I've been reading a lot of forum posts and social media regarding this game and I've come to wish that they hadn't gotten the Baldur's Gate name but instead got the license to make a new D&D game.
The game looks amazing right now and I know it'll be good because it's Larian, but with the BG name it's going to be compared to the old ones and I don't think it'll ever be able to live up to the expectations that people will have for that. They're just too high to ever be reached.

Most of the major complaints I see with the game has to do with it not being like the original Baldur's Gate.
Not being RWtB like the original, the atmosphere being different, the characters, the humour, the music and so on. It seems like 90% of the negative comments have to do with it not seeming like a Baldur's Gate game (which is completely fair criticism).

It's a shame that a game that's bound to be amazing will get a lot of hate and people passing on it simply because of the name.

I get that having Baldur's Gate written on it automatically gets it a lot of press and attention, but Larian is already big and D&D is huge right now, so I'm not sure it's needed.
I believe that if it was just a D&D game they'd have much freer reins and less disappointed fans right now. As someone who hasn't played the original games the title doesn't really do anything for me. I don't know if the name itself lures in people who aren't fans of the original game, but if it doesn't then it's aimed at original fans who'd have a high chance of wanting to play any D&D game anyway.

Just to clarify that this isn't a rant about people being disappointed with the game. I believe that the game should feel like a successor if it's going to claim to be one. I'm just wondering if everyone would be happier if it wasn't named Baldur's Gate 3?

It is a comment full of common sense.
Especially since in an interview, Sven Vincke assumes to use the Baldur's Gate franchise to attract players while continuing to do D: OS because that's what Larian can do.

Indeed, it would have been better if this game did not bear the name of Baldur's Gate and even less of Baldur's Gate 3.

It will backfire on them anyway.

I think they should know of what happens in Metacritic if they dont listen the fanbase.

If they would called it "Baldur's Gate: [insert here subtitle]" everyone would be so happy and everything was solved. Or at least, as I said in other post, they should communicate they are listening the complains.

Let's start a thread with possible alternative names.

BG: Enemy Within

BG: Enemy Without

BG: A Gathering of Darkness

BG: Dawn of the Mind

BG: the Call of Illensine

BG: the Mind's Rule

BG: the Shadow over Faerun

BG: the Shadow of the Future

Review bombing of past games to complain about the existing one is disgusting.

I can't wait for the game to hit steam and immediately make more money than BG2 ever did.

Is envy the only sentiment driving you?

I would have been fine if they had a different name from the start but im also fine with a 3. The game follows what is happening in the events of BG after 1&2 and the expanded world. This makes a lot more sense to me that what was going to happen with Black Isles planned BG3.

I dont see the name hurting sales other than review bombing but my understanding is that steam blocks refunded games from affecting the number so that will be a nice $60 review bomb or MW2 boycott situation. Meta critic also is kinda known for people not paying attention to users if the narrative is people are review bombing. Even more than that it will bring in a TON of new people. i have friends in my D&D groups super excited for this who were hesitant it would be like old IE games.

I understand the criticism to and extent (i think most of the screaming is by people who define BG by RTwP and are looking for anything to hate) but its also WAY over blown to the point where its really starting to seem like some people are going to need therapy/ have already talked about it with their therapist. I have loved some of the constructive criticism discussions ive had with people on a variety of forums and even got a few people interested who were sad it wasnt going to be what they expected and ive found certain places dying down to the point where its the same few people screaming and not a majority up roar which hopefully means it will die down and conversation will be able to be had and some issues can be addressed in EA

I really cant wait for this to happen

Personally, I'm fine with the Baldur's Gate name, it's the '3' that's gotta go. It neither warrants nor deserves it (the latter being my personal opinion). This game, with what we've seen up to now, is so disconnected from the Bhaalspawn saga that the '3' is little more than an obvious and vulgar marketing gimmick.

The damn shame of it is, this game doesn't need it. Again going on what I've seen, this game can do perfectly fine without succumbing to cheap marketing. Hell, I want to play it (in it's final/finished form at least).

My approach at present (which I admit fully is subject to change with new, official, information) is thus: 99% I will be buying this game upon it's final release (not touching early access, I deplore what 'early access' has devolved into over the years). If it releases with the '3' still attached to the title, I'll play it, and if it has no connection to the Bhaalspawn narrative (minus name drops, thematic similarities or just NPCs being there...as these can be done just as easily, or more so, with a game set in the same region without being part of previous narratives)...then at that point, I'll not buy another Larian product again, and recommend the same should I ever be asked.

Larian is a talented studio, they're good at what they do. I may find some of their work unpalatable (ceaseless tongue-in-cheek narratives for instance), but there's no denying they make solid, good games. They DO NOT need this disgusting marketing tactic of attaching their game to the legacy of two of the greatest CRPGs ever made. This game can stand perfectly well (and profitably) on its own, perhaps creating a new legacy.

Calling this Baldur's Gate: Something Interesting would, I think, solve a great deal. The Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance games existed and did not cause the sky to fall, so too it can be with this. Calling this Baldur's Gate 3 is just lazy. I think Larian can do better than that. It remains to be seen if they can.

Curious about how you feel about BG3: The Black Hound. Ive read a good amount on what that game was supposed to be and it was incredibly far from anything resembling BG1/2 despite being the same team. I understand the sentiment and not going to hold it against anyone who doesnt like the 3 involved but im really curious how those same fans would react to what was supposed to be 3 before the studio shut down. As far as we can tell the game will be mostly connected to Novels and the events of the module which seems to take place about 100years after 2 and 12 years after the death of the Cannon ward of Gorion and Bhaalspawn.

My feelings and sentiments of Black Isle's BG3 were the same as these. Actually even more incredulous to be honest. Black Isle had made Icewind Dale and Planescape: Torment....they proved their mettle in designing their own games in that style. The idea they would make a new game and call it BG3 when it had ZERO connection of any kind to BG1/2 when they had absolutely no good reason to do so (though in hindsight it was an obvious attempt to try and save their studio from destruction...which was inevitable anyway given how Interplay was disappearing so completely up its own buttocks)...well, I can say I'm glad that game never saw completion.

I doubt very much Larian is facing its own destruction here and that using the name 'Baldur's Gate 3' is a last, desperate attempt to save their studio.

It seems petty, even to me, to want that '3' gone from the title of this game, I admit. It isn't so much about the title itself. There are plenty of such sequels out there with a number after the title that have utterly nothing to do with what came before, in games and film, so it's not some unprecedented thing. I'd just like to think Larian has enough confidence in their own product that they don't need that '3' to make this successful. The Baldur's Gate name alone is enough and actually serves the purpose of honoring the legacy and acting as a "What's next?" The '3' is just....well I've said it, obvious and vulgar.

You know what?

You get all 8 of you people who complain about this to write a specific list of what you think Baldurs Gate 3 should be.

If you can agree on what a proper sequal to Baldurs Gate 3 would be,t hat you, in your glorious wisdom would bestow the title upon (even tho it is not yours to give), THEN maybe ill consider your argument.


Go, compile a list.
And if a single one of you disagrees with a sinlge nitpick another one of you has, you go back to the drawing board.

GO

Will it, though? Let's be honest who of all the old players is still around to play roleplaying games? How important are they for Larian, after they earned so much money with the D:OS-games? Are those the people that bought Original Sin 1 and 2 and thought "gee, I would love to see Baldur's Gate 3 by those people, so I buy their games and hope that they do it like in the old days?" Or are the buyers people that loved D:OS 1 and 2 and now will buy BG3 too, since they get more of what they love? I don't think, that the old fans are that important anymore, because it has been 19 years since the last entry in the series and the only people that still think of the game as relevant are a few hardcorefans and journalists. But because it is a Larian-game, the series might spark some new interest.

Baldurs Gate 1 was my first favorite game ever and I still have a soft spot for it. But it hasn't aged as gracefully as 2 and Throne of Bhaal got really rushed after the fist half of the game. Baldur's Gate 2 was the best, but only because it was already streamlined and linear and more of a collection of shortstories and more of sidestory than part of the actual Bhaalspawn-story. The mainquest was never as great as we remember it and other games have shown that you can be better. And now Baldur's Gate 3 will show it hopefully again. Let the past rest and enjoy the future, people.

Thanks, great answer. Honestly with this im just looking for consistancy and an idea where certain people may stand in "what makes a BG game" and you definitely have it. Time will tell how well its connected and what it really means. it seems to be a continuation of the world but not sure the story. I really hope we do see maybe some things of how the Baalspawn affected the world and informed the events that get us here.

Baldur's Gate: Attack of the ManChildren

I couldn’t agree more with OP.

