a "BG looks like." The clearest answer might be something like "it should look more like Pillars of Eternity" to at least bring it current. If that's what you mean, then sure, that's a fair point. In response I would say that PoE 2 and DOS2 came out six months apart; one flopped, one was a huge hit. Based on that, it should be clear on which model to follow. But even so, games in a franchise can change. The most recent God of War game played very different from the predecessors, but was a resounding success. Another problem with the BG2 to BG3 issue is the time difference. How many games in a franchise are more then twenty years apart?


I feel like we're running in circles here.
PoE2 didn't ''flopped'' because of how it looks AFAIK so I wouldnt say that's a fair comparison. And yes,games change,and I've said I'm fine with that,you say the new God of War plays very different to the others and again,I'm fine with that,but the question is,did you know it was a GoW game when you saw it? Because the answer everyone will give you is yes. I've only played one GoW and regardless of gameplay mechanics all the games look like part of the franchise/series to me. BG3 don't, that's where the dispute lies.

I agree with ''Another problem with the BG2 to BG3 issue is the time difference. How many games in a franchise are more then twenty years apart?'' that is true,but again,no one is saying they should use the same engine or the same outdated graphics or any craziness so at the end of the day the time lapse it's not such a huge deal.
Posted By: Emrikol Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 10/03/20 05:37 PM
Originally Posted by Adgaroth
PoE2 didn't ''flopped'' because of how it looks


Even the lead man behind PeE2 cannot say why it flopped. Graphics? Gameplay? Genre fatigue (doubtful because of DOS2 success)? Bottom line is, PoE2 was very BG2ish and it failed, so hardly a good example to follow.

Originally Posted by Adgaroth
I've only played one GoW and regardless of gameplay mechanics all the games look like part of the franchise/series to me. BG3 don't, that's where the dispute lies.


Story and setting are enough to connect BG2 and BG3. Unlike GoW and Witcher, there isn't a character that is the symbol of BG. If the central character in BG1&2 was Drizzt and BG3 had used him as well, the games would instantly be connected in the manner you described; but there isn't something like that to connect them. Gameplay and graphics/design do not need to be similar, especially so with them being so far apart.


Posted By: vometia Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 10/03/20 05:52 PM
Originally Posted by Emrikol
It was mentioned in service of a greater point, not as an argument of which is better or which should be in BG3. TB/RTwP is indirectly related to the topic of this thread, so it's going to need to be brought up here to some extent from time to time.

Originally Posted by Adgaroth
I never intended to bring it up because it's not what I'm discussing,I'm only giving my answer.

Then do so in the pinned topic. It has become a significant problem and it's not up for debate.
Posted By: Rafoca Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 10/03/20 06:17 PM
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Originally Posted by Madscientist
The seek to have the same impressive experience they had when playing BG for the first time ages ago.They are doomed to fail, because they are different people now.


This is it. The one group I would not try to satisfy are the hardcore BG1&2 fans because nothing will ever be good enough. The experience cannot be reproduced because of the missing crucial ingredient of them being who they were when they first experienced the games. The same goes for all of us, just with different games, but in all manner of things (music, movies, etc.). You can't get it back.



EXACTLY!!!
I completely agree!

I felt the same with Dark Souls 2 and 3. While I think both are better than the first, I played Dark Souls 1 before all of them and I had totally different emotions.

We shouldn't dwell on past. Games are supposed to evolve.

And I am a fan of Baldurs Gate games of the old. But I think turn based suits better.

But I would definitely change the visuals a bit, to look less like a DOS3.

I think when the game releases, if larian really tries to translate D&D 5 to BG3, we will see this is not DOS3.
Posted By: Adgaroth Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 10/03/20 06:17 PM
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Originally Posted by Adgaroth
PoE2 didn't ''flopped'' because of how it looks


Even the lead man behind PeE2 cannot say why it flopped. Graphics? Gameplay? Genre fatigue (doubtful because of DOS2 success)? Bottom line is, PoE2 was very BG2ish and it failed, so hardly a good example to follow.

Originally Posted by Adgaroth
I've only played one GoW and regardless of gameplay mechanics all the games look like part of the franchise/series to me. BG3 don't, that's where the dispute lies.


Story and setting are enough to connect BG2 and BG3. Unlike GoW and Witcher, there isn't a character that is the symbol of BG. If the central character in BG1&2 was Drizzt and BG3 had used him as well, the games would instantly be connected in the manner you described; but there isn't something like that to connect them. Gameplay and graphics/design do not need to be similar, especially so with them being so far apart.




My take on PoE2 fail is because it was a bugfest and the main story is really bad and boring,but you can take P:K instead of PoE if you want.

The story in BG3 takes place after Descent into avernus so the story doesn't connect both games,the setting does however but it's not enough,otherwise Dark Alliance and Demon Stone would have been BG3,4 and 5 for example.

Originally Posted by Rafoca
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Originally Posted by Madscientist
The seek to have the same impressive experience they had when playing BG for the first time ages ago.They are doomed to fail, because they are different people now.


This is it. The one group I would not try to satisfy are the hardcore BG1&2 fans because nothing will ever be good enough. The experience cannot be reproduced because of the missing crucial ingredient of them being who they were when they first experienced the games. The same goes for all of us, just with different games, but in all manner of things (music, movies, etc.). You can't get it back.



EXACTLY!!!
I completely agree!

I felt the same with Dark Souls 2 and 3. While I think both are better than the first, I played Dark Souls 1 before all of them and I had totally different emotions.

We shouldn't dwell on past. Games are supposed to evolve.

And I am a fan of Baldurs Gate games of the old. But I think turn based suits better.

But I would definitely change the visuals a bit, to look less like a DOS3.

I think when the game releases, if larian really tries to translate D&D 5 to BG3, we will see this is not DOS3.


The first ''Dark Soul'' wich in my mind is ''Demon's soul'' and all the other 3 DS look pretty close to each other overall,I've only played Demon's souls and DS2 tho.

''But I would definitely change the visuals a bit, to look less like a DOS3.'' That's the whole point basically.
Posted By: Sordak Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 10/03/20 06:19 PM
PoE 2 was crap for the same reason PoE1 was, it looked forgettable as shit and was surrounded by controversy about the developers beeing idiots.
Everyhting about PoE looked milquetoast as fuck.

"hey were making the first Dragon Age again with worse graphics"
Posted By: Emrikol Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 10/03/20 07:51 PM
Originally Posted by Adgaroth
you can take P:K instead of PoE if you want.


Any hard data on the success of P:K? Closest I could find to compare it to DOS2 are:

DOS2 https://steamdb.info/app/435150/graphs/

P:K https://steamdb.info/app/640820/graphs/

Originally Posted by Adgaroth
The story in BG3 takes place after Descent into avernus so the story doesn't connect both games,the setting does however but it's not enough,otherwise Dark Alliance and Demon Stone would have been BG3,4 and 5 for example.


Just because the other games weren't titled BG3, BG4, etc, doesn't mean they could not have been (if setting is enough). BG3's story can be made to connect to BG2. Whether they have done so or not we just cannot know yet.
Posted By: Adgaroth Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 10/03/20 09:21 PM
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Originally Posted by Adgaroth
you can take P:K instead of PoE if you want.


Any hard data on the success of P:K? Closest I could find to compare it to DOS2 are:

DOS2 https://steamdb.info/app/435150/graphs/

P:K https://steamdb.info/app/640820/graphs/

Originally Posted by Adgaroth
The story in BG3 takes place after Descent into avernus so the story doesn't connect both games,the setting does however but it's not enough,otherwise Dark Alliance and Demon Stone would have been BG3,4 and 5 for example.


Just because the other games weren't titled BG3, BG4, etc, doesn't mean they could not have been (if setting is enough). BG3's story can be made to connect to BG2. Whether they have done so or not we just cannot know yet.


I meant P.K is closer to BG than BG3 I wasn't rating P:K or comparing it to DOS2

Even a racing game can be called BG3 if WoTC really wants to but those games weren't named like that for a reason.
They said the story of the first to games was totally closed,and that some people in FR are very long lived so we could see them in BG3. I don't think a couple cameos are a solid link to a story but yes,we don't know about that yet so everything story related are just guesses.

Posted By: Blade238 Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 10/03/20 09:46 PM
Originally Posted by Adgaroth


I meant P.K is closer to BG than BG3 I wasn't rating P:K or comparing it to DOS2

Even a racing game can be called BG3 if WoTC really wants to but those games weren't named like that for a reason.
They said the story of the first to games was totally closed,and that some people in FR are very long lived so we could see them in BG3. I don't think a couple cameos are a solid link to a story but yes,we don't know about that yet so everything story related are just guesses.


I think the point the other user is making is that the recent games that look and play similar to BG have not done nearly as well as DOS2 with the statistics we have.

That being said, while I think it's important to stress what people would like to see and how they think the game can improve (outside of RTwP since it won't happen), it's important for people to also realize that a lot of what's shown thus far is subject to change.

As I've outlined a few times already, from what we've seen they're currently in pre-alpha and they've even admitted to a lot of things changing (like the UI). Right now they're basically laying down a playable framework which still has a ton of placeholders and unfinished pieces. Even when the game is in early access it will be tough to judge the game by anything other than core gameplay and writing/story until the final release.

Edit: Just pointing out the last two pieces are a general to everyone rather than just you.
Posted By: Adgaroth Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 11/03/20 12:04 AM
Originally Posted by Blade238
I think the point the other user is making is that the recent games that look and play similar to BG have not done nearly as well as DOS2 with the statistics we have.


I know,but I highly doubt the reason why they've not done as well as DOS2 has anything to do with visuals wich was the thing I was discussing.

That being said, while I think it's important to stress what people would like to see and how they think the game can improve (outside of RTwP since it won't happen), it's important for people to also realize that a lot of what's shown thus far is subject to change.

Originally Posted by Blade238
That being said, while I think it's important to stress what people would like to see and how they think the game can improve (outside of RTwP since it won't happen), it's important for people to also realize that a lot of what's shown thus far is subject to change.

As I've outlined a few times already, from what we've seen they're currently in pre-alpha and they've even admitted to a lot of things changing (like the UI). Right now they're basically laying down a playable framework which still has a ton of placeholders and unfinished pieces. Even when the game is in early access it will be tough to judge the game by anything other than core gameplay and writing/story until the final release.


Yes,I know it's pre-alpha and a lot of things are bound to change,but I think it's better to give feedback sooner (now that they can add,change or get rid of things easily) rather than later (incurring extra work and time wasted)
And of course we can only talk about what we've seen so far,maybe and hopefully the AMA and the EA serve to placate our worries.
Posted By: kyrthorsen Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 11/03/20 12:16 AM
I just have a feeling that more and more people on Larian "side" are getting annoyed by this thread.

Forum moderators threatening to ban me, or delete certain posts.

Larian employees supporting that as well.

I think at a certain point Larian management might also get really annoyed by this specific issue (BG3 actually being DOS3).

Why is that? Its because its simply the TRUTH, truth sometimes hurts, there is no hiding from it after we saw the demo.

When I saw the demo...I was just kinda sad and a bit mad...a bit disappointed with Larian for the first time.

I know they put a lot of effort into this game, their team is really huge, lots of money went into all of this.

This topic is a very uncomfortable issue for Larian.

I would not be surprised if they just shut down this topic all together, because it seems a bit too late to change the entire direction of the game.

This game is DOS3, and I don't see that changing, it would cost so much more money for them to start redesigning the game now.

With that, unfortunately maybe TWO IP's will be ruined irreversibly - DOS and BG.