Actually, even if i've played to old BG games, i'm not a "Nostalgia guy", in general...
I'm here because i know Larian make absolutely loving RPG ( and the only ones who provide good toolset / GM mode ) , and if i was, at the beginning not against a BG title by them, i'm actually worrying about how toxic fandoms will respond to the game, knowing they'll NEVER be satisfied ( i've already how they can be relentless to destoy a game they dont like, even if the game is basically good, just not "for them" , with Fallout saga just for the example ).

Review bombing, endless bad buzz.... peoples, especially old bitter angry geeks can be awfull now on internet.

And larian 's a small studio, i dont know if they can get out of this kind of bullying without serious repercussions.

This is why, since i'm not so attached to BG saga, i'll prefer finally if this game was an another D&D game without a famous name. It would keep away all those raging people.

BG will stay dead, but honestly, i dont care ( like i dont care either if it's revive ), i just want Larian continue to do wonderfull games like DoS2, and i'm afraid of the futur for them if this last game got over-criticized ( even more if it's just because of expectations that cannot be met , because they're they idealize too much an old game of their memory.. )

So yes, agreed with the OP, not for BG 's name but instead for Larian protection.

You're welcome.

From what I've gathered from various interviews and what was shown, I doubt there is any continuation of the narrative of BG1/2 of any kind. As you say, the world will most likely be a world in which the Bhaalspawn saga occurred, and what (if any) impact or lingering effects it continues to have 100 years later. There may be some NPCs from the original saga (party or just world NPCs) that are still around due to having long lifespans or magic, etc...but Mr. Vincke has as much stated in interviews, this is very much "its own thing", which to me, is a calculated and safe way of saying not to expect much in the way of connectivity to what happened before (and that's hardly fact, just my interpretation based on experience of hearing similar statements about past games and movies).

I should state this, clearly, that this is indeed a game I want to buy and play. How I will ultimately judge it (for myself) remains unknown until I can play the completed version. I've no wish to belabor the point, but I don't feel that the '3' belongs on this game. This game will doubtless be strong enough on it's own to use the name Baldur's Gate without inherently implying a direct connection to BG1/2.

Seems that way. Not to mention, games like Pokemon and Fortnite make a ton of money but doesn't mean they're good games. And BG was made 20 years ago at a time when videogames were nowhere near what they are within society today. In contemporary society, videogames have surpassed movies in terms of total revenue generated. Comparing BG sales to anything today is completely asinine.

Changing the name will be a massive improvement. The only people not upset about it being called "BG3" are people who don't know or care about the Baldur's Gate series and just want DOS3. In no way is Larian's game Baldur's Gate 3, so it definitely should not be titled as such. This is sleazy exploitation and snake-oil to max.

Here are some other possible names:

Baldur's Gate: Shadows of Tentacles

Baldur's Gate: Descent Into Avernus 2

Tentacles Over Baldur's Gate


But will Larian do the right thing and change the name? Swen stated their intention is to do a cash-grab by exploiting the fans of the BG name to try to make the DOS brand more popular - which is to say that Larian's "BG3" isn't about Baldur's Gate at all. It's just using the setting as a husk to shill for their own DOS brand:

https://youtu.be/kGnGOnzlC4s?t=214

Swen's quote:


Larian can still capitalize on the Baldur's Gate game while not marketing their DOS formula D&D game as the third part of the original PC Baldur's Gate Series. Since Larian's game has nothing to do with the eponymous PC Baldur's Gate series, it shouldn't be named as such.

The original Baldur's Gate 3, called "Baldur's Gate 3: The Black Hound" which got cancelled years ago, would have had absolutely nothing to do with the first two Baldur's Gate games either. On top of that, that game was going to be set far away from Baldur's Gate, in the Dalelands. At least this new Baldur's Gate 3 will be set in the city Baldur's Gate, unlike the original which would have been set in the lands Myth Drannor is located.

Of course it had been better without the "3" in the name.
No one would argue, players would only speak and hype about the new Larian D&D game.

Call it BG "3" was a great mistake.
The 3 is only important for all old fans
Baldur's Gate can be Baldur's Gate without this 3 (such Dark Alliance was)

Cause it was 20 years ago and playing computer games was a thing for nerds maybe? Anyways it was sold alot.

Noone is complaining about that, it's more about the feeling and style that's different. And to debate about Black Hound which was never even close to finish is a bit... Useless

Of course it is disgusting. I dont defend this... but it happens. And it affects a lot to the companies. I think It will be a great game even I dont like what they are doing. Ill play it and ill enjoy it as much as I can. But fanbase use to dont like companies messing with their favourite things and, if they dont change anything, without any communication... im sure it will happend. Just from the commercial point of view will be wise to communicate and explain.

Uhm, to be fair the name Baldur´s gate is the name of a city in a setting of the game D&D created by Wizards of the Coast, a tabletop game created in 1974, with 40 years of story, not only the name of two (incredible) games.
And they let Larian get the license from WOTC to create a game after refusing several game studios all over the years, so they have all the right to call the game Baldur´s Gate 3, Divinity Baldur´s Gate Sin or whatever they fancy.

Sven Vincke, Mike Myers and Adam Smith were really forthright since the first interview, months ago, stating that they want to make a D&D5e game, using an improved version of the game engine of DOS; not based in the first games. Sven didn´t even know the endings of the first game when they asked him in an interview; They always answer with the same: "We will use the canon WOTC ending of the crisis of the baalspawn"; The origins of the game will be in the D&D Adventures "Murders in Baldur´s gate" and "Descent into Avernus" (no mention of the BG games whatsoever) so the things showed in the gameplay were not that surprising.

I think It was never meant to be based in the old games from the start.




The Beamdog's BG series remasters are from a few years ago, tho. They still sold well enough, even spawning a brand new expansion for the game (without the quality of the original, but still not a bad CRPG).

Didnt sven say Baldurs gate was one of his favortie video games?
what do you mean he didnt know the endings?

>Canon ending
tbh still one of those thingst hat pisses me off.
Im not that big a BG fan, but nobody in their right mind would consider the official ending good. That book its based on had absoluteley nothing to do with the game it was based on, and risking to mirror the angry people in this forum here, had very little respect for it, changing a lot of the characters, disregarding the actual video game protagonist and so on, turning Minsc into a Redhead...

Baldur's Gate is the name of the city, but it's also the name of a specific game series. The Baldur's Gate being referred to in Larian's poorly-named "BG3" is not the city, it's the game series.

There are many games featuring Baldur's Gate and having "Baldur's Gate" in their titles yet are not claimed to be part of the original Baldur's Gate PC RPG series. Larian should likewise title their game featuring Baldur's Gate something that doesn't claim it to be a part of the original PC RPG series, because Larian's D&D DOS formula game is not representative of the original Baldur's Gate PC game series.

No one cares Baldur's Gate is the name of a city.
Bg2 never took place on this city and is still consider better as the 1st.

Anse no onee said they don't have the juridic rights to call this BG3... Just saying it's an insult to those who honor this VIDEO GAME for 20years to call it BG "3".
Without them the name of BG was forgotten.

And hey... WoTC had not CREATED D&D (and hadn't buy the society of the creators when BG came out...)
This is just for your informations.

BG "3" IS a dream for a lot for many years and Larian took this dreams just for them.
(Because I don't doubt they are fans, but they have more interrests for BG"3" to seems a lot like their babies... Other fans don't care).

I brought it up to point out to anyone arguing that this new Baldur's Gate 3 is not Baldur's Gate as if they are the authority can still be debated, as the original BG3, like the new one, would have no plot connection with the prequels, and unlike the new BG3, be set too far away from the city Baldur's Gate for it to be an explorable location. It's not just the feeling and style. There hasn't been a completely new Baldur's Gate game in 20 years. It's inevitably going to be a little jarring for some veteran BG players to play a new BG game that looks somewhat like Dragon Age and Divinity: Original Sin. Would you prefer BG3 looked like the failed D&D game Sword Coast Legends?

Ok so Baldur's Gate 3 could looks somewhat like DAO (yeh ?) and DOS, but if there is nothing from Baldur's Gate there are no problems...
(not speaking about graphics or something like that, of course things have to change in 20 years).

There is a mistake don't you think ?

Not from my perspective. The mistake is believing something is wrong with Baldur's Gate looking like an improved version of the games it inspired. Keep in mind that Dragon Age and Divinity are basically spiritual successors of Baldur's Gate, much like the Mighty No.9 game was a spiritual successor to the Mega Man games. Mega Man came out with a brand new game last year, Mega Man 11, and it looks similar to Mighty No.9. But like Sword Coast Legends, Mighty No.9 is a failed and forgotten game. There hasn't been a new Mega Man game since 2010, so Mega Man 11 is a welcomed addition. Why is Baldur's Gate 3 getting some flak? The style should not be an issue, just sayin'.