What is Larian going to do next - do DOS3 after BG3? Dont see that coming anytime soon.

Essentially, the DOS trilogy will be finished with BG3.

Good luck Larian.

Posted By: Eguzky Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 11/03/20 12:35 AM
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
I just have a feeling that more and more people on Larian "side" are getting annoyed by this thread.

Forum moderators threatening to ban me, or delete certain posts.

Larian employees supporting that as well.

I think at a certain point Larian management might also get really annoyed by this specific issue (BG3 actually being DOS3).

Why is that? Its because its simply the TRUTH, truth sometimes hurts, there is no hiding from it after we saw the demo.

When I saw the demo...I was just kinda sad and a bit mad...a bit disappointed with Larian for the first time.

I know they put a lot of effort into this game, their team is really huge, lots of money went into all of this.

This topic is a very uncomfortable issue for Larian.

I would not be surprised if they just shut down this topic all together, because it seems a bit too late to change the entire direction of the game.

This game is DOS3, and I don't see that changing, it would cost so much more money for them to start redesigning the game now.

With that, unfortunately maybe TWO IP's will be ruined irreversibly - DOS and BG.

What is Larian going to do next - do DOS3 after BG3? Dont see that coming anytime soon.

Essentially, the DOS trilogy will be finished with BG3.

Good luck Larian.



Yeah, no. They're not angry because you're 'preaching truth' and they want to 'silence the brave man'. And not to make the fans happy.
It's because you've insulted people, and make the same point again and again instead of accepting discussions and other peoples points of view.
You're not some brave crusader, seeking to shine the light of truth on the evil Larian devs, being banned because they are scared you'll reveal their deep, dark secret.
Posted By: Emrikol Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 11/03/20 12:36 AM
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
This game is DOS3


A DOS3 game would not have D&D rules and lore. So, you are incorrect.

Looks and plays more like DOS2 more than BG2? Seems so. Is that a bad thing? No.

Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
I just have a feeling that more and more people on Larian "side" are getting annoyed by this thread.

Forum moderators threatening to ban me, or delete certain posts.

Larian employees supporting that as well.

I think at a certain point Larian management might also get really annoyed by this specific issue (BG3 actually being DOS3).



You are continuing to give yourself and your fellow BG1&2 devotees too much credit.
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 11/03/20 05:25 AM
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
This game is DOS3


A DOS3 game would not have D&D rules and lore. So, you are incorrect.

Looks and plays more like DOS2 more than BG2? Seems so. Is that a bad thing? No.



Listen to him, he has the truth.
For you it's not, for me it is.

And it's funny to look on the other thread that the majority of those waiting (and hardly defending) this BG3 don't talk about BG1&2 on their top5 games smile

Every games using the D&D rules aren't BG, your answer is very "weak".
Posted By: Emrikol Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 11/03/20 05:39 AM
Originally Posted by Maximuuus

Listen to him, he has the truth.
For you it's not, for me it is.

And it's funny to look on the other thread that the majority of those waiting (and hardly defending) this BG3 don't talk about BG1&2 on their top5 games smile

Every games using the D&D rules aren't BG, your answer is very "weak".


Sorry. I don't understand what you are trying to say.
Posted By: Archaven Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 11/03/20 06:29 AM
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Originally Posted by Maximuuus

Listen to him, he has the truth.
For you it's not, for me it is.

And it's funny to look on the other thread that the majority of those waiting (and hardly defending) this BG3 don't talk about BG1&2 on their top5 games smile

Every games using the D&D rules aren't BG, your answer is very "weak".


Sorry. I don't understand what you are trying to say.


Or pretending not to?

Just because it's D&D it doesn't mean it's baldurs gate. 4 party character, multiplayer co-op focused, looks exactly and plays like DOS2. people initial reaction genuinely thought this was DOS2 sequel.

seriously Larian why are you making baldurs gate when what you are doing really is just DOS3? People are not stupid or naive
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 11/03/20 06:37 AM
I can add it's not only some players that said it looks like a DoS game...
I heard press reviews that compare what they see to a DoS game with a BG "skin" (according to the rules and the lore).

Everyone is not agree about the quality of it, that's true... But it's still something like a skin.

It doesn't mean the game don't look cool, but it still looks more like DoS than BG..
Posted By: Emrikol Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 11/03/20 06:44 AM
Originally Posted by Archaven
Or pretending not to?


Ah, I've been discovered.

Originally Posted by Archaven
Just because it's D&D it doesn't mean it's baldurs gate


D&D doesn't necessarily mean BG, but BG necessarily means D&D.

Originally Posted by Archaven
4 party character, multiplayer co-op focused, looks exactly and plays like DOS2. people initial reaction genuinely thought this was DOS2 sequel.

seriously Larian why are you making baldurs gate when what you are doing really is just DOS3? People are not stupid or naive


A DOS2 sequel would continue the story of DOS2. BG3 will not. DOS3 would have the same lore and rules (largely) of DOS2. BG3 will have the rules and lore of D&D.

For the above reasons, it is indisputable (to the rationale minded*) that BG3 is not a sequel to DOS2 nor is it a clone of DOS2.

* or to those who do not consider the rules and lore of D&D to be insignificant.
Posted By: Riandor Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 11/03/20 06:54 AM
And round and round we go...

It looks like DOS2 because it is currently borrowing a fair amount of its assets.

This the TB, 4 party, MP stuff grates more with certain fans of BG1&2. Had the demo been delivered with a more BG-esque UI and familiar music and a party of say 5, we might be only discussing the thread that shall not be named.

As for the other thread, last I looked quite a few had BG games as their favorites but those that didn’t still had BG3 at or near the top of their most anticipated. Yes, that means they aren’t as upset over design changes, but change can be good, new blood can be good. I still say for now wait and see and provide constructive criticism to that which you dislike.

In short BG3 =/= DOS3 it just looks a little too similar for the moment.
Posted By: Boeroer Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 11/03/20 08:17 AM
Originally Posted by Sordak
PoE 2 was crap for the same reason PoE1 was, it looked forgettable as shit and was surrounded by controversy about the developers beeing idiots.
Everyhting about PoE looked milquetoast as fuck.

"hey were making the first Dragon Age again with worse graphics"


And that's why they have those abysmal metacritic scores of 89 and 88.

[Linked Image]

Also watch your tone. Just because you despise something you don't need to unleash your imaginary Tourette Syndrome.
Posted By: Archaven Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 11/03/20 04:57 PM
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Originally Posted by Archaven
Or pretending not to?


Ah, I've been discovered.

Originally Posted by Archaven
Just because it's D&D it doesn't mean it's baldurs gate


D&D doesn't necessarily mean BG, but BG necessarily means D&D.

Originally Posted by Archaven
4 party character, multiplayer co-op focused, looks exactly and plays like DOS2. people initial reaction genuinely thought this was DOS2 sequel.

seriously Larian why are you making baldurs gate when what you are doing really is just DOS3? People are not stupid or naive


A DOS2 sequel would continue the story of DOS2. BG3 will not. DOS3 would have the same lore and rules (largely) of DOS2. BG3 will have the rules and lore of D&D.

For the above reasons, it is indisputable (to the rationale minded*) that BG3 is not a sequel to DOS2 nor is it a clone of DOS2.

* or to those who do not consider the rules and lore of D&D to be insignificant.


i'm not even sure i should even reply to you. unless you have reading problems, i stated people initial reaction thought it was a DOS2 sequel. this was not made up by me. it was from the reaction of people who first saw the gameplay reaction. this was my reaction as well. and i do play DOS and DOS2. stop being naive.

no one is saying BG3 is a sequel to DOS2. but it is infact a clone of DOS2, aesthetically and gameplay wise. the assets, the UI, the aesthetics, the graphics, the animations, the effects and even the gameplay. heck even larian themselves admitted in the interview that they wanted to promote their RPG mechanics in DOS2 using the baldur's gate name.

also i'm not the only one who notice the similarity and definitely not the only one who are saying it. half of community of BG is talking about it and even arguing in social media and forum.
Posted By: Eguzky Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 11/03/20 05:05 PM
Originally Posted by Archaven
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Originally Posted by Archaven
Or pretending not to?


Ah, I've been discovered.

Originally Posted by Archaven
Just because it's D&D it doesn't mean it's baldurs gate


D&D doesn't necessarily mean BG, but BG necessarily means D&D.

Originally Posted by Archaven
4 party character, multiplayer co-op focused, looks exactly and plays like DOS2. people initial reaction genuinely thought this was DOS2 sequel.

seriously Larian why are you making baldurs gate when what you are doing really is just DOS3? People are not stupid or naive


A DOS2 sequel would continue the story of DOS2. BG3 will not. DOS3 would have the same lore and rules (largely) of DOS2. BG3 will have the rules and lore of D&D.

For the above reasons, it is indisputable (to the rationale minded*) that BG3 is not a sequel to DOS2 nor is it a clone of DOS2.

* or to those who do not consider the rules and lore of D&D to be insignificant.


i'm not even sure i should even reply to you. unless you have reading problems, i stated people initial reaction thought it was a DOS2 sequel. this was not made up by me. it was from the reaction of people who first saw the gameplay reaction. this was my reaction as well. and i do play DOS and DOS2. stop being naive.

no one is saying BG3 is a sequel to DOS2. but it is infact a clone of DOS2, aesthetically and gameplay wise. the assets, the UI, the aesthetics, the graphics, the animations, the effects and even the gameplay. heck even larian themselves admitted in the interview that they wanted to promote their RPG mechanics in DOS2 using the baldur's gate name.

also i'm not the only one who notice the similarity and definitely not the only one who are saying it. half of community of BG is talking about it and even arguing in social media and forum.


You say it's a clone like this is a fact.

The game is not even out yet.

Pre-alpha means maybe 10% of the game is done. EVERYTHING you listed is being changed or polished before it gets released.

People need to chill out and actually open their ears for something I've been saying for over a week:

What we saw was pre-alpha. Pre-alpha games are so barebones that they are more of a 'test of concept'. Virtually everything you saw will be changed, and most of it was placeholders in order to make a working demo to show people. What we saw was meant to get people interested & aware of the idea of a Baldur's gate 3. NOTHING WE SAW WAS MEANT TO SELL US THE GAME. If it WAS, the game would be in early access. Stop treating a barely-playable pre-alpha state like it's 100% what the game will be. Because it's not!
Posted By: Blade238 Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 11/03/20 05:16 PM
Originally Posted by Adgaroth

Yes,I know it's pre-alpha and a lot of things are bound to change,but I think it's better to give feedback sooner (now that they can add,change or get rid of things easily) rather than later (incurring extra work and time wasted)
And of course we can only talk about what we've seen so far,maybe and hopefully the AMA and the EA serve to placate our worries.

My apologies if I was unclear. I do think it's incredibly important for potential consumers to voice their opinions on stuff like lore, gameplay, assets and design.
I also agree it's better to give this feedback early on, since it's in pre-alpha and all of this stuff is still being designed, it's the perfect time to give this feedback.

My statement was more of a generalized to those continuing to spread misinformation, stating this game is a "clone" or that it's not a BG game because XYZ. Well duh, they've got nothing but a playable framework and assumedly story/dialogue/quests settled on.

It's important to voice opinions and to give feedback or wants, but they need to be based in reality and actually have some common sense or insight. Otherwise it's perceived as unconstructive nonsense (again not you, but others).
Posted By: Emrikol Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 11/03/20 05:26 PM
Originally Posted by Archaven
i'm not even sure i should even reply to you. unless you have reading problems


Originally Posted by Archaven
no one is saying BG3 is a sequel to DOS2


I have reading problems? Me? Notice the title of the thread. How amusing.

Originally Posted by Archaven
but it is infact a clone of DOS2, aesthetically and gameplay wise.


If you wish to limit your definition of "clone" to fit your narrative, perhaps you should just use a different word.

Originally Posted by Archaven
also i'm not the only one who notice the similarity and definitely not the only one who are saying it. half of community of BG is talking about it and even arguing in social media and forum.


Keyword being "similarity." Has anyone disputed that they are similar?
Posted By: Madscientist Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 11/03/20 07:17 PM
Originally Posted by Eguzky

What we saw was pre-alpha. Pre-alpha games are so barebones that they are more of a 'test of concept'. Virtually everything you saw will be changed, and most of it was placeholders in order to make a working demo to show people. What we saw was meant to get people interested & aware of the idea of a Baldur's gate 3. NOTHING WE SAW WAS MEANT TO SELL US THE GAME. If it WAS, the game would be in early access. Stop treating a barely-playable pre-alpha state like it's 100% what the game will be. Because it's not!


This is the main thing everyone should consider.

The presentation was meant to show us the intro movie, some party members, that the game uses DnD rules and dice rolls are used for almost everything and some cool stuff you can do now.
The game will not look exactly like in the video and some game mechanics will probably change too.
There were lots of placeholders and they re used lots of stuff from D:OS in order to show us a playable demo.

So please calm down everyone and stop acting like the end of the world is coming, just because the PRE-ALPHA demo of a game does not look exactly how you want it to be.
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 11/03/20 08:13 PM
Can't none of you understand that some expected to see... BG when you see the first gameplay video of... BG3 ?
If the first thing you show don't highlight "BG-like" elements,, then why is the game named BG3 ?

It's not to launch any other discussions but if you only speak about D&D, about The Forgottent Realms and (new) Larian's (great) mecanics, I still don't see BG.

The game looks great, the way they adapt D&D rules looks cool, DoS is a great and a sucessfull game, things were too old and had to be improved, Larian is a very good studio and we're all happy they are creating games for us all... Nearly everyone agree with that... There are different points of view, some just don't care about BG1&BG2, some were just waiting about a new great D&D video game, etc... this is not a problem...
Of course things can still change, and of course we didn't see anything...

Maybe the title of the thread is bad because it's a shortcut but if you read between the line, it means that this game really doesn't look like a BG game...
Their first intention is not to show BG, because there's not expect a little bit of fan service/easter eggs (venturing forth) and a link with the story... (which is sufficient for some, but not for a lot).

So please, can you explain me what specific elements of BG you saw or read until now ?

(no jurist here ? no stockholders of Larian or WoTC ? please don't talk about the legal rights, we're all players here so speak about video game as the player you are).
Posted By: Eguzky Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 11/03/20 08:18 PM
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Can't none of you understand that some expected to see... BG when you see the first gameplay video of... BG3 ?
If the first thing you show don't highlight "BG-like" elements,, then why is the game named BG3 ?

It's not to launch any other discussions but if you only speak about D&D, about The Forgottent Realms and (new) Larian's (great) mecanics, I still don't see BG.

The game looks great, the way they adapt D&D rules looks cool, DoS is a great and a sucessfull game, things were too old and had to be improved... Nearly everyone agree with that...
There are different points of view, some just don't care about BG1&BG2, some were just waiting about a new great D&D video game, etc... this is not a problem...

And of course things can still change, and of course we didn't see anything...
Maybe the title of the thread is bad because it's a shortcut but if you read between the line, it means that this game really doesn't look like a BG game...

Their first intention is not to show BG, because there's not expect a little bit of fan service/easter eggs (venturing forth) and a link with the story... (which is sufficient for some, but clearly not for many).

Or please, can you explain me why specific alements of BG you saw or read until now ?
The game is named BG3, so please tell me why this name because I don't understand.

(no jurist here ? no stockholders of Larian or WoTC ? please don't talk about the legal rights, we're all players here so speak about video game as the player you are).


Because, when it is COMPLETED, it will be BG3.

Again; you're acting like the game has to be BG3 before it's even playable.
It. Is. Not. Playable. It's not even a GAME at this point because it's NOT PLAYABLE.

You're acting like what we saw is the entire game, and is everything that will be in said game.

You're complaining that milk, eggs, sugar, & flour don't look like the promised $500 wedding cake; this is NOT A FINISHED PRODUCT.
WHAT WE SAW IS NOT WHAT BALDUR'S GATE 3 WILL LOOK LIKE, SO AT LEAST WAIT UNTIL THE BLOODY EARLY ACCESS COMES OUT.


I'm sorry to sound so snide about it but you're complaining about an UNFINISHED PRODUCT!
'This unpainted, untreated car frame does not look like the 1984 Ford T-Bird you promised me!'

Because. it's. Not. Finished. Hell, it's barely started, from a timeline perspective!
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 11/03/20 08:25 PM
Well, that still doesn't mean we saw anything about it... whatever you talk about visual, gameplay,...
Maybe they should have shown more BG and less D&D rules or lore, just to see your faces now biggrin
Posted By: Blade238 Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 11/03/20 08:33 PM
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Can't none of you understand that some expected to see... BG when you see the first gameplay video of... BG3 ?
If the first thing you show don't highlight "BG-like" elements,, then why is the game named BG3 ?

Of course things can still change, and of course we didn't see anything...

So please, can you explain me what specific elements of BG you saw or read until now ?

It's called Baldur's Gate 3, because it takes place after Baldur's Gate 2 within the Baldur's Gate IP and universe using the Baldur's Gate lore. I honestly don't know how much clearer this can possibly get as it's been explained countless times across countless threads.

Hey look, you're maybe starting to get it! Things can and will change! You're right, we did not see anything yet

As already said by a ton of other users and myself multiple times, it's in the same universe as Baldur's Gate with the same story. The opening cinematic screams Baldur's Gate and has zip to do with Larian's previous games.

To make this as simple as possible, I'll say it yet again: What has been shown thus far is just a pre-alpha riddled with place-holders and incomplete art assets that will likely all be changed by release. Even the early access won't have much finished content. It's all going to look COMPLETELY DIFFERENT BY LAUNCH
Posted By: Eguzky Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 11/03/20 08:33 PM
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Well, that still doesn't mean we saw anything about it... whatever you talk about visual, gameplay,...
Maybe they should have shown more BG and less D&D rules or lore, just to see your faces now biggrin


Larian apparently overestimated the fanbase's intelligence. They expected us all to realize a game without a working save function was not meant to do more than let us know they're making it.
Yet everyone is screaming like this game was sold in this state for $60.
Posted By: Emrikol Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 11/03/20 08:36 PM
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Can't none of you understand that some expected to see... BG when you see the first gameplay video of... BG3 ?


Yeah, sure. The first response to that, though, was "what does that mean?" (took a while to get an idea of what that might mean, but best I can do so far is that a game more similar to PoE or P:K was expected by some). Then it could be asked why that was expected, considering Larian was making it (BG3 is looking like I expected it to). Then it can be asked if that would have been a good idea to do, considering DOS2's success and PoE's and P:K's lack of it (relatively speaking).

The topic keeps shifting a bit, though. My most recent responses have been to the reiterated claim that BG3 is DOS3, which is a subject related to, but not the same as the subject of what some expected to see.


Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Or please, can you explain me why specific alements of BG you saw or read until now ?


I'm in the middle of writing this response, so I cannot check easily, but I believe it was said that familiar faces would be in the game. That's a tenuous link, but it is something. Will there be more? I would be surprised if that's it. I expect the stories to connect somehow.

I don't think it was going to be easy to satisfy the BG devotees with the demo. The game looks and plays differently; that does not mean there are not other elements that can connect the two. Should they have thrown you a bone (e.g. an aged npc from BG1 or 2)? Possibly. I don't think a few story elements or characters would have precluded the uproar over the different look and play of the game, though.
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 11/03/20 08:57 PM
Originally Posted by Blade238
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Can't none of you understand that some expected to see... BG when you see the first gameplay video of... BG3 ?
If the first thing you show don't highlight "BG-like" elements,, then why is the game named BG3 ?

Of course things can still change, and of course we didn't see anything...

So please, can you explain me what specific elements of BG you saw or read until now ?

The opening cinematic screams Baldur's Gate and has zip to do with Larian's previous games.


Really ? With 3 dragons and fire and explosions and the destruction of a city ? Is this screaming Baldur's Gate to you ? In my memory it was a little bit less "spectacular".
I can't deny it was about the lore, which is not really specific to BG, it's more about D&D and The Forgotten Realms...

Originally Posted by Eguzky
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Well, that still doesn't mean we saw anything about it... whatever you talk about visual, gameplay,...
Maybe they should have shown more BG and less D&D rules or lore, just to see your faces now biggrin


Larian apparently overestimated the fanbase's intelligence. They expected us all to realize a game without a working save function was not meant to do more than let us know they're making it.
Yet everyone is screaming like this game was sold in this state for $60.


I can't really see the point here... You're answer and the "early access" argument looks something like : they didn't show BG because there is still no BG in BG3.
But don't worry, it's coming. Is that what you mean ?


Originally Posted by Emrikol
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Can't none of you understand that some expected to see... BG when you see the first gameplay video of... BG3 ?


Yeah, sure. The first response to that, though, was "what does that mean?" (took a while to get an idea of what that might mean, but best I can do so far is that a game more similar to PoE or P:K was expected by some). Then it could be asked why that was expected, considering Larian was making it (BG3 is looking like I expected it to). Then it can be asked if that would have been a good idea to do, considering DOS2's success and PoE's and P:K's lack of it (relatively speaking).

The topic keeps shifting a bit, though. My most recent responses have been to the reiterated claim that BG3 is DOS3, which is a subject related to, but not the same as the subject of what some expected to see.


Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Or please, can you explain me why specific alements of BG you saw or read until now ?


I'm in the middle of writing this response, so I cannot check easily, but I believe it was said that familiar faces would be in the game. That's a tenuous link, but it is something. Will there be more? I would be surprised if that's it. I expect the stories to connect somehow.

I don't think it was going to be easy to satisfy the BG devotees with the demo. The game looks and plays differently; that does not mean there are not other elements that can connect the two. Should they have thrown you a bone (e.g. an aged npc from BG1 or 2)? Possibly. I don't think a few story elements or characters would have precluded the uproar over the different look and play of the game, though.


I'm playing BG1 now. First time I try the EE on switch, so it's probably easier to "remember" what it could means (even if it's probably not the same for everyone).
Similar to PoE and P:K, probably on some points, but not on everything. I find really cool elements in what I see, and only Larian could have done this.
As I already said I was really hyped when I learn Larian took the game.

The story and the familiar faces yea, but that's a small point about the specific BG lore...
Obviously it's a part of the sucess I can't deny but I really don't think it's only about that.
That's why I agree with you again, more story elements or characters wouldn't have changed a thing.

Posted By: Eguzky Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 11/03/20 09:10 PM
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by Blade238
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Can't none of you understand that some expected to see... BG when you see the first gameplay video of... BG3 ?
If the first thing you show don't highlight "BG-like" elements,, then why is the game named BG3 ?

Of course things can still change, and of course we didn't see anything...

So please, can you explain me what specific elements of BG you saw or read until now ?

The opening cinematic screams Baldur's Gate and has zip to do with Larian's previous games.


Really ? With 3 dragons and fire and explosions and the destruction of a city ? Is this screaming Baldur's Gate to you ? In my memory it was a little bit less "spectacular".
I can't deny it was about the lore, which is not really specific to BG, it's more about D&D and The Forgotten Realms...