Ok for Dragon Age but Divinity (original sin I guess) a succesor of BG ? Can't see anything in common except it's RPG...

The same is going to happen if World of Warcraft 2 is not a MMORPG...
It would have been the same if Diablo 3 were not a Hack and Slash...
The same if DoS 3 is not TB...
The same if TES6 is not on Tamriel.
The same if BG3 is not in Forgotten Realms or don't use D&D rules...

Of course players want to find the spirit of their previous loved games in the next episode.
We are talking about a video game experience, in which rules and universe are just a part of it.
Going back to the city + Bhaal (I suppose wathever the way) + rules is definitely not enough.

Not saying Larian can't do it but according to what we see (basics, elementary gameplay) they choose the easiest way and the most satisfying for THEM, not for BG fans.

Ah but the very creator of that game, Josh Sawyer, has very recently tweeted that he adamently opposed naming the game Baldur's Gate 3, and wanted it named just The Black Hound. But the publisher Interplay insisted that it be named BG3 to benefit their marketing of the game.

I really don't understand how name is such a big deal for people. I'm hardcore Baldur's Gate 1 & 2 fan. I played them when they first came out and I've played them and EE versions on and off for two decades. However, I don't think I own "Baldur's gate" brand and get to say how the next game must be. I'm curious, where do people get this notion that it's their right to judge how the sequel must be like? Does playing some game a lot over the years give me right to dictate exactly how it must continue?

To my knowledge there is no globally accepted set rules that sequels must follow to be considered legitimate. Could somebody point me to the criteria?

Without so many fans making mods, unofficial patches for the games etc. on top of sales figures over the past two decades would they have even bothered with a BG3? The whole point of a series is to carve out a niche/market that is a steady source of income as you make sequels. It only makes sense to size up your fans and listen to their feedback (otherwise you will start to bleed customers). Obviously they're taking their chances here and trying to expand the fan base. That's why there is pushback but I'm fairly certain they knew this was going to happen.

I think the only criteria is:

Quality in hindsight.

So if it turns out good in the end and peoples can look back at it some time later with a fuzzy feeling then it is a worthy successor.

Judge? Well I can only speak for myself but I don't judge or dictate how the sequel should be (indeed, many feel this isn't so much a sequel as another game set in the same place as the Baldur's Gate games of the past). I offer my opinions, nothing more. Larian is free to (and will) do as they please. I have no illusions otherwise. Larian has provided this place to voice any concerns, opinions, thoughts, feelings, etc we may have on the subject of Baldur's Gate 3. If they find value or something of use in some of this feedback, great. If not, great.

I have concerns about how some things are implemented, but overall, none overly worth mentioning. My big concern, as my various posts can testify to, is that the '3' seems inappropriate to use, for reasons I've explained ad nauseum elsewhere (basic summary: using the '3' is an obvious and vulgar marketing tactic that they don't need to use, this game can easily sell itself using just the Baldur's Gate name alone, without the implication the '3' brings with it). Do I think I hold some rights that should be heeded and acted upon? Nope. If Larian decides to stick with the '3' (or is well past being able to do anything about it), cool, I've said my piece.

I still intend, at present, to buy and play this upon final release anyway...unless some kind of Sword Coast Legends-type catastrophe befalls it during development...then I shall not buy it (but I find that scenario quite unlikely given Larian's pedigree).

I don't see the point criticizing the "3" in BG3 without knowing more story details. The overarching game could tie into Bhaal's legacy in meaningful ways. The tabletop adventure that precedes this game features followers of The Dead Three of which Bhaal is a member.

Mind Flayers were already plotting to take over Faerun in BG2, perhaps the Mind Flayer in the opening is linked to that?

What we have is the first hour or so of the game that is basically teaching you mechanics. It is a prelude to the larger adventure to come. I don't see how it can be assumed that BG3 won't have enough in common with the previous two.

And at least we will actually be going to Baldur's Gate in BG3. In BG1 it took most of the game to get there, and in BG2 you never so much as step foot in the city.

Good points all, it may very well be premature...but we have no conclusive way of knowing one way or the other as yet. My own views are fed by what I've seen and what I've read. What sticks most for me is Swen's interview stating that BG3 is "very much its own thing'. I'm not saying it's a perfect basis for my opinions, but it is what largely informs said opinion. But it is just that, merely an opinion. Hardly the threat some (not yourself) make it out to be, even if parroted by others.

This game, thus far (premature or not), feels less like a sibling to BG1/2 and more like a cousin. Certainly worthy of the Baldur's Gate name itself, but less so the '3'.

Ultimately, I'm not calling for a boycott or any such absurdity. This is still a game I intend to buy and play (minus the caveat I mentioned in an earlier post)....I just offer my 2 cents on the matter, nothing more.

Well, time will tell, and Early Access might provide some hints as to where the story is ultimately going. There was a line that Shadowheart said in the playthrough about being chased by dragons through Hell. I'm wondering if we will spot any familiar faces? lol.

Absolutly right. Josh Sawyer tweeted recently:

it's been a long time since i worked on The Black Hound, but i want to make clear (again) that i never had any intention of that game being called Baldur's Gate III or Baldur's Gate (whatever).

IPLY put that title on it after well over a year and a half of dev had been done.

they did it for contractual issues they had (they were only allowed to publish D&D games with baldur's gate or icewind dale in the title). i, and many others on the team, expressed concern over tacking the name onto a game that was made to be its own thing, not an IE/BG game.

the only connection it had was with IWD (maralie fiddlebender was a companion). it had no connection to BG at all.

in the end it didn't really matter, but i think it's important to note that the team's intention was never to use the BG name.

Which is very different from the team's intention here TO use the BG name.

What gets me is the constant interjection from people who think that fans who are disappointed with the new game are just whinging.

Even in this thread, despite several posts of really good discussion there is always interjection about bullshit.

People have opinions, and you don't have to agree with them. That doesn't make your opinion better, or right.

The fact of the matter is that Swen Vincke already admitted that they are using the BG name to push DOS formula games. That is what the problem we have is. No one is saying "herp derp, no more bg games!" or "herp derp larian ruined my childhood" ... we are saying "Larian and Wizards sold out for cash". This game is literally a DOS clone being sold under the BG banner. That is the problem.




Head to 3:30 ... https://youtu.be/kGnGOnzlC4s

If the game is good & feels like a proper d&d game, what is the problem exactly?

I fully agree with the OP. All this mess started because Larian put the ''3'' in the title to try and capitalize on the success of BG1 and 2. I hope they will realize on time that it is a mistake which could very well backfire on them. It is much easier for them to modify the name than to add a RTWP option for example (which I am sure they do not want to hear about anyway).

Was fallout : new Vegas a mistake because it wasn't a turn based, isometric rpg but the complete opposite?

I honestly don't understand why a new d&d game set in baldurs gate could not be called baldurs gate 3.

Firstly, the game isn't done, so can't really determine that. Secondly, it is going to be based on D&D rules, so cannot quite call it a clone. If you think they should not being using any systems, mechanics, models, theories, etc that resemble DOS, I would say you are misguided. Not only was DOS massively successful, and thus a sensible platform upon which to build a game like BG3, but it doesn't make economical sense to start from scratch. That it is why so many studios license the Unreal Engine to make their games. Should all studios create new engines so their product doesn't look like other games? In an ideal world, perhaps; but we live in a real world. It's not going to happen unless the studio in question is a new studio with little or no previous work to build upon (so they can make everything from scratch and unique looking), in which case, they would never be given the opportunity to make a BG3 title at all for being inexperienced in the industry.

Or the "mess" started with a seemingly small group of BG fans not liking what they saw. To me it seems that this is not a "mess" at all to most people.

I have to 2nd this.

Why name it Baldur's Gate 3, if it doesn't have a connection with Baldur's Gate 1 and 2?

Just because it plays around Baldurs Gate?

Like Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance which could just as well be named Westor: Dark Alliance, if it played in Westor instead of Baldur's Gate.

That wasn't the defining characteristic of the old games. The 2nd game and most of the add-ons didn't even play in or near Baldur's Gate. What connected the old games where the characters and the story of the Bhaalspawn. If Baldur's Gate 3 doesn't have anything to do with that, it really shouldn't be called Baldurs Gate 3.

There are many Dnd games that share the same background world as Baldur's Gate 1 and 2, without borrowing the name. Icewind Dale, Neverwinter Nights, Pool of Radiance, Sword Coast Legends to name a few. They each had their own story, but they all took place in the world of Faerun.

So why not give your game, your story, its own name. Like: Yartar: The Mindflayer Saga. Ceremorphosis or Mind the Tadpole

I mean your got a Spelljammer, the origin of Illithids, planartravel, dragon riding Githyanki, a Vampire Spawn. So much content to create your own story around and write your own sage. And although many of those things did have an appearance in Baldurs Gate 1 and 2, unless they are connected to the characters and storytelling of the old Baldur's Gate games, they have absolutely nothing to do with Baldur's Gate 1 and 2.

I know its probably to late for that but please unless your extending the Bhaalspawn Saga or tell new and exiting stories of its beloved characters there is no reason to name your game Baldurs Gate 3.

I've never seen this much nitpicking over what's pretty much a non-issue

Did you count the people or is it just a personal assessment / speculation?

www.change.org

Create it for them to change the name (at least delete the 3).
They probably won't but they'll probably listen and stop doing a DoS-like with a legendary video game.

Pretty sure thousands would sign according to what's happening everywhere players talk about the game.

As I started that sentance with "To me it seems..." I was ofc only using my personal assessment. From what I have seen from comments here, on twitter, under yt videos and on gaming sites I am of the opinion that most people by far does not have any problem at all with this game being named Baldur's Gate 3.

When my sisters and I were children, my father would always use "maybe" instead of "yes" or "no" so that we could never whine that he said yes or some such to something upcoming but ended up saying no.

Larian are calling the game "Baldur's Gate 3." It isn't what some of you, maybe even half of you, imagined it would be. Get over it and move on.

Another difference is this team's intention to make a BG game.

I have my issue(s) with this game, as described elsewhere...but being honest with myself, I do wish to buy and play this (shortly after final release and some reviews and thoughts on the game). I also suspect said reviews and thoughts will not preclude me from buying it (it would take a Sword Coast Legends or Pools of Radiance: Ruins of Myth Drannor type disaster to stop me from buying it, which I find highly unlikely with Larian).

Ultimately, I don't care what Larian's intentions, motivations or goals are with this (beyond hoping they achieve them to their satisfaction). What I care about is a quality (subjective) and fun (subjective) D&D 5e game to play. I THINK I'll get that here...but only time will tell.

Why do you think it got cancelled? Because BG3 didn't need to be made. It really still doesn't.

Baldur's Gate: Cult of the Damned

Baldur's Gate: Avernus

Baldur's Gate: Ilsensine

or many other options would have been better than BG3, which sets up entirely different expectations.

It would have made sense if Larian had been the one deciding to make the game in the first place, which mind you was their first intention. But as they were contacted later by WotC to take on the franchise, changing the name would literally be a betrayal of their contract. So no, they shouldn't change it no matter what some angry mobs decide to whine about.

I doubt it would have made a difference to use those names because Baldur's Gate would still be in the title so people would immediately apply expectations on the game no matter what.

Not that it matters. Many game franchises have changed setting, time periods and protagonists between games. Every Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest game. Red Dead Redemption to Red Dead Redemption 2, which turned into a sequel and a completely different protagonist. The Dragon Age games went from fighting a Blight in Ferelden as a Grey Warden to being the Champion of Kirkwall, fighting Qunari, mages and templars to becoming an Inquisitor and fighting a bunch of demons and a darkspawn magister.

Quit blaming Larian, Wizards of the Coast green lighted this as well. Every developer has their "style". This is Larian's. Deal with it and play the game or sit down and play something else.

Yeah, I was so angry that BG2 was not an adventure in Baldur's Gate ! It is not even in the same country ! It takes place in and around Athkatla, a city in the country of Amn. I am just joking of course.

The full name of the game was Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn, since it has an expansion, but everyone just calls it BG2 and no one cares that it is not really a story about Baldur's Gate. To be fair though, it was a direct continuation of the story of BG1.

BG3 uses the same universe, same region as BG1, it uses the same lore which includes some core issues (the 3 evil gods) from BG 1 & 2.
I recommend the Youtuber Harbs Narbs who summarizes the clues : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCD7GydJQaD7Lnaew1RYsdpw/videos

Sure, Larian could add a subtitle as the OP suggest. Why not. If it can appease some.

All = quite false. I am 48, played D&D since I was about 16 and my "old" friends (40+ years old) and I played BG1 and 2... and we do not mind the BG3 name, we love the 5th edition of D&D, etc.

The issue is that Baldur's Gate as an IP is more defined then the setting or system. It's a bit like Mass Effect - certain things just come to mind.

Theoretically, there is nothing wrong with BG3 being what it is - not every RPG continues the story directly with every installement, not every sequel keeps the gameplay loop the same. Still, there is certain expactations that come with the game being called BG3.

Luckily for me, I am slowely managing to decouple BG3 from BG1&2. Good looking gameplay demos help a lot with that.

This would be true for actual novels/stories completely seperate from any game as well.

As I posted to someone else in another forum: Can a new story take into account and build upon what happened there (as it has been stated by Larian it will using the 'canonically accepted' outcome version I believe) and build on the foundation that was the Bhaalspawn story 100+ years in the past? Absolutely it can, and a good story writer could probably come up with a myriad of ways of writing a sequel story for any starting chain of events that were covered in the first 2 novels that is born out of the events of what came before and the affectations it may have had, but also doesn't go back and continue or change anything to do with that closed loop. The only 'interconnecting tissue' is the label for the starting/foundational setting here, which is Baldur's Gate - and even then, BG2 itself is illegitimate by the standard many are trying to bring to bear since you never actually go back to the city itself there either.

Gameplay mechanics differential aside, the story is the central foundation, and while sure, its unlikely Larian/WotC would be going back and adding to, much less changing, what most consider to be a closed loop series of events in the smaller 'Bhaalspawn saga' storyline involving BG, there's nothing that says the greater story of events and affectations in the world coming out of that closed loop can't be built upon with further interconnecting story. We simply have to wait and see awhile after launch what the truth depth of that interconnection with the original saga actually is.

This ☝️

There are artists and then there are one-trick ponies who don't have the skill to even make diverse art. And the latter work at Larian, where every game looks the same. If you want to see a game studio that knows how to diversify their art direction, look at CDPR, for example. I wish they'd attempted BG3, but they're busy with the next holy grail of gaming currently.

"Baldur's Gate 3: The Trove of Narlen Darkwalk"

Yes, yes! Only the Baldur's Gate franchise can do this.

Regardless of who's to 'blame' I still think they should have gone with Baldur's Gate: [Insert title here]

It still strikes me as incredibly lazy to just name it Baldur's Gate 3, and it's almost certainly just a marketing scheme from WotC / Hasbro. Nevertheless, we're a bit past the point of changing anyone's mind about it, I think.

Yes I agree this was a missed opportunity. "BGIII: <subtitle>" would have calmed a lot of currently-angry BGI/II fans while also staying true to the naming style set by BGII: SoA.

I don't know that I'd call it a 'missed opportunity', but this is at least an idea I can get behind as opposted to people just drawing a line in the sand and insisting 'it shouldn't carry the Baldur's Gate name'. I thought something similar (subtitle) in the midst of reading all the various kerfuffle the past few months in various places, given BG2 also doesn't involve BG technically at all and at least does reference the area its based around.

It's also not impossible that, before release, Larian might reveal they're doing this....but we'll have to wait and see what happens.

I´m not going to say anything about the name ( pointless debate ever) but if we´re talking about artwork, the character, creature and armour/weapons design in the game are almost exactly the same as in the official artbooks of D&D from WotC.

Just google it.

"Divinity VI: Zandiwoop's Gate, the Hitch-Hiker's Guide to Rivellon." That should keep everyone happy, as long as it keeps the freckly elf.

And here is mind devourer added.

This game has nothing Bg in it .
Is a Dos3 thing riding on Bg name . Thats all - marketing

Not saing i will not play , but is not baldurs for me . Is dos3 .

I´m not going to discuss about your feels and your preferences, but for anyone that watched the gameplays and follow the info about the use of D&D5e in the game and played DoS games it´s obvious that there are many differences in design, rules, mechanics, combat, lore, etc with other games from the same studio.

Other than the fact it uses the same lore and background history as the Baldur's Gate series and universe ?
If you only said it was not a BG continuation, that would be fair, BUT...

you are saying it is a DOS3, but with ZERO lore/concepts/names/characters from DOS and in the Forgotten Realms universe, with D&D characters, D&D abilities/skills !?

You can rationally say it is not BG, fair enough, but saying it is DOS3 is utter lack of thought.

Can you give us clear examples of what is the same as DOS in BG3 ? I will answer for you because I am not hopeful:
a) some visuals and textures may look the same to some eyes (I am not convinced) ;
b) similar camera angles and viewpoint ;
and c) some interactions with the environment, like a fire spell setting oil on fire.
Period.