Originally Posted by Eguzky
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Well, that still doesn't mean we saw anything about it... whatever you talk about visual, gameplay,...
Maybe they should have shown more BG and less D&D rules or lore, just to see your faces now biggrin


Larian apparently overestimated the fanbase's intelligence. They expected us all to realize a game without a working save function was not meant to do more than let us know they're making it.
Yet everyone is screaming like this game was sold in this state for $60.


I can't really see the point here... You're answer and the "early access" argument looks something like : they didn't show BG because there is still no BG in BG3.
But don't worry, it's coming. Is that what you mean ?


Originally Posted by Emrikol
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Can't none of you understand that some expected to see... BG when you see the first gameplay video of... BG3 ?


Yeah, sure. The first response to that, though, was "what does that mean?" (took a while to get an idea of what that might mean, but best I can do so far is that a game more similar to PoE or P:K was expected by some). Then it could be asked why that was expected, considering Larian was making it (BG3 is looking like I expected it to). Then it can be asked if that would have been a good idea to do, considering DOS2's success and PoE's and P:K's lack of it (relatively speaking).

The topic keeps shifting a bit, though. My most recent responses have been to the reiterated claim that BG3 is DOS3, which is a subject related to, but not the same as the subject of what some expected to see.


Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Or please, can you explain me why specific alements of BG you saw or read until now ?


I'm in the middle of writing this response, so I cannot check easily, but I believe it was said that familiar faces would be in the game. That's a tenuous link, but it is something. Will there be more? I would be surprised if that's it. I expect the stories to connect somehow.

I don't think it was going to be easy to satisfy the BG devotees with the demo. The game looks and plays differently; that does not mean there are not other elements that can connect the two. Should they have thrown you a bone (e.g. an aged npc from BG1 or 2)? Possibly. I don't think a few story elements or characters would have precluded the uproar over the different look and play of the game, though.


I'm playing BG1 now. First time I try the EE on switch, so it's probably easier to "remember" what it could means (even if it's probably not the same for everyone).
Similar to PoE and P:K, probably on some points, but not on everything. I find really cool elements in what I see, and only Larian could have done this.
As I already said I was really hyped when I learn Larian took the game.

The story and the familiar faces yea, but that's only about the specific lore of BG, not about anything else.
Obviously it's a part of the sucess, but I really don't think it's only about that. That's why I agree with you again, more story elements or characters wouldn't have changed a thing.



What I am saying is half that.

What they showed us was supposed to do 2 things:
1) Show how the 5E rules are being implemented so far.
2) Pique our interest in the game as a concept.

What it was NOT supposed to do:
1) Sell the game.
2) Showcase the graphics/UI/etc

When a game is in pre-alpha, it's not only far form finished, it's barely gotten started, when you put it on a time-scale. They're more firmly in the 'beginning' part than the midway or end.
Everything most people are complaining about? The UI, reused assets, etc? Those are what are called 'placeholder assets'. IE: They are NOT going to be in the finished game. Or, in some cases, will be more polished before release. They were used because the proper UI, monsters, characters, skill icons, whatever were not created yet.

Did Larian jump the gun and show us the game a little too early? Maybe, sure. But they can't have forseen just how badly people would miss the point of the pre-alpha video.
We were not meant to expect most of what we saw to make it into the game on launch. That video was just to say 'Hey! We're making BG3! Check out how we're using the 5E ruleset! If you like the 5E rules; you should be happy!'

But instead, people looked at the demo and started acting like the game was going to be released the next day!

Again, to put it another way:
You paid a guy to scratch-build you an old-model car. You then went by a week later, saw the unpainted, unfinished FRAME and started acting like he was trying to give you that as the finished product while he was in the process of ordering more parts.

The game is nowhere near close to finished. Every complaint about how it looks, or the STORY for Nurgle's sake, from a pre-alpha, is baseless at this point in time.
(And yes, I've seen people claim the story is not BG3 as if they somehow time-traveled into the future)
Posted By: Wiborg Sturmfels Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 11/03/20 09:36 PM
Originally Posted by Eguzky
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by Blade238
[quote=Maximuuus]Can't none of you understand that some expected to see... BG when you see the first gameplay video of... BG3 ?
If the first thing you show don't highlight "BG-like" elements,, then why is the game named BG3 ?

Of course things can still change, and of course we didn't see anything...

So please, can you explain me what specific elements of BG you saw or read until now ?

The opening cinematic screams Baldur's Gate and has zip to do with Larian's previous games.


Really ? With 3 dragons and fire and explosions and the destruction of a city ? Is this screaming Baldur's Gate to you ? In my memory it was a little bit less "spectacular".
I can't deny it was about the lore, which is not really specific to BG, it's more about D&D and The Forgotten Realms...


Yes, it was more about D&D and The Forgotten Realms Lore then Baldur´s Gate. However isn´t it the same at least? The cinematic was not about Baldur´s Gate, the city we saw was Yartar. I was happy to see Yartar again after so a long time.I started my adventure of the D&D Game "Gateway to the Savage Frontier" there. Note: Beware of the thieves!
Posted By: Cirolle Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 11/03/20 11:41 PM
I find it slightly amusing that this is still going, with the same things being said over and over.

I am old enough to remember when the "This is not BG3 but DOS3" started. It was about an hour before the gameplay reveal, when Stadias youtube channel was spammed with "THIS IS DOS3" over and over and over.

An hour before anyone had seen any gameplay at all.

This would make a great psychology study
Posted By: Sordak Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 12/03/20 09:03 AM
people who havent played original sin 2 shouldnt talk about what constitutes a sequal to it.
of all things that looked like it, id nominate the world design.

the combat? not very much.
This is probably not evident for those who havent played it, because they only looked at screenshots and dont know how the combat actually works.
but for one, you dont die this fast in OS2, there sno dicerolls, theres no shared initiative, theres no 3 actions like in DnD, theres action points like in XCOM, theres far more elemental reactions, theres no classes

The entire way the combat is structured is different. and since thats the main gameplay loop youd think that have to be pretty damn simmilar for it to be the same kind of game.
Posted By: Riandor Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 12/03/20 09:15 AM
Originally Posted by Sordak
people who havent played original sin 2 shouldnt talk about what constitutes a sequal to it.
of all things that looked like it, id nominate the world design.



Wait what? You mean the very things we have been told are placeholder. i'm shocked...

:hihi:
Posted By: Sordak Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 12/03/20 11:05 AM
honestly, for all i am one of those people defending larian here, i doubt that.

The animations are obviously placeholder and the world design is probably getting a lot more details, but what i mean is very specific stylistic descisions that it shares with divinity.

For example the height and structure of buildings.
Anyone that played OS1 or 2 will definitly recognize the height of the walls on the ruins, they look familliar, not because they are old assets, but because they are new assets created with a simmilar goal in mind.

Now, this isnt a bad thing, but it certainly makes you draw comparisons.
of course the Infinity engien also did this with its prerendered backgrounds.
Anyone that hastn played Icewind Dale or Baldurs Gate will certainly not be able to tell a tavern in Targos apart from one in Baldurs Gate.

Theres just some artstyle things that larian likes.
Larian likes Statues, big Statues that remind you of Catholic saints and generaly christian imagery from the Renaissance. They tend to be a feature of Larian games and have been for a while.
Another thing Larian likes to do is floor pattenrs, things like reliefs or mosaics on the floor, ofthen with a vagueley greco roman or renaissance art theme.

Theres some things you cant help but notice.

another thing Larian likes to do is verticality as map boundries. You dont notice it a lot in Original Sin 1 if you dont pay attention but the game world, despite beeing isometric in view, is very vertical and uses this to seperate areas, rather than using walls, small loadscreens, doors or simmilar things.

The terrain looking like a clustered fissure after an Earthquake is soemthing larian has done in the Original Sin games.

Dont get me wrogn, i think it looks quite frankly amazing.
but i see why people associate it with Original Sin, sepcifically compared to Infinity engine games that feature primarily flat terrain due to the nature of the graphics.


Basically what im saying is that Larian is making itself hard for themselves and easy for their detractors.
They make a game thats actually very different from ORiginal Sin.
Having played both of them multiple times and several infinity engine games i can say that the deadlyness of combat certainly reminds me more of the latter than the former, aswell as the random and erratic nature of it.
but the Artstyle is Larian and this makes people associate it with Original Sin (because they havent seen any other larian games, and probably havent played a lot of CRPGs outside of the classical CRPG era up untill bioware went tits up, so to them, CRPGs that look kind of like a Larian game, and dont look like a Bioware or Infinity engine game, probably is an Original Sin clone
Posted By: Madscientist Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 12/03/20 11:43 AM
Originally Posted by Sordak
honestly, for all i am one of those people defending larian here, i doubt that.

The animations are obviously placeholder and the world design is probably getting a lot more details, but what i mean is very specific stylistic descisions that it shares with divinity.

For example the height and structure of buildings.
Anyone that played OS1 or 2 will definitly recognize the height of the walls on the ruins, they look familliar, not because they are old assets, but because they are new assets created with a simmilar goal in mind.

Now, this isnt a bad thing, but it certainly makes you draw comparisons.
of course the Infinity engien also did this with its prerendered backgrounds.
Anyone that hastn played Icewind Dale or Baldurs Gate will certainly not be able to tell a tavern in Targos apart from one in Baldurs Gate.

Theres just some artstyle things that larian likes.
Larian likes Statues, big Statues that remind you of Catholic saints and generaly christian imagery from the Renaissance. They tend to be a feature of Larian games and have been for a while.
Another thing Larian likes to do is floor pattenrs, things like reliefs or mosaics on the floor, ofthen with a vagueley greco roman or renaissance art theme.

Theres some things you cant help but notice.

another thing Larian likes to do is verticality as map boundries. You dont notice it a lot in Original Sin 1 if you dont pay attention but the game world, despite beeing isometric in view, is very vertical and uses this to seperate areas, rather than using walls, small loadscreens, doors or simmilar things.

The terrain looking like a clustered fissure after an Earthquake is soemthing larian has done in the Original Sin games.

Dont get me wrogn, i think it looks quite frankly amazing.
but i see why people associate it with Original Sin, sepcifically compared to Infinity engine games that feature primarily flat terrain due to the nature of the graphics.


Basically what im saying is that Larian is making itself hard for themselves and easy for their detractors.
They make a game thats actually very different from ORiginal Sin.
Having played both of them multiple times and several infinity engine games i can say that the deadlyness of combat certainly reminds me more of the latter than the former, aswell as the random and erratic nature of it.
but the Artstyle is Larian and this makes people associate it with Original Sin (because they havent seen any other larian games, and probably havent played a lot of CRPGs outside of the classical CRPG era up untill bioware went tits up, so to them, CRPGs that look kind of like a Larian game, and dont look like a Bioware or Infinity engine game, probably is an Original Sin clone


Thats it.

Its not the color or how exactly characters look, but its the general level design.
Yes, statues, mosaic, vertical level structure and those kind of ruins are typically Larian.
I like this, but I can understand if some people complain it does not look like BG.

BG had painted backgrounds and you could not rotate the camera so everything had to be visible from a fixed angle. This prevented them from having some vertical structures that may have looked good but prevented the player from seeing the chars, the path, enemies and so on. So the level design depends a lot of the type of camera you have.
BG3 will be a full 3D game while BG1+2 were not so it will look different, but the level design could be closer to BG1+2.

Some time ago the was a BG1 remake as module for NWN2. I did not play it. Can anybody tell if this game with 3D graphic and a different rule set ( DnD 3.5 ) did "feel like BG"?