There are a series of questions I ask over on the Steam forums every single time someone says BG3 is DOS3.

1. How many action points does it take to move?
2. How many action points does it take to attack?
3. How many rounds of cooldown would you need to wait before you can cast a fireball spell a second time?
4. Where in Rivellon is the city of Baldur's Gate located?
5. Who has access to Source in the Forgotten Realms?

Every single time I ask these questions I'm either insulted or they double down and never make any attempt to answer any of the questions. The answers are very basic and simple. No action points to move or attack because D&D 5E, and BG3 don't use action points whereas DOS does, there are no cool-down rounds for using spells and abilities, only spell slots, Rivellon is not the Forgotten Realms and Source is not a thing.

Of course, answering these questions always disproves the very premise that BG3 is DOS3 so no one ever answers them when they're also saying BG3 is DOS.

Just add... What D&D race of elves are plants?

that's because they aren't interested in a genuine discussion, they are only interested in satisfying and validating their frustration that the game isn't precisely what they want or envision. Honestly it's not even worth the energy acknowledging those claims.

Visual, UI, animations, camera, spellcasting, companion numbers, interactions with environnement, TB, banner (top of this forum), origin characters, character creations (visual), 1 act/maps (confirmed during the AmA), meetings with the companions, companions goal at the beginning are the same, ...

There are many things that LOOKS totally like DoS.
I'm not saying it's bad and not saying everything is exactly the same but many things taste DoS, the lore and the rules taste the FR/D&D but nearly nothing taste Baldur's Gate.

BG is not only D&D or the FR even if hearing/reading you, it looks it's the only things lots of players liked about it.

I most certainly can add that question! Thanks.



True, but asking those questions and getting that reaction is useful if anyone is new to the forum, or if they are new to the forum, to see where they truly stand on the subject.

Debates are just as much about convincing other people reading the arguments with your case as it is trying to disprove the other person's points.

That's because these so-called questions are silly and asinine. Saying BG3 is like D:OS is not even close to being the same as saying BG3 is 100% identical to D:OS. Nobody is saying BG3 is 100% the same as D:OS, because to say that would mean BG3 and D:OS are literally the same game. So your supposedly "brilliant" attempt at playing gotcha is in reality reductio ad absurdum.

So, what´s the % acceptable to disregard the "BG3 is DoS3" ?
Because we already know that the creature design is from the official D&D books of WoTC, the character creation and rule/combat mechanics are from D&D5e, The lore about ceremorphosis, ilithids, bloodwar and Baldur´s gate comes from WotC, there are no action points, cooldowns, free skill selection, it´s a different world with different lore, the story has nothing to do, different races (Dwarves, lizards, elves are very different in both worlds, mechanically and in lore), and I could be here until tomorrow...

You can discuss that BG3 does not feel to you like you felt with the previous games, I can understand that, but stating that the sword coast it´s similar to Rivellon or the previous DoS games to what we know about Bg3 is absurd.

So now Mass effect is now Halo5 because you have laser guns and shoot things?

Telltale´s Minecraft and the Minecraft sandbox are the same game because the characters and zombies look the same squarefaced guys?

Final fantasy tactics and Final fantasy are the same games because both have chocobos and dark wizards and look the same ?

The title of the topic is about the Baldur's Gate name.
Saying BG3 looks like DoS mean it looks more like DoS than BG

The only things that looks like BG in BG3 don't come from BG itself but from D&D.

Yeah, well, an ostrich looks more like an robin than a Whale, but don´t expect them to start flying south in winter.

It's worth noting that D&D illustrations have changed the look of things en masse over the course of the editions. It's a little silly to post 5e illustrations and say 'look! it's just like BG because this is D&D!'

There are a good number of people that didn't get attached to BG just because it was D&D, either.

I think you misread: The illustrations were to show that the game does not use the character designs of DoS games, not to claim it´s BG, tho. Two different discussions here.

The license is for 5e and the models look like 5e illustrations. Not sure why you would expect something different.

? I didn't say I did expect something different.

I don't necessarily agree.

The first three questions could be just a matter of using an updated rules system. Case in point, Icewind Dale 1 uses an adapted Advanced 2nd Edition rules, while Icewind Dale 2 uses D&D 3rd Edition rules. Both are very different editions of D&D; one uses THAC0, the other doesn't. One has race/class restrictions, the other doesnt. One has different XP/Level advancement per class, the other doesn't. I could go on, and list every difference between the rules systems, but yet it still FEELS like a continuation of the Icewind Dale series.

The last two questions could just be a matter of reskinning/refluffing; i.e. renaming city X to match Y setting. Or renaming ability or power X to fit in with Y setting.

The fact is, there are many who are of the opinion that BG3 doesn't FEEL like a continuation of BG; And this isn't necessarily about graphics. For example, I personally find that Pillars of Eternity I & II evoke the feeling of BG I & II more than than BG3 does.

The real honest truth is....none of us can truly argue either way on that, because what we 'know' right now is only a very small slice of the Act 1 experience. We know nothing of the full storyline tie-in to the first two games they have planned through and by the end of the fully released game. If you instead mean contextually about the engine/UI aside from graphics, then unless they add some kind of 'UI flavor' from the original games a bit by the end, then no, its not going to feel like BG1/2...but they've stated pretty openly they never intended to, and why. You can take just the basic statement Swen has stated a couple of times: "We want to innovate in the RPG genre"....or if you want a deeper dive, you can go back and refresh yourself on things stated in certain points in these 2 articles (ironically both involving Adam Smith for the pertinent comments):

https://wccftech.com/baldurs-gate-3-pax-east-interview-listening-to-fan-feedback-adding-raytracing/

https://www.mirror.co.uk/tech/baldurs-gate-3-writer-take-21600314

Certainly that doesn't mean everyone has to like or agree with it either, I think they're very aware and understand the other side of the coin there - just saying, they made their decision about what they were doing in terms of continuing/building on the engine and 'getting as close to PNP D&D as possible' approach they had built to date coming out of DOS2, to then start fresh with BG3 rather than being shackled to the gamestyle/gameplay of the prior games. At the same time they're moving forward with a different playstyle however, if you stay open to it....there are many times both in these two articles and in others as well where its clear that they definitely want to keep the ties and the nostalgia from the first two games and the events/characters from them alive in the new one.

Ultimately, we all have to wait and see what reality unfolds once we've had a month or two into final release to really have informed opinions either way though.

... And it´s also not very fruitful discussing about the feelings or what the word "Baldur´s gate" conjure up in each person.

Feelings about games are like noses: Everybody has their own ( besides Voldemort, I think).

Not even in each person. Sometimes it happened to me to dislike some game, book or a movie and come back months later and enjoy it. It simply wasn´t the right time or the right state of mind.

And therein lies the point. Different games have different systems, and D&D itself has evolved over the years as well to be different.

My questions are designed to stab the heart of the issue of whether or not a game is or is not the same as another game. They tackle game-mechanics, lore, setting, characters, level-design.

Between Dragon Commander, The Dragon Knight Saga, Divinity: Original Sin and Original Sin 2, they all take place in Rivellon and the lore is roughly the same but the mechanics are completely different between them. However, a lot of the people I ask these questions to are saying that BG3 is DOS3, or a clone of DOS2. Between Divinity Original Sin 1 and 2 they kept the action points and power skills, which anyone could do as they wished, whereas the Baldur's Gate games, the Icewind Dale games, and the upcoming Baldur's Gate 3 all are based on an already existing game with set rules and mechanics, setting, lore and characters.

The two are as different as night and day.

For that same reason, people over on the Steam forums actually make the argument since it's not Inifinity Engine and AD&D 2E as well as TB, it can't be a Baldur's Gate game, and they reject the evolution of D&D over the past twenty years while also defending Icewind Dale 1 and 2, despite them both using separate mechanics as you yourself pointed out.

My questions tend to draw out people's double-standards for what is and is not a Baldur's Gate game and they aren't even designed to do it. I first asked them in good faith to someone on the Steam forums because someone was saying there was absolutely no differences between DOS2 and BG3. Their reaction inspired me to ask these questions every time I see someone conflate the two games because they never, ever answer them. They'll give reasons for not answering them, or they'll insult me and double down on their original take, but no one who has said so has yet been able to answer me in good-faith how they are similar beyond a few aesthetics and TB combat, and even then they will not admit that the mechanics for how TB combat works can be different between games.

One person even made the claim that there is no difference in combat between DOS and Pokemon because they're both TB.

So, I'm quite comfortable continually asking these questions because I feel they cut into the heart of the matter, and a person cannot answer them in good faith while also saying DOS2 and BG3 are the same.

What carries over from D:OS games is primarily the MP/Co-op game architecture and focus, which remains in BG3. What carries over from the IE BG games is primarily the name and setting. The 5e rules aren't particularly similar to either game, though closer to the IE games.