PS: WOW, I did not expect something useful in this thread anymore. Sometimes there are positive surprizes.
Posted By: Sordak Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 12/03/20 11:56 AM
i downloaded the NWN2 conversion for BG1 but i havent tried it yet
Posted By: Riandor Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 12/03/20 12:04 PM
Originally Posted by Sordak
honestly, for all i am one of those people defending larian here, i doubt that.

The animations are obviously placeholder and the world design is probably getting a lot more details, but what i mean is very specific stylistic descisions that it shares with divinity.

For example the height and structure of buildings.
Anyone that played OS1 or 2 will definitly recognize the height of the walls on the ruins, they look familliar, not because they are old assets, but because they are new assets created with a simmilar goal in mind.

Now, this isnt a bad thing, but it certainly makes you draw comparisons.
of course the Infinity engien also did this with its prerendered backgrounds.
Anyone that hastn played Icewind Dale or Baldurs Gate will certainly not be able to tell a tavern in Targos apart from one in Baldurs Gate.

Theres just some artstyle things that larian likes.
Larian likes Statues, big Statues that remind you of Catholic saints and generaly christian imagery from the Renaissance. They tend to be a feature of Larian games and have been for a while.
Another thing Larian likes to do is floor pattenrs, things like reliefs or mosaics on the floor, ofthen with a vagueley greco roman or renaissance art theme.

Theres some things you cant help but notice.

another thing Larian likes to do is verticality as map boundries. You dont notice it a lot in Original Sin 1 if you dont pay attention but the game world, despite beeing isometric in view, is very vertical and uses this to seperate areas, rather than using walls, small loadscreens, doors or simmilar things.

The terrain looking like a clustered fissure after an Earthquake is soemthing larian has done in the Original Sin games.

Dont get me wrogn, i think it looks quite frankly amazing.
but i see why people associate it with Original Sin, sepcifically compared to Infinity engine games that feature primarily flat terrain due to the nature of the graphics.


Basically what im saying is that Larian is making itself hard for themselves and easy for their detractors.
They make a game thats actually very different from ORiginal Sin.
Having played both of them multiple times and several infinity engine games i can say that the deadlyness of combat certainly reminds me more of the latter than the former, aswell as the random and erratic nature of it.
but the Artstyle is Larian and this makes people associate it with Original Sin (because they havent seen any other larian games, and probably havent played a lot of CRPGs outside of the classical CRPG era up untill bioware went tits up, so to them, CRPGs that look kind of like a Larian game, and dont look like a Bioware or Infinity engine game, probably is an Original Sin clone


Good post!
Posted By: kanisatha Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 12/03/20 02:39 PM
Originally Posted by Wiborg Sturmfels
Originally Posted by Eguzky
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by Blade238
[quote=Maximuuus]Can't none of you understand that some expected to see... BG when you see the first gameplay video of... BG3 ?
If the first thing you show don't highlight "BG-like" elements,, then why is the game named BG3 ?

Of course things can still change, and of course we didn't see anything...

So please, can you explain me what specific elements of BG you saw or read until now ?

The opening cinematic screams Baldur's Gate and has zip to do with Larian's previous games.


Really ? With 3 dragons and fire and explosions and the destruction of a city ? Is this screaming Baldur's Gate to you ? In my memory it was a little bit less "spectacular".
I can't deny it was about the lore, which is not really specific to BG, it's more about D&D and The Forgotten Realms...


Yes, it was more about D&D and The Forgotten Realms Lore then Baldur´s Gate. However isn´t it the same at least? The cinematic was not about Baldur´s Gate, the city we saw was Yartar. I was happy to see Yartar again after so a long time.I started my adventure of the D&D Game "Gateway to the Savage Frontier" there. Note: Beware of the thieves!

All well and good, but a cinematic does not count. It is what the game looks like within the game that truly matters.
Posted By: etonbears Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 12/03/20 03:38 PM
I enjoyed BGR; it's worth going through just to experience the story with a new face. It was a bit buggy when I went through it, but is apparently much better now.

Drew Rechner and a small team spent 7 years on this, so even if you don't think it's the best thing ever, their dedication should be appreciated. And they are currently working on a reimplementation of SoA/ToB as well, although I don't know when that will be available.

I must admit that I'm not sure what exactly people expect from something titled BG3. BG2 wasn't even set in BG, so the only real link to the first game was the story arc, which is now closed. I suppose non-human companion characters would still be in their prime, and human wizards like Edwin could still be leading magically extended lives. The idea that I might run into Jan Jansen in BG3 does not actually fill me with joy...



Posted By: dlux Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 13/03/20 07:36 PM
Originally Posted by Cirolle

I am old enough to remember when the "This is not BG3 but DOS3" started. It was about an hour before the gameplay reveal, when Stadias youtube channel was spammed with "THIS IS DOS3" over and over and over.

An hour before anyone had seen any gameplay at all.

D:OS 3 images were leaked early, so everybody pretty much knew that "Baldur's Gate 3" is a D:OS 2 clone right then. This was simply confirmed during the presentation.

Fans just wanted a proper sequel to Baldur's Gate 2, but they are getting a sequel to Divinity: Original Sin 2 instead. That said, you shouldn't be surprised to see so many upset BG fans.
Posted By: Emrikol Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 13/03/20 07:43 PM
Originally Posted by dlux
D:OS 3 images were leaked early, so everybody pretty much knew that "Baldur's Gate 3" is a D:OS 2 clone right then. This was simply confirmed during the presentation.


ugh
Posted By: Cirolle Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 13/03/20 07:55 PM
Originally Posted by dlux
Originally Posted by Cirolle

I am old enough to remember when the "This is not BG3 but DOS3" started. It was about an hour before the gameplay reveal, when Stadias youtube channel was spammed with "THIS IS DOS3" over and over and over.

An hour before anyone had seen any gameplay at all.

D:OS 3 images were leaked early, so everybody pretty much knew that "Baldur's Gate 3" is a D:OS 2 clone right then. This was simply confirmed during the presentation.

Fans just wanted a proper sequel to Baldur's Gate 2, but they are getting a sequel to Divinity: Original Sin 2 instead. That said, you shouldn't be surprised to see so many upset BG fans.


3 people spamming a chat isn't many.
I do understand the concept behind squeaky wheel gets the grease though.

You reply does show that a negative bias had already started from simple pictures. The first thing wasn't the style though, it was the turn based.
This was brought up a lot as a proof that BG3 wasn't BG at all, until one person mentioned that it looked like DOS2.
Suddenly everyone that had been mad about TB turned to this new negative thing.
Posted By: Adgaroth Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 13/03/20 09:00 PM
Originally Posted by Cirolle
The first thing wasn't the style though, it was the turn based.
This was brought up a lot as a proof that BG3 wasn't BG at all, until one person mentioned that it looked like DOS2.
Suddenly everyone that had been mad about TB turned to this new negative thing.


That's completly false but okay,the thing I noticed first what the assets,the music,and the graphics style.


Originally Posted by Cirolle
3 people spamming a chat isn't many.


You can take a look at any forum and is always the same people running around in circles saying their piece. Both sides,and here is not any different.

I'm just saying you're as extreme as the group you're arguing with.
Posted By: Cirolle Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 13/03/20 09:10 PM
Originally Posted by Adgaroth
Originally Posted by Cirolle
The first thing wasn't the style though, it was the turn based.
This was brought up a lot as a proof that BG3 wasn't BG at all, until one person mentioned that it looked like DOS2.
Suddenly everyone that had been mad about TB turned to this new negative thing.


That's completly false but okay,the thing I noticed first what the assets,the music,and the graphics style.


Originally Posted by Cirolle
3 people spamming a chat isn't many.


You can take a look at any forum and is always the same people running around in circles saying their piece. Both sides,and here is not any different.

I'm just saying you're as extreme as the group you're arguing with.


Alright, this conversation took a turn.

I doubt you noticed the music in the leaked screenshots, which makes me doubt we are talking about the same timeline.

I don't do "both sides" or "whataboutism" btw.
Posted By: Adgaroth Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 13/03/20 09:18 PM
Obviously the music part was later on the demo,if it wasn't obvious,my bad.

I guess when you say ''3 people spamming a chat isn't many.''I guess you're refering to the live demo stream,that's why I refer to both the screens and the video.

And this ''You can take a look at any forum and is always the same people running around in circles saying their piece. Both sides,and here is not any different.'' holds true for the presentation,half was ''This looks like DOS3 and I'm totally fine with it'' and the other half was ''This is a DOS2 reskin not BG3''

''I don't do "both sides" or "whataboutism" btw.''
It's hard to believe when you say BG3 ardent detractors are 3 when the amount of ardent defenders is around the exact same.
Posted By: Cirolle Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 13/03/20 09:35 PM
Originally Posted by Adgaroth
Obviously the music part was later on the demo,if it wasn't obvious,my bad.

I guess when you say ''3 people spamming a chat isn't many.''I guess you're refering to the live demo stream,that's why I refer to both the screens and the video.

And this ''You can take a look at any forum and is always the same people running around in circles saying their piece. Both sides,and here is not any different.'' holds true for the presentation,half was ''This looks like DOS3 and I'm totally fine with it'' and the other half was ''This is a DOS2 reskin not BG3''

''I don't do "both sides" or "whataboutism" btw.''
It's hard to believe when you say BG3 ardent detractors are 3 when the amount of ardent defenders is around the exact same.


As I said, the conversation took a turn.

I was talking about a specific moment and place in time and you expanded it to include more moments and places.
There was literally 3 people saying it over and over in chat before the reveal even started. The same 3 people. Yes, it expanded and it got repeated by others. This is how you incite a crowd.
Posted By: Adgaroth Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 13/03/20 09:46 PM
Originally Posted by Cirolle
Originally Posted by Adgaroth
Obviously the music part was later on the demo,if it wasn't obvious,my bad.

I guess when you say ''3 people spamming a chat isn't many.''I guess you're refering to the live demo stream,that's why I refer to both the screens and the video.

And this ''You can take a look at any forum and is always the same people running around in circles saying their piece. Both sides,and here is not any different.'' holds true for the presentation,half was ''This looks like DOS3 and I'm totally fine with it'' and the other half was ''This is a DOS2 reskin not BG3''

''I don't do "both sides" or "whataboutism" btw.''
It's hard to believe when you say BG3 ardent detractors are 3 when the amount of ardent defenders is around the exact same.


As I said, the conversation took a turn.

I was talking about a specific moment and place in time and you expanded it to include more moments and places.
There was literally 3 people saying it over and over in chat before the reveal even started. The same 3 people. Yes, it expanded and it got repeated by others. This is how you incite a crowd.


I was on the PAX2 channel and the only thing I saw was excitment for the preview and people asking if they were on the right place thus why I don't share your point.

Part by part so I don't expand anything.
''There was literally 3 people saying it over and over in chat before the reveal even started''. Didn't see any of that.
''Yes, it expanded and it got repeated by others. This is how you incite a crowd.'' It didn't expand because of what people where saying,it expanded because it looked (and sounded) a lot like DOS2 and some people were fine with it and some other didn't. I still don't see your point unless we're talking about 2 completly different streams.
Posted By: Cirolle Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 13/03/20 09:59 PM
Originally Posted by Adgaroth
Originally Posted by Cirolle
Originally Posted by Adgaroth
Obviously the music part was later on the demo,if it wasn't obvious,my bad.

I guess when you say ''3 people spamming a chat isn't many.''I guess you're refering to the live demo stream,that's why I refer to both the screens and the video.

And this ''You can take a look at any forum and is always the same people running around in circles saying their piece. Both sides,and here is not any different.'' holds true for the presentation,half was ''This looks like DOS3 and I'm totally fine with it'' and the other half was ''This is a DOS2 reskin not BG3''

''I don't do "both sides" or "whataboutism" btw.''
It's hard to believe when you say BG3 ardent detractors are 3 when the amount of ardent defenders is around the exact same.


As I said, the conversation took a turn.

I was talking about a specific moment and place in time and you expanded it to include more moments and places.
There was literally 3 people saying it over and over in chat before the reveal even started. The same 3 people. Yes, it expanded and it got repeated by others. This is how you incite a crowd.


I was on the PAX2 channel and the only thing I saw was excitment for the preview and people asking if they were on the right place thus why I don't share your point.

Part by part so I don't expand anything.
''There was literally 3 people saying it over and over in chat before the reveal even started''. Didn't see any of that.
''Yes, it expanded and it got repeated by others. This is how you incite a crowd.'' It didn't expand because of what people where saying,it expanded because it looked (and sounded) a lot like DOS2 and some people were fine with it and some other didn't. I still don't see your point unless we're talking about 2 completly different streams.


We are talking about two different streams.
Posted By: etonbears Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 13/03/20 10:49 PM
I see a lot of negative comment about BG3 not being acceptable for a whole variety of reasons, but a lot of the time I get no real sense of what WOULD be acceptable. What would a REAL BG3 game actually look like, if this offering from Larian is not good enough.

I can see clear echos from D:OS in the environmental graphics, sure, but what exactly makes a FR tree or rock different from an OS tree or rock? Does anyone really want the studio to expend effort on recreating all their generic assets simply because the assets have been seen before?

It's 20 years since the last BG story, and personally, I don't have any wish to see the limited A/V technologies of those times in a new episode. Allude to them, sure; quote from them, bring references in, whatever, but why in Ao's name would anyone want to make a modern game with the restrictions of vintage technologies?

Posted By: Adgaroth Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 13/03/20 11:10 PM
Originally Posted by etonbears
It's 20 years since the last BG story, and personally, I don't have any wish to see the limited A/V technologies of those times in a new episode. Allude to them, sure; quote from them, bring references in, whatever, but why in Ao's name would anyone want to make a modern game with the restrictions of vintage technologies?


Never seen anyone asking for that and there's been a ton of examples either on this thread or many others.
Posted By: LaserOstrich Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 13/03/20 11:25 PM
There is no actual point in posting or reading in this thread which was started with pure arrogance, titled with an false statement.
I just did both hereby and I just don't know why.
It's coming and it's going to be called BG3 and some gonna complain about everything and Shadowheart's haircut...
[Linked Image]
Posted By: kyrthorsen Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 14/03/20 02:38 AM
Hi,

You are entirely correct.

I actually started this thread as a joke! (i was a bit mad yeah at first, but now...well, lets see what Larian does...i retract all my statements about potential false advertising as completely unfounded rantish b.s.)

I think Larian will do a great job with this game.

This game IS BG3, not DOS3.

Cant believe people are still commenting on this (wish I could just delete the thread). LOL
Posted By: LaserOstrich Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 14/03/20 11:59 AM
That's alright mate, I retract my strong words in my post above then.
Maybe vometia will lock this down when she comes by the next time an reads your note.
Let's have moderately heated discussions on other topics, would be boring without people with a passionate opinions smile
Posted By: vometia Re: This is not BG3 but DOS3 - 14/03/20 12:51 PM
Originally Posted by LaserOstrich
Let's have moderately heated discussions on other topics, would be boring without people with a passionate opinions smile

Well quite.

Originally Posted by kyrthorsen
Cant believe people are still commenting on this (wish I could just delete the thread). LOL

Locked as kinda sorta requested. PM me if you want it re-opened (or moved out of sight, for that matter).
Posted By: Uacari Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 07/07/20 04:33 AM
I have to agree with Dakatarn WizardPus and some others from the BG era.

We played 2D games with much less gpu capability, and yet we enjoyed them a LOT!

Divinity 2 (I just finished it) has some wonderful capabilities, yet it loses focus on the atmosphere, as these guys eloquently explained above.

I sincerely hope that some people who Directed for BG2 and Planescape Torment were called to help Larian studios with Direction and scriptwriting, so that Larian can focus on what they excel at.

I am sure DOS 1 and 2 required enormous collective effort, and in that sense I take my hat off to Larian Studios.

At the same time, much like with Michael Bay movies, it is possible to ruin great special effects and engines with bad scriptwriting and direction.

BG3 could be the integration of BG2 script, D&D rules with DOS engine and combat mechanics.

It could set the tone for future RPG turn-based games...if , like they wrote above, Larian studios removes the flash/super mario kart type of special effects from some skills, adjusted the atmosphere, scriptwriting for medieval fantasy, and some details that I cannot articulate but still felt while playing DOS 1 and 2.

And the reason why I came here to write, is that Larian studios is like our current Skywalker - you are our hope fo continuing the legacy of old Dragonlance, Baldur´s Gate, Planescape RPG games.

You got the Force...the Source..whatever you want to call it.

Larian studios has an opportunity to become the God/Divinity of RPG turn-based games, evolving from their predecessors.

We count on you...please do not turn to the void, or dark side of the gaming industry.


Posted By: Tarorn Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 07/07/20 06:21 AM
Man .....just let them finish the game before trying to tear it to pieces. Yes people have differing points of view I agree with the OP & thats Ok - but for anyone who loves D&D let them finish the game, let them take constructive feedback & work on it which they will do I'm sure.

BG 1&2 are held up in history as some of the best there's been no taking that away but they are 20 + something years old - its time for a modern D&D game - who gives a hoot if it says BG3 ...yes yes the legacy I get it but this is Larian's game & their vision.... - RTWP we've had POE 1&2 . They are trying to do something new - of course they will use some of their IP from DOS 1&2 and you'd be crazy to think they wouldn't ....I swear some people have no clue about money - developers don't have unlimited funds - Larian have a huge amount riding on this game & its success.

Im not a Larian fanboy ive not played either of the DOS games - but im a gamer for 30+ years who loves D&D and I just want to see this game succeed so we get more D&D games in development. Hopefully between BG3, Solaster Crown of the Magister & Dark Alliance we will all get at least one game we can be truly happy with. So why not get on board & make these things a success rather than slowly sending the message to all future developers that its just not worth the risk to go near D&D .....ever.....





Posted By: Sir Gareyth Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 07/07/20 07:50 AM
Originally Posted by Tarorn
Yes people have differing points of view I agree with the OP & thats Ok - but for anyone who loves D&D let them finish the game, let them take constructive feedback & work on it which they will do I'm sure.

BG 1&2 are held up in history as some of the best there's been no taking that away but they are 20 + something years old ...yes yes the legacy I get it but this is Larian's game & their vision.... - Larian have a huge amount riding on this game & its success.

Im not a Larian fanboy ive not played either of the DOS games - but im a gamer for 30+ years who loves D&D and I just want to see this game succeed so we get more D&D games in development.


+1 smile
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 07/07/20 08:15 AM
Originally Posted by Tarorn
Man .....just let them finish the game before trying to tear it to pieces. Yes people have differing points of view I agree with the OP & thats Ok - but for anyone who loves D&D let them finish the game, let them take constructive feedback & work on it which they will do I'm sure.

BG 1&2 are held up in history as some of the best there's been no taking that away but they are 20 + something years old - its time for a modern D&D game - who gives a hoot if it says BG3 ...yes yes the legacy I get it but this is Larian's game & their vision.... - RTWP we've had POE 1&2 . They are trying to do something new - of course they will use some of their IP from DOS 1&2 and you'd be crazy to think they wouldn't ....I swear some people have no clue about money - developers don't have unlimited funds - Larian have a huge amount riding on this game & its success.

Im not a Larian fanboy ive not played either of the DOS games - but im a gamer for 30+ years who loves D&D and I just want to see this game succeed so we get more D&D games in development. Hopefully between BG3, Solaster Crown of the Magister & Dark Alliance we will all get at least one game we can be truly happy with. So why not get on board & make these things a success rather than slowly sending the message to all future developers that its just not worth the risk to go near D&D .....ever.....



Keep in mind that you can be in love with Baldur's Gate without being a huge fan of D&D.

I like D&D because it's the rules of BG. Nothing more.
You're not only talking to Larian's and D&D's fan when you named a game Baldur's Gate 3.

I guess those don't see (yet?) in BG3 enough of what they loved in BG
Posted By: _Vic_ Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 07/07/20 09:25 AM
...And I think they never gonna see anything of BG in BG3 if they just judge (very harshly) a game not even in EA with a trailer and two gameplays. Self-fulfilling prophecy, anyone?

Many people already have their review of the game made since the first 30-second trailer of the game the last year.




Originally Posted by Tarorn
Man .....just let them finish the game before trying to tear it to pieces. Yes people have differing points of view I agree with the OP & thats Ok - but for anyone who loves D&D let them finish the game, let them take constructive feedback & work on it which they will do I'm sure.

BG 1&2 are held up in history as some of the best there's been no taking that away but they are 20 + something years old - its time for a modern D&D game - who gives a hoot if it says BG3 ...yes yes the legacy I get it but this is Larian's game & their vision.... - RTWP we've had POE 1&2 . They are trying to do something new - of course they will use some of their IP from DOS 1&2 and you'd be crazy to think they wouldn't ....I swear some people have no clue about money - developers don't have unlimited funds - Larian have a huge amount riding on this game & its success.

Im not a Larian fanboy ive not played either of the DOS games - but im a gamer for 30+ years who loves D&D and I just want to see this game succeed so we get more D&D games in development. Hopefully between BG3, Solaster Crown of the Magister & Dark Alliance we will all get at least one game we can be truly happy with. So why not get on board & make these things a success rather than slowly sending the message to all future developers that its just not worth the risk to go near D&D .....ever....


+100
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 07/07/20 09:53 AM
Originally Posted by _Vic_
...And I think they never gonna see anything of BG in BG3 if they just judge (very harshly) a game not even in EA with a trailer and two gameplays. Self-fulfilling prophecy, anyone?

Many people already have their review of the game made since the first 30-second trailer of the game the last year.



Of course they have.
There are many things we already know after each video/ama. Not every details but chosen paths.
Maybe that doesn't suits them.

i.e think about the word we cannot write, I saw many players here but mainly on other forums saying "I'm done with BG3" just because of this.
Is that bad ?

I wasn't writing the previous message to have another "polemic", just for him to realize that the message he was answering to wasn't maybe written by someone (only/mainly) in love with D&D.
Posted By: _Vic_ Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 07/07/20 10:06 AM
It's not bad if you dislike the game, we all have different tastes.

It´s not really fair if you trash talk a game in development only because it does not suit your tastes and does not live to the unrealistic expectations you have beforehand. Just wait until the game is finished and you will have lots of reasons to complaining incessantly, I´m sure.


I could have wanted another CRPG RTwP game from Obsidian like PoS2, but I´m not going to spread hate about "The Outer worlds" just because they decided to create a shooter instead (And yeah, before anyone starts with the "but it is called bg3" bla bla bla... Fallout NV and Final fantasyVII remake still have the same name of their predecessors and they´re very different games in their own, with their failures and successes... and they must be judged by his actions, not his name, no matter what many people think).
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 07/07/20 10:07 AM
Originally Posted by _Vic_
It's not bad if you dislike the game, we all have different tastes.

It´s bad if you trash talk a game in development only because it does not suit your tastes and does not live to the unrealistic expectations you have beforehand.