I guess if you really don't like the D:OS game Co-op architecture, it will seem to override any similarity to the IE games.

This is an outstanding point....and there's kind of an inherent level of maturity and experience that has to go along with that in order for it to manifest itself too. There's a metric ton of people in the world today who are just conditioned to be jaded and closed minded about things, and in many cases, for all time....once they build that wall or slam that door, that's it - there's no going back.

But you can often surprise yourself - if you dare to have an open enough mind to do so.

It would not sell as well without the name. So that's a no from me.

There is this theory that reality isnt real but a construct of each individuals mind. I dont know how true that is but this thread would be a good example as evidence for that.

I cannot understand how people disagree when people say "BG3 looks like DOS2" when it so clearly does. The reason why is because Larian use the same network of tools to create the BG3 as they did with DOS2. And I dont have a problem with that, it would be a huge waste of time and resources to create new tools when the tools they have works perfectly fine for the job. But to deny this is the case because DOS doesnt have the same combat system as 5e D&D is mindblowing to me. This is like saying "IWD1 doesnt look like IWD2" because they used two different editions of D&D.

My viewpoint exactly. To me, BG3 looks like a D&D game, just not one that looks like it belongs to the BG collection. This could probably be solved by: A) modifying the user interface to look more similar to BG 1&2, and B) Reusing some of the classic symbols used in the older games (such as the casting symbol, etc). Ofcourse, when it comes to video games, I am not a fan of extreme tactical combat; if I was, I would play Fire Emblem or Chess. Whenever I play BG1-2, IWD 1-2, PoE 1-2, etc. I choose to mostly only control my own character and let AI take control of the other 5 party members (The AI in IWD 2 was amazing; it had like 8 choices per class, and they all worked as advertised). Because BG3 is going to be turn-based (with likely no option for RTwP), I imagine combat will involve me controlling my character and then pressing 'skip', 'unpause', or 'end turn' 3 separate times, but we'll see.

What I cannot understand why there seems to be a binary subject. If we make a line between BG1&2 and D:OS2 BG3 will sit somewhere in the middle. Where exactly I can't tell you right now. It runs on Larian's engine, and it is a Larian RPG. It also uses DnD 5e, and is set in DnD universe. There are also quite a few things which definitely weren't in D:OSs. There are quite a few things which were.

While it might not be what BG1&2 would like to see, it is also unlikely to look like D:OS3 to D:OS2 fans. BG3, for better or worse, is BG3.

I'm more of the line of thinking that goes with Plato's Allegory of the Cave. Reality is objective, but abstract. People make of it what they will based on what they see but there are many things that are real but outside of their experience so they aren't aware of its existence, or find the idea of its existence crazy because they've never seen it. Much like a shadow on the wall, you see the shadow and the shape, it may be large or it may be small, but something is objectively there making that shadow and it can be better or worse than what it looks like as a shadow. In order to discover the truth of what something is they'll need to explore outside of what they know.

As for the BG3 v DOS2 aspect, I persoonally have never said they don't look the same, aesthetically to a certain degree because BG3 is based on the same engine as DOS2. I also fully recognize that it's not a finished game and that they're more focused on making the game, the story and the mechanics work before they polish it up.

I find that the differences between DOS2 and BG3 (from what we've seen) far outweigh the similarities to the point that outside of a TB combat, a few placeholder assets and running on the same engine there is nothing similar between them.

Its "looks" are the biggest similarity, but that similarity is literally skin deep at this point.



Nah. Combat will be moving the character, using an action, whether to attack or cast a spell, a bonus action (class dependent) then ending turn. ^_^

I would love to not take an issue with this but my main problem is that DOS2 (and BG3) has visual noise and lightning that I find extremly unpleasant, so much so that I to this day am unsure if I will even buy the game. So the issue isnt so much that "BG3 looks like DOS2" but rather that I cant stand what DOS2 looks like. An example I could bring up was the radical jump from Fallout 2 to 3. They completly altered the franchise (which they didnt have to) but I think that Fallout 3 is a pretty good game

I hope that the changes occur that make you happy with the game, if not then I wish you the best in your gaming moving forward in whatever games you may enjoy.

Although incorporating FR/BG lore and continuing its story is enough to entitle Larian to use BG3 title, the similarities between BG3/DOS 2 are very obvious.

TB combat, 4 characters only, huge terrain exploration format, absence of day/night cycle, uninspiring art style with repetitive medieval ruins and generic statues and more recently speaking to the dead/animals. They are implementing everything from DOS.

The differences of verticality, cinematics and wider decision tree is something you would naturally expect from DOS 3 with higher budget.

It seems to me that Larian only knows how to make one type of a game.

*looks at Dragon Commander and the Dragon Knight Saga*

Right...only one type of game....uh huh.

A gentle reminder, the real-time turn-based with pause topic is here.

"There is this theory that reality isn't real but a construct of each individuals mind. I don't know how true that is but this thread would be a good example as evidence for that."

Ahh, and so you all begin your journey with Argyle, lost in the Mists of Leira! See not clearly but dimly, and know that knowledge is unknowable. Post well and often, safe in the calm of ignorance.

Where is Zandiwoop's Gate? I should like to visit that place ... if it exists at all.

I pretty much understood right away that this was a new story in the same world as BG ...which is Faerun.
I am personally happy to return to this world. It is my favorite setting.

Many may not have responded as well to another name, so it worked well as a draw. I don't feel it was deceptive as much as associative.
Since there has been no money collected and plenty of sample footage, everyone can decide whether or not this is a game they will like before they buy it.

As an old player, still around, I'm fine with the name. At this point most players seem to be looking back to BG 1 & 2 because those are known quantities. It's just as valid to be looking forward, as I imagine both Larian and WotC are to a series of games connected in some way to the city of Baldur's Gate. I'd actually like a subtitle in addition to the 3, to remind me of the focus of the game (although they could be withholding that for now because they don't want to reveal where the story is going), but I see the 3 as useful, just as the numbers are useful in TES titles, letting you know where Morrowind fits into the sequence of games. When we're playing BG IX the numbers will at least give insight into release, if not chronological, order.

This people proves yet again that you cannot agree on anything andwhat exactly it is that upsets you.
one will go on about graphics, the next about gameplay.

Fair enough about the characters. But I wasn't really talking about the character design. I was talking about the general art direction, the entire look and feel. Let me show you what I mean.

If you would show those screenshots to someone who doesn't know both games, I assure you he'd tell you it's from the same game and the same level/map.





And there is something about the graphic portrayal about all the characters and assets that makes it look like the exact same game, that just got some graphical updates.

But BG3 looks NOTHING like DoS, this is placeholder

It was irony but it looks the obvious is not obvious to everyone. I guess it's still time for BG3 to find his real own style.

The Problem with this comparison is that you brought up a screenshot from the very first livestream
You could have at least use June livestream or some footage from Panel From Hell to compare between BG3 and DoS2

It's the same creative minds recently coming off a very successful game. Similarities should not only be expected but welcomed. The problem here isn't with Larian's design choices, it's with the niche group that have a romantic idea of what Baldur's Gate "really means" and their irrational devotion to it. I'm hesitant to write that, since I am sure it will give rise to a fresh slew of indignation and I really don't have the wherewithal to engage. But whatever. Whine away.

The same engine, too. Similarities like this are to be expected. But people will see what they want to see and use it to justify the idea that "this isn't Baldurs Gate". Which is fine, everyone has their right to an opinion. I just get tired of hearing about it from people who have no interest in the game other than to criticize it.

Excellent comparative images! And this is EXACTLY my issue with the game as well. It's the style in which the environmental art assets have been drawn. It is indisputable that those assets (trees, rocks, walls, pillars, etc.) look exactly the same. And I am not at all convinced they are merely placeholders.

Now, the argument some of you have that "Yes, they look the same, but I'm okay with that because I loved D:OS2" is a perfectly valid argument. But it is equally valid and legitimate for those of us who hated the D:OS "look" to argue that BG3 should not have that same look.

The engine being the same is a completely and totally irrelevant issue. Many dozens of different games have been made with the same engine, for example Unity or Unreal, and those games do not all look the same even in the slightest.

OTOH there's also Divinity 2 and Oblivion, which have a certain similarity.

Anyway, I kinda get both sides of this; wrt the above screenshots, my feeling about them is more a case of "well they both look a bit like ancient Greece" and I'm left wondering if trying to make something different for its own sake might be the worse option. But it's really too early to guess how it's going to turn out and if whatever it is meets what are largely subjective expectations.

Congratulations, you have shown that two games use the same graphics engine and both have a quasi-medieval fantasy style.