And can you tell me where Uacari's message was trash talk and where he said the game doens't suit him ?
Because the conversation was only about his message...

EDIT : sorry I quote it before you edit it. I think it changes nothing.
Posted By: _Vic_ Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 07/07/20 10:09 AM
NW, the message was the same, more or less wink
Posted By: kanisatha Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 07/07/20 02:04 PM
Originally Posted by Tarorn
Hopefully between BG3, Solaster Crown of the Magister & Dark Alliance we will all get at least one game we can be truly happy with. So why not get on board & make these things a success rather than slowly sending the message to all future developers that its just not worth the risk to go near D&D .....ever.....


But what if NONE of these games is a game I'm happy with? By not being critical, aren't I then sending the message that studios should keep making games I WON'T like? And that means I will NEVER get a D&D game that I like. But I'm supposed to be okay with this because a bunch of other people will get to have the games they want? Seems very unfair to me.
Posted By: Sequenze Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 07/07/20 05:21 PM
Originally Posted by kanisatha

But what if NONE of these games is a game I'm happy with? By not being critical, aren't I then sending the message that studios should keep making games I WON'T like? And that means I will NEVER get a D&D game that I like. But I'm supposed to be okay with this because a bunch of other people will get to have the games they want? Seems very unfair to me.


Hahahahaha.. thank you. Great laugh!
Posted By: Tarorn Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 08/07/20 12:40 AM
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Originally Posted by Tarorn
Hopefully between BG3, Solaster Crown of the Magister & Dark Alliance we will all get at least one game we can be truly happy with. So why not get on board & make these things a success rather than slowly sending the message to all future developers that its just not worth the risk to go near D&D .....ever.....


But what if NONE of these games is a game I'm happy with? By not being critical, aren't I then sending the message that studios should keep making games I WON'T like? And that means I will NEVER get a D&D game that I like. But I'm supposed to be okay with this because a bunch of other people will get to have the games they want? Seems very unfair to me.


Rarely is anything in life perfect - ive never played the perfect game either - constructive criticism is fine or suggestions of improvements - no issue there its more the people who would appear to want a game to fail entirely (not suggesting you want that) before its even had a chance to prove itself that I get annoyed with.
Posted By: Uacari Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 08/07/20 05:44 AM

Man .....just let them finish the game before trying to tear it to pieces.

Im not a Larian fanboy ive not played either of the DOS games

ok Tarorn,
If you have played BG1 and 2, but neither of the DOS games, you are in the situation I was a few months ago.
When I saw the news about BG3, in 3D terrains and with other capabilities, I decided to buy and play DOS 1 and 2 to check what Larian did before BG3.

but ok, you have a point - to wait and see BG3.

ps: storywise, Planescape Torment was even cooler than Baldur´s Gate. For me it became a cult, kind of like the first Blade Runner movie.
Posted By: Tarorn Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 08/07/20 07:16 AM
Originally Posted by Uacari

Man .....just let them finish the game before trying to tear it to pieces.

Im not a Larian fanboy ive not played either of the DOS games

ok Tarorn,
If you have played BG1 and 2, but neither of the DOS games, you are in the situation I was a few months ago.
When I saw the news about BG3, in 3D terrains and with other capabilities, I decided to buy and play DOS 1 and 2 to check what Larian did before BG3.

but ok, you have a point - to wait and see BG3.

ps: storywise, Planescape Torment was even cooler than Baldur´s Gate. For me it became a cult, kind of like the first Blade Runner movie.


I just want a great D&D game - I just purchased DOS2 but i cant bring myself to play it so close to early access BG3 in August (hopefully) - anything else i buy will just sit in steam collecting dust until I get a chance to play BG3 - & you are spot on about Blade Runner - legend of a movie - god the new one was rubbish ..so disappointing
Posted By: Wormerine Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 08/07/20 10:29 AM
Originally Posted by Tarorn
you are spot on about Blade Runner - legend of a movie - god the new one was rubbish ..so disappointing

What's wrong with you people...
Posted By: Warlocke Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 08/07/20 04:18 PM
Originally Posted by kanisatha

But what if NONE of these games is a game I'm happy with? By not being critical, aren't I then sending the message that studios should keep making games I WON'T like? And that means I will NEVER get a D&D game that I like. But I'm supposed to be okay with this because a bunch of other people will get to have the games they want? Seems very unfair to me.


That’s a pretty entitled thing to say. Life isn’t fair. You kind of just have to deal with that. If your tastes are out of sync with the broader market, that’s just a reality you have to live with. If BG3 is a financial success, no amount of criticism that you make will have even the slightest impact on how the industry decides to proceed.
Posted By: etonbears Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 08/07/20 10:15 PM
Originally Posted by Warlocke
Originally Posted by kanisatha

But what if NONE of these games is a game I'm happy with? By not being critical, aren't I then sending the message that studios should keep making games I WON'T like? And that means I will NEVER get a D&D game that I like. But I'm supposed to be okay with this because a bunch of other people will get to have the games they want? Seems very unfair to me.


That’s a pretty entitled thing to say. Life isn’t fair. You kind of just have to deal with that. If your tastes are out of sync with the broader market, that’s just a reality you have to live with. If BG3 is a financial success, no amount of criticism that you make will have even the slightest impact on how the industry decides to proceed.


I think Kanisatha was simply saying that it is unfair that he is criticised for making comments that are intended to try to influence how the game develops, simply because other people don't want the same things.

A minority opinion shouldn't be shouted down, simply because it is a minority. As a minority, it is unlikely to lead to direct change in features, but may lead to developers including optional features or game modes etc to try to please as many people as possible.

As for tastes, profitability and the broader market, well, that's not even applicable to this game. This sort of game with relatively complex rules and turn-based execution ( weather RPG or Grand Strategy ) is not the mainstream market, and not where the real money is.

Obviously Larian need the game to sell, but they are making this game because it's the one they want to make, rather than for its profit potential. I applaud them for that attitude, even if they make design choices I don't personally like.
Posted By: kanisatha Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 08/07/20 10:48 PM
Originally Posted by etonbears
Originally Posted by Warlocke
Originally Posted by kanisatha

But what if NONE of these games is a game I'm happy with? By not being critical, aren't I then sending the message that studios should keep making games I WON'T like? And that means I will NEVER get a D&D game that I like. But I'm supposed to be okay with this because a bunch of other people will get to have the games they want? Seems very unfair to me.


That’s a pretty entitled thing to say. Life isn’t fair. You kind of just have to deal with that. If your tastes are out of sync with the broader market, that’s just a reality you have to live with. If BG3 is a financial success, no amount of criticism that you make will have even the slightest impact on how the industry decides to proceed.


I think Kanisatha was simply saying that it is unfair that he is criticised for making comments that are intended to try to influence how the game develops, simply because other people don't want the same things.

A minority opinion shouldn't be shouted down, simply because it is a minority. As a minority, it is unlikely to lead to direct change in features, but may lead to developers including optional features or game modes etc to try to please as many people as possible.

This is exactly what I was saying. Thank you for your understanding.
Posted By: Dagless Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 08/07/20 10:57 PM
Originally Posted by etonbears


I think Kanisatha was simply saying that it is unfair that he is criticised for making comments that are intended to try to influence how the game develops, simply because other people don't want the same things.

A minority opinion shouldn't be shouted down, simply because it is a minority. As a minority, it is unlikely to lead to direct change in features, but may lead to developers including optional features or game modes etc to try to please as many people as possible.

As for tastes, profitability and the broader market, well, that's not even applicable to this game. This sort of game with relatively complex rules and turn-based execution ( weather RPG or Grand Strategy ) is not the mainstream market, and not where the real money is.

Obviously Larian need the game to sell, but they are making this game because it's the one they want to make, rather than for its profit potential. I applaud them for that attitude, even if they make design choices I don't personally like.


The changes that some people want just aren’t going happen. Not because they are unpopular, but because they simply aren’t the game Larian are making. Between them and Wizards of the Coast, they decided what they wanted to achieve and have put in a huge amount of work to build it. I think people should respect or at least accept that.

Some minor changes might be possible through optional game modes, but not things like fundamental mechanics, world design, story, etc. that many complain about. I don’t see much point in arguing about things that are already set.

I think it will be a shame if many fans of the original games don’t give it a chance because they are convinced it isn’t Baldurs Gate enough. Not because I don’t want to hear their opinions, but because they might miss out on enjoying what could be a very good game, even it’s not quite the game they were hoping for.

Most game series that have kept going over similar timescales has changed just as much and sometimes more. Final Fantasy went from turn based to action, GTA from top down to full 3D open world, Resident Evil lost the fixed camera angles, etc. The main difference is that BG disappeared and other companies have released games structurally similar to the originals since. That’s fine, but really no reason why BG3 should have gone the same way.


Posted By: Warlocke Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 08/07/20 11:07 PM
Originally Posted by etonbears
Originally Posted by Warlocke
Originally Posted by kanisatha

But what if NONE of these games is a game I'm happy with? By not being critical, aren't I then sending the message that studios should keep making games I WON'T like? And that means I will NEVER get a D&D game that I like. But I'm supposed to be okay with this because a bunch of other people will get to have the games they want? Seems very unfair to me.


That’s a pretty entitled thing to say. Life isn’t fair. You kind of just have to deal with that. If your tastes are out of sync with the broader market, that’s just a reality you have to live with. If BG3 is a financial success, no amount of criticism that you make will have even the slightest impact on how the industry decides to proceed.


I think Kanisatha was simply saying that it is unfair that he is criticised for making comments that are intended to try to influence how the game develops, simply because other people don't want the same things.

A minority opinion shouldn't be shouted down, simply because it is a minority. As a minority, it is unlikely to lead to direct change in features, but may lead to developers including optional features or game modes etc to try to please as many people as possible.

As for tastes, profitability and the broader market, well, that's not even applicable to this game. This sort of game with relatively complex rules and turn-based execution ( weather RPG or Grand Strategy ) is not the mainstream market, and not where the real money is.

Obviously Larian need the game to sell, but they are making this game because it's the one they want to make, rather than for its profit potential. I applaud them for that attitude, even if they make design choices I don't personally like.


His post didn’t read that way to me but that’s fair.

There are some aspects of the game, such as it being turn based or being called “Baldur’s Gate 3,” for example, that are absolutely not going to change at this point, but people like to keep exhausting the issue because . . . it makes them feel good? I don’t know. I don’t see the point in retreading that ground on those sorts of matters endlessly.

As to market appeal, broader considerations definitely play into the design. It doesn’t matter that it is a relatively niche market. In order to make all of this effort worth their time and justify the licensing fees to make a sequel to an old school legendary title (even one as niche as BG), Larian needs to deliver a product that maximizes earnings potential within the limits of their particular target market.

This is actually what the essence of 5th edition is, as it was designed to be as approachable and easy to pick up as possible compared to its more esoteric predecessors.
Posted By: IrenicusBG3 Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 09/07/20 12:41 AM
Originally Posted by Warlocke
Originally Posted by etonbears
Originally Posted by Warlocke
Originally Posted by kanisatha

But what if NONE of these games is a game I'm happy with? By not being critical, aren't I then sending the message that studios should keep making games I WON'T like? And that means I will NEVER get a D&D game that I like. But I'm supposed to be okay with this because a bunch of other people will get to have the games they want? Seems very unfair to me.


That’s a pretty entitled thing to say. Life isn’t fair. You kind of just have to deal with that. If your tastes are out of sync with the broader market, that’s just a reality you have to live with. If BG3 is a financial success, no amount of criticism that you make will have even the slightest impact on how the industry decides to proceed.


I think Kanisatha was simply saying that it is unfair that he is criticised for making comments that are intended to try to influence how the game develops, simply because other people don't want the same things.

A minority opinion shouldn't be shouted down, simply because it is a minority. As a minority, it is unlikely to lead to direct change in features, but may lead to developers including optional features or game modes etc to try to please as many people as possible.

As for tastes, profitability and the broader market, well, that's not even applicable to this game. This sort of game with relatively complex rules and turn-based execution ( weather RPG or Grand Strategy ) is not the mainstream market, and not where the real money is.

Obviously Larian need the game to sell, but they are making this game because it's the one they want to make, rather than for its profit potential. I applaud them for that attitude, even if they make design choices I don't personally like.


His post didn’t read that way to me but that’s fair.

There are some aspects of the game, such as it being turn based or being called “Baldur’s Gate 3,” for example, that are absolutely not going to change at this point, but people like to keep exhausting the issue because . . . it makes them feel good? I don’t know. I don’t see the point in retreading that ground on those sorts of matters endlessly.

As to market appeal, broader considerations definitely play into the design. It doesn’t matter that it is a relatively niche market. In order to make all of this effort worth their time and justify the licensing fees to make a sequel to an old school legendary title (even one as niche as BG), Larian needs to deliver a product that maximizes earnings potential within the limits of their particular target market.

This is actually what the essence of 5th edition is, as it was designed to be as approachable and easy to pick up as possible compared to its more esoteric predecessors.


I don't know how going from RtWP to turn-based, removing day/night cycle or limiting exploration, among other things is appealing to large markets. In fact the trend is the opposite where many franchises (JRPGs and cRPGs) went from turn-based to action. RtWP is the midpoint between them and it seems more logic to improve it or create a new system that would be more dynamic. A game with a technology from 20 years ago was able to represent a more believable world.

I agree that at this point they will not change the core mechanics, but it looks they decided to play safe instead of pushing the franchise and the RPG genre forward. It would made more sense to start from where BG2 left instead of starting from where DOS 2 left (which had much lower standards).
Posted By: kanisatha Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 09/07/20 01:14 AM
Originally Posted by Warlocke
As to market appeal, broader considerations definitely play into the design. It doesn’t matter that it is a relatively niche market. In order to make all of this effort worth their time and justify the licensing fees to make a sequel to an old school legendary title (even one as niche as BG), Larian needs to deliver a product that maximizes earnings potential within the limits of their particular target market.

Any business will always want to maximize their earnings. This is obvious. But the key point, what I believe @etonbears was making, is that the target audience/market for classic, old-school cRPGs is very small. By my estimation it is only about 2 million, roughly the sales number for D:OS2. I don't see how Larian can spend a AAA budget on BG3 and be limited to a max sales number that small. Even DA:I, a game that tried to be both classic cRPG and open world action RPG at the same time and probably disappointed both audiences, still managed to bring in 10 million buyers. So I think any AAA RPG needs to be able to do at least that much in sales numbers to be financially viable.
Posted By: Danielbda Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 09/07/20 02:19 AM
I don't think that WotC's sales forecasts are based on Call of Duty, so probably they are not projecting 10 million+ units.
But it bugs me that they want to sell more and are implementing TB combat, given that JRPGS are changing combat systems from TB to real time because it sells more.
Posted By: _Vic_ Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 09/07/20 03:05 AM

Originally Posted by Danielbda
I don't think that WotC's sales forecasts are based on Call of Duty, so probably they are not projecting 10 million+ units.
But it bugs me that they want to sell more and are implementing TB combat, given that JRPGS are changing combat systems from TB to real time because it sells more.


Because they are changing RTwP to TB(Or both in the same game), that sells more, not RTWP to Real time.

That said, I´m perfectly ok that they continue making games that are not ARPG in real-time because there are enough of the former already to choose from. I hope games with alternative mechanics different from ARPGs in RT could still have profit margins so we could have more of them.


Posted By: Warlocke Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 09/07/20 04:23 AM
Originally Posted by IrenicusBG3

I don't know how going from RtWP to turn-based, removing day/night cycle or limiting exploration, among other things is appealing to large markets. In fact the trend is the opposite where many franchises (JRPGs and cRPGs) went from turn-based to action. RtWP is the midpoint between them and it seems more logic to improve it or create a new system that would be more dynamic. A game with a technology from 20 years ago was able to represent a more believable world.

I agree that at this point they will not change the core mechanics, but it looks they decided to play safe instead of pushing the franchise and the RPG genre forward. It would made more sense to start from where BG2 left instead of starting from where DOS 2 left (which had much lower standards).


It was very easy to implement AD&D2 into RtwP because that was a much simpler game. I don't see how you can adapt 5e faithfully into a RtwP game. You would have to cut out so much. Reactions, bonus actions, all would become normal abilities, and then how would you balance all that? Juggling cooldown timers? Yuck. D:OS2 and XCom have proven that turn based tactical games have a market, so it isn't such a big risk. Playing it safe? Sure? Larian are making this game, and they should play to their strengths and do what they do best. That will make the best product possible. And I don't think there is as much hunger for RtwP as you do. Pillars of Eternity sputtered out and died in the second installment. I have never met anybody that says they like the gameplay for Dragon Age: Inquisition. Among those I know that do like it, it is the world, the lore, and the characters which draw them.

Anyway, If this game is successful, hopefully there will be a lot more D&D games to come, spanning a variety of genres and with different budgets. Despite owning the license to such a prolific and influential game as D&D, WotC has been pretty shy about engaging in the video game market. Now they are breaking out a bit. I don't know about Dark Alliance and their GoPro trailer, also, Drizzt . . . Blehg. But If WotC are feeling more comfortable getting their IP out there then maybe you will see the RtwP game of your dreams.
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 09/07/20 05:18 AM
Originally Posted by Warlocke

I don't think there is as much hunger for RtwP as you do.


74000 backers for the PoE's crowdfunding campaign.
That's more than DoS + DoS2.
They obviously missed some things to keep their audience hyped (what Larian did) but the hunger is here.

PoE had a better hype just talking about the video game Baldur's Gate, not about D&D, about The Realms and/or a TB game mode.... Imagine if they were...

I hope Larian won't miss that.
I guess this audience is not (as we can read here) "a few haters that only complain and live in the past".

The name is not the game.

PS : DA:I is bad, but EA sold way more units than every game we're talking about.
Posted By: Uacari Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 09/07/20 05:44 AM

I just want a great D&D game - I just purchased DOS2 but i cant bring myself to play it so close to early access BG3 in August (hopefully) - anything else i buy will just sit in steam collecting dust until I get a chance to play BG3 - & you are spot on about Blade Runner - legend of a movie - god the new one was rubbish ..so disappointing


maybe you have a better strategy ... to wait for BG3.

DOS 2 have many interesting features too...the action points, the ergonomics overall is spectacular, it became easy to manage combat despite the many alternatives, items and spells one could use.

There are so many good aspects of DOS, that they raised expectations for BG3, combining their engine with D&D rules.

as for blade runner 2...well.. I did the opposite...first I lowered my expectations based on average movie sequels...and then enjoyed it a lot.
I like movies with less dialogues and without excessive fast action sequences.

I also suggest for Larian Studios an alternative mode to play BG3 : minimalist mode - with 20% barrels, items and boxes only - kind of like the native indian level of economic trading.

(in this mode...you stick to mostly the same magical items, and just improve them throughout the game...and when you find one, it means a lot more.

I guess they can call it the "Low Carbon emissions mode" ..hahaha..
Posted By: Dagless Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 09/07/20 08:34 AM
Originally Posted by IrenicusBG3

I don't know how going from RtWP to turn-based, removing day/night cycle or limiting exploration, among other things is appealing to large markets. In fact the trend is the opposite where many franchises (JRPGs and cRPGs) went from turn-based to action. RtWP is the midpoint between them and it seems more logic to improve it or create a new system that would be more dynamic. A game with a technology from 20 years ago was able to represent a more believable world.

I agree that at this point they will not change the core mechanics, but it looks they decided to play safe instead of pushing the franchise and the RPG genre forward. It would made more sense to start from where BG2 left instead of starting from where DOS 2 left (which had much lower standards).


Eh? This makes no sense.

You’re saying Dragon Age and many JRPGs moved towards action RPG because that’s where the bigger market is, which is fair enough. So then how is it “playing safe” to go the other way and make BG3 even more tactical and even closer to the tabletop game?

Dragon Age games are one way of “moving the genre forward” from the old Baldurs Gate games. They are still real time with pause, but with 3D graphics, fully voiced dialogue, cinematics, and a more action feel. I like them, although IMO they made some mistakes in Inquisition.

What Larian have done with Baldurs Gate is also moving forward, just in a different direction. You wanted something else, which is fine, but just personal preference. There’s no need to keep dumping on the developers.

Honestly this is a great time for RPG fans in general. A few years ago people were predicting that mainstream single player RPS were a dying breed, and building games around things like micro transactions were the only way developers could justify the costs. BioWare certainly headed in that direction, but they may turn it around for DA4 after the reaction they’ve had recently. The Witcher 3 however had phenomenal success, and with Cyberpunk, CDRP seem to be going much more RPG. Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines 2 looks interesting too. Pillars of Eternity and Pathfinder revived the old Infinity Engine style, while Larian are completely revamping turn based RPGs. Then we have the likes of Disco Elysium snapping up awards for doing things differently again.

The genre is flourishing at the moment, with different developers taking different approaches, so there’s basically something for everyone.
Posted By: vometia Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 09/07/20 11:44 AM
Originally Posted by Many people

TB/RTwP

Use the pinned topic, please. Stray TB/RTwP posts are likely to be deleted.
Posted By: Sven_ Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 09/07/20 04:25 PM
Originally Posted by vometia
Originally Posted by Many people

TB/RTwP

Use the pinned topic, please. Stray TB/RTwP posts are likely to be deleted.



It's getting old. Like as if nobody can think outside of those square boxes anymore. Nu-XCom for instance has proven that turn-based can even have the look&feel of an action movie… it's not simply "good old TB" (capital T, capital B). Additionally, Baldur's Gate has never been solely about its combat -- though being a comparably combat heavy game it was a big part of it.

In general, the only vote that matters is eventually with your wallet. If you don't like something about a game, the setting, the itemization, whatever, you don't buy it, whilst at the same time supporting games that are more to your tastes.

Posted By: Dagless Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 09/07/20 04:46 PM
Originally Posted by Sven_
Originally Posted by vometia
Originally Posted by Many people

TB/RTwP

Use the pinned topic, please. Stray TB/RTwP posts are likely to be deleted.



It's getting old. Like as if nobody can think outside of those square boxes anymore. Nu-XCom for instance has proven that turn-based can even have the look&feel of an action movie… it's not simply "good old TB" (capital T, capital B). Additionally, Baldur's Gate has never been solely about its combat -- though being a comparably combat heavy game it was a big part of it.

In general, the only vote that matters is eventually with your wallet. If you don't like something about a game, the setting, the itemization, whatever, you don't buy it, whilst at the same time supporting games that are more to your tastes.


I think it applies to all of us. I’ll copy my comments to pinned topic if anyone wants to reply to me.

And apologies for my part in it.
Posted By: IrenicusBG3 Re: BG3 Vs DOS3 ''The Truth'' - 09/07/20 05:04 PM
Originally Posted by Dagless
Originally Posted by IrenicusBG3

I don't know how going from RtWP to turn-based, removing day/night cycle or limiting exploration, among other things is appealing to large markets. In fact the trend is the opposite where many franchises (JRP