I would be fascinated to hear how you would change the look of, say, the rock assets to make something which is CLEARLY Baldur's Gate and nothing like DOS 2.

Exactly as I said earlier about combination of medieval ruins and generic statues. This represents 90% of repetitive DOS2 scenarios.

Some months ago people criticized me when I said that Larian should aim for the Intro cinematic trailer portrait of color/look. Many people said it was ridiculous.

Now Swen gives an interview that they pushed the team to achieve the exact same goal.

The engine argument has already been refuted.

Didn't say I wanted it to look "Baldur's Gate." Just said I wanted it to NOT look D:OS. As I've stated repeatedly, I don't care what it looks like as long as it is NOT the D:OS look.

Let's see how things change as thing progress. The game isn't close to being finished yet and it makes perfect sense that they would use a lot of placeholder assets while they work on story, quests, characters and mechanics then polish it up later for visuals.

Just check the list of all different kind of games that were made with Unity to understand that you can nearly do what you want with your engine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unity_games#2020

For some reason this discussion begins to remind me of the intense disappointment I felt on landing at Orly in summer 1970. I had expected Europe to look more different, but the dirt looked a lot like American dirt, and the trees looked a lot like ... trees.

Fair enough. I'm willing to wait and see. But I just get this gut feeling that the game devs' attitude on this issue is: it worked for D:OS2, so it'll be just fine for BG3. But this just doesn't make any sense to me. You're not going to bring to the game anyone who wasn't already into the game because this game "looks" just like D:OS2, whereas you definitely will alienate anyone who disliked how D:OS2 looked.

If I was in Larian's shoes, i'd do the same. Their assets/style works and look great. There's still plenty more time for BG3 to find its visual identity, either through special effects or charater models, as Im sure some of those visuals are indeed placeholders. I just saying I dont mind the similar visual style. But some people will hate no matter what.

Its funny everybody seems to have forgotten Icewind Dale...it came out after BG1. Different developper, same engine, riding off on the success of a great game. It was an EXACT visual copy of BG, no one complained at the time, why now?

Im aware you cant please everyone, but my guess is there are way more people that like the D:OS style than people that dont. And I personally believe that using it for BG3 is a good move.

I think people are just way more critical of games these days. It makes sense, there's so much more available that it's easy to pick anything you see apart because options abound. The rise of the "we value your feedback" era really made it a thing, too. Especially when a developer emphasizes the desire to feedback, the criticism tends to rise astronomically and I think we see the cause of that quite often here. It presents this idea that anyone's voice can change the course of development, and people take that a little personally, and present it personally, too. There's good and bad in it, but when you start seeing so much "I don't like this, so it's objectively bad" replace constructive criticism, it tends to become just a bunch of boring opinions and pointless arguments.

The engine has NOTHING to do with how the game looks. Prey (2017) and DOOM (2016) also have the same engine and future-tech style (before the hell levels), yet they look different. Do you know how many games are built on the Unreal engine, for example? You wouldn't even know for most games, even if you played them, would they not advertise that! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unreal_Engine_games



That's a straw man argument.

In order for something to be eligible for fitting the 'strawman argument' definition, they'd need to take a quote of yours out of context to misrepresent it in a way that suits your counterargument while not representing what they actually meant with its context in its entirety. So unless Gt27mustang quoted someone's argument and twisted it to mean something else, I'm not sure that allegation is very accurate.

Play nice though, we're all here to discuss opinions on a thread, not to actively try to dismiss or invalidate other opinions just because they differ from our own.

Thank you 😊

Quick clarification. While Black Isle, the developer of Icewind Dale, was only a publlisher for BG2, they actively helped with development in BG1. It's not a very good comparison; Black Isle was already working with BioWare and Interplay on the other games, it wasn't a passing of the IP to someone brand new.

EDIT; clarity note; iirc Black Isle was part of Interplay, as well.

Icewind Dale was something like a copy of Baldur's Gate yes, and.you're right, no one complained about it because it was a new game builded on a game that players loved and that will become legendary.

Baldur's Gate had it's history, it's absolutely not the same. Many players won't care that much about the game if it wasn't called Baldur's Gate...
(That doesn't mean those players won't buy it or enjoy it)

I guess lots of players don't want BG3 to just be a copy of DoS. BG don't deserve to become a DoS-like.
Speaking about visual of course.

The number of people who like or dislike the D:OS look is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether liking/disliking the D:OS look is a deal-breaker for a person. BG3 and D:OS2 are supposedly two completely unrelated games. So one looking like the other is not even something one could or should expect. As such, if BG3 did NOT look like D:OS2, that's not going to alienate a D:OS2 fan. OTOH, for someone who disliked the look of D:OS2, it IS a turnoff to have this game have the same art-style look of a game they disliked. So Larian absolutely loses out by mimicking the D:OS2 look. And Swen and other Larian folks themselves have acknowledged as much by saying, in interviews back in February, that they are concerned about the criticism that this game looks too much like a D:OS game.

As for your BG-IwD comparison, it is apples to oranges. BG and IwD are BOTH D&D games and are BOTH using the exact same setting. For all intents and purposes, one (IwD) is a spinoff of the other. So those two games sharing a common "look" is to be expected and perfectly reasonable. There are absolutely no such connections between D:OS2 and BG3.

Sorry that Larian Studios didn't design every aspect of their game to cater to your opinions and only your opinions, I guess.

Don't worry The Composer, I'm not a native english speaker, I ďon't even understand what "strawman" argument means exactly. 😊

Didn't know that. The Interplay/Bioware//Black Isle trio was a bit confusing on who did what honestly.

It was, the three were so intertwined in those times. Totally understandable, I forget who made what sometimes :p

That's entirely a matter of opinion

Then leave them a little room and some time to prove that they can make something unique, maybe?

As for the BG-Icewind Dale comparo, I was going by a "different studio same look" argument. It worked back then, I dont see why it wouldnt today. Is one medieval fantasy setting really that different from another? Look at BG1: if you looked at the wilderness area and I told you it was the Grewhawk setting, could you have proven me wrong?

But I just explained why there can be no comparison there. BG and IwD (and one might even throw in Ps:T) were all part of the same family of games. But this is not true of the D:OS games and BG3.

Let me try it this way. Remember that D:OS Tactics game that Larian contracted out to someone else to make a few months back and then ended up canceling it? Well, that game sharing the same "look" as D:OS2 would have been totally okay. BG3 sharing the same "look" as D:OS2: not okay.

Dirt with millennia of history, though!

It seems like the complaint has thankfully gone away from the "BG3 doesn't look like a BG game" vein to one of "BG3 shouldn't look like DOS2." At least there is involves a clearer definition of terms. As for that argument, I am okay with it lookng similar to DOS2, since I loved that game. As you have expressed yourself, you didn't like DOS2 very much at all, which leads you to dislike the similarity. I can understand that. But I think we need a better argument than that (which you and/or others might have stated already. I haven't followed every last post). Ideally, a fresh new look that everyone (or a substantial majority) liked would be great, but that comes at the cost of time and money, and worst of all, is risky (since you don't know how the 'new look' would be received). For all we know, WotC might never have agreed to the deal if they didn't make it similar.

You made it pretty clear you didn't like D:OS2, so I wouldn't expect this to suit someone like you. But you have to admit, this is all a matter of preference.

Here's to help.

In debates, there are a few techniques that are heavily discouraged because they don't actually help the debate, but they are things that happen regularly, in politics, in forums, in sports or whatever.

1. The Strawman. A strawman argument is where a person creates a caricature of the opponents argument and make arguments against the caricature and not actually arguing against what the person you are debating is actually saying.

2. The Ad Hominym. This is a flat out rude technique. Basically you are insulting a person to discredit what they're saying. It's going "this person is a big doo-doo head and a doo-doo head couldn't possibly know anything about (subject)."

Since the settings of Rivellon and the Sword coast both have European-Plains&Seas&Mountains-medieval art (and that´s all they have in common) I fail to see why they should waste the time of designers and animators to recreate new models and textures for walls, rocks and brushes if they have them already; just because some people think they look like some game they do not like.

Maybe if we´re talking about character or creature design, I may agree, but let´s be honest, if a tree looks like a tree and a rock looks like a rock, I do not think they have to change the model so they do look like less "DoS2".

I think they can spend their time doing other things for the game.

Exactly

I believe this dates from a time when straw men were literal things that were used for e.g. bayonet practice and it was observed that it was easier to fight a constructed straw man than an actual person, hence the subsequent application in debating to an artificially constructed version of someone else's position.

Of course I could look up the precise etymology but that would be boring!

Ok. I don't think I made a caricature of any argument. My comparison was, I think, pretty fair and accurate.

No, you didn't. IMHO it was a reasonable comparison.

And that's the point. I shouldn't have to have liked D:OS2 in order to like BG3.

That's your opinion and preference. Others can and do have different preferences and priorities. I don't care for and don't want any voiceovers. Imagine how much else they could do with the game if they did away with voiceovers. In this vein, I would much rather they spend their time fixing the look of the game than so many other things they're spending their time on.

Actually, about 3/4 of the game engine was updated or rewritten, and in addition to graphics quality improvements, there were also some changes to file formats used to make assets easier to manage, etc. I'm not sure about the basic textures, but no models / icons / characters / etc are being reused* (textures would at least be looked at for quality vs size; as mentioned, even if entirely new a texture of a common rock is going to be relatively similar to an old texture of a common rock).


* Obviously during development there were a lot of placholder and reused assets, replaced as development progressed.

You should really label this message as "important" and use it as a banner of the forum. And share it in RPG codex and steam forums too.

Early Access will give people a better look at the gameworld. If some still think it 'looks' like D:OS 2 after that, the actual assets being different probably won't matter.

its irrelevant if the engine is rewirtten.

if you sticky that then people will find something else.

Wether or not the engine is the same is irrelevant, its the game you make in it.
This is just one point of contention people will pick up to complain about.

In reality it is not the FACT that the engine is based on the OS2 engine. Its that they dont like the idea that it isnt exactly how they imagined it in their head.
Almost any complaints about the game not beeing "Baldurs gate enaugh" are a smokescreen.
Theres no point adressing those arguments since they are all bad faith arguments.

you cannot win.

Indeed!

That's an extremely important point too - what we've seen thus far is both (a) just a sliver of even the Act 1 content by all accounts, and even then (b) anywhere from 3 to 7 months old by the time we get to experience any of it. Not saying what ends up being experienced will satisfy say kath or some others in the end, but the point being, our exposure and experience, regardless of which side of the fence on this issue you fall currently, is extremely limited at the moment.

Had similar experience but when coming to US. Some say seeing something on pictures isn't the same as seeing them inperson, but I feel it's the opposite. Places always look far more interesting through a lense.

In many cases I'd agree with you....but try coming back over and visiting Crater Lake in Oregon at some point in your life if possible - I'd be curious to see if you felt the same there. As long as you visit on either a cloudless day, or a day with blue skies and a few white puffy clouds, I've yet to see a photo that did justice to the comparative of seeing it with my own eyes.

Indeed!

Ah, but could the reality compare with my childhood memories (a different sort of lens)?

Thats good to hear. Another issue I think is that alot of the footage we see Swen constantly adjusts the camera and I'm one of those players who prefer the rigid isometric view. Like I didnt even know you could slightly adjust the camera in D:OS1 before you announced in the EE that the camera "now has full 360 movement" instead of whatever the original had. All comes down to preference.

Haha, so true! If you've never watched the movie 'Indian Summer' (excellent underrated movie from the early 90's, has Kevin Pollack, Bill Paxton, Diane Lane & Alan Arkin amongst others), do yourself a favor and find/rent it on Amazon or something. General premise is adults who go back and spend a week at the summer camp they grew up attending, and my favorite scene in that movie is when Kevin Pollack's character along with one of the female characters return to this lake with a 'dam', and Pollack just keeps going on and on and on (an on) about how "tiny" it all is, he doesn't remember it being so "tiny" etc etc....the female char just unloads on him finally and is like 'The dam is not smaller, ok?! Its the same size it always was!! *YOU* have grown up and gotten larger - deal with it!"

@Raze, thanks for posting this. This is actually quite informative if you are being authoritative with this information (as opposed to it being your opinion or guess).

Assuming this is authoritative, could you please explain why "... even if entirely new a texture of a common rock is going to be relatively similar to an old texture of a common rock"? This is a sincere question.

And also, are you confirming that all art assets (models, textures, whatever) for environmental objects and characters are/will be newly created specifically for this game?

Without wanting to sound like an ass, I think he means that a rock in Rivellon and a rock in the Forgotten Realms is quite similar.

Well, but that can be said for every video game, even across different game genres and different types of games. If a rock is a rock, then a rock in TOW would look exactly like a rock in PoE. Ditto Dragon Age v. Mass Effect; TES v. Fallout. Yet we don't see developers just simply copy and paste even these generic environmental objects from one of their game franchises into another. And in the case of my question, I go beyond just rocks or trees and specifically refer to such things buildings (i.e. walls, stone floors, pillars). And I don't see any rational justification for a stone pillar in BG3 to look exactly like a stone pillar in D:OS2.

As it has been said, they retouched everything. To what extent, it remains to be seen...

Its not the same rock textues tho.

its the same style. Because its the same studio.
If Larian makes BG3 it looks like a Larian game, its gonna feature some very catholic architecture and renaissance statues and tiled floors, Larian likes that shit.
Meanwhile if Obsidian were to make BG3 then it would look an Obsidian game, by which iw ant to say like absolute dogshit featuring ugly character that creep onto your PC

Hardly surprising these shots look similar really, if you pick pretty much the most generic fantasy location possible- An overgrown ruined fort. Stone walls, flagstones, steps, plants, etc. There’s places very much like this all over the Witcher games, Dagon Age: Inquisition, etc, etc.

Even with new textures, how different do you expect them to be? Granted, the bushes look the same and broken columns appear to be the same style, but you appear to have carefully picked out screenshots to make a point about the “entire look and feel” of the game.

How about a bit more of a challenge and try to match up something like this, which is just as much part of the “entire look and feel” as your examples?



As for there being “something about the graphic portrayal of the characters“, do you mean how DOS games have 3D cartoon characters with fixed facial expressions and don’t move an inch during dialogue, while BG3 has life like characters with fully animated dialogue and cut scenes roughly on par with major studio releases?

I think that's a little harsh. I played The Outer Worlds last year and it was a very, erm... graphical game. "Pretty" isn't quite the word I'm looking for, not unless teamed with "ugly" so I shan't go there. Its aesthetics were unconventionally appealing.

I thought artstyle and look wise Outer Worlds was great. Nothing I can complain about there. PoE1&2 looked phenomenal as well IMO.

I think it's a bit odd to complain about Obsidian game's look when they mostly build campaigns for other people's games. KOTOR2 is just as ugly as KOTOR1. F:NV as F:3. NVN2 as most games build on Aurora Engine (perhaps Jade Empire is an exception).

The complaint I often hear regarding Obsidian is them making characters instead of wifus, but that's less looks and more priority thing.

Oh, I wasn't complaining about it at all. I think they got the look and general vibe of the thing exactly right. There was something quite special seeing the lumpen shape of the Unreliable careering into a rather pretty night sky, the silhouettes of the cliffs and trees nicely framing the ringed planet in the distance.

I thought the characters looked okay too. I mean they looked individual and realistic so no complaints there. I did feel a bit sorry for the guy with the moon hat though.

There are many things on the screnshot that visualy looks or feels like DoS, especially the user interface.
I think the UI could give a more Baldur's Gate feelings instead of just another "DoS" UI like this ?

Do we really need that big mmorpg style action bar on the bottom ?
Is that big ennemy's HP bar on the top necessary ?
The portraits are something important in BG UI. Maybe they could be more important here with buffs/debuff not especially outside of it. The HP bar is under the portrait, couldn't the portrait become more and more red while your HP decrease as in the old BG ?
Can't those portraits be a little bit less generic and a be a little bit more beautifull ?

Can't they re-design the old icons to have a visual link with the old games ?

This is only a few little exemple I think about now but many things could be improved to looks more like what BG was.
Pillars of Eternity did it pretty well for exemple and there are many possibilities for BG3 to have it's identity.

UI is an exemple of things Larian could work on to pleased players that find nothing related to BG in BG3.

About UI I just add that it's actually very intrusive. There are informations all over the screen and I really think it coulb be better if it's lighter.

Until now I though it was a question of different perspectives, but right now I´m starting to think you´re just messing with the rest of us, guys

The UI in Dos2 is like this: Portraits in vertical in one side (Like in BG2), combat order in up and center, skill bar down below, quick menus in the bottom right,etc etc





And this was the UI in bg2. You know, with a big action bar in the bottom, the buff/debuff icons covering the important portraits, and no hp bar under the portrait (the hp bar was the coloured part of the portrait), portraits in one side, etc.




So. You want an UI that resembles the old games or you want an UI that is more likeable to you? because your description does not seem like the old games...

People are free to have their personal preferences, of course, but I agree that the PoE games are incredibly gorgeous. Easily the most beautiful artwork of all high-fantasy cRPGs (because I can only comment on those games). At the same time, D:OS artwork was hideous, as I've described it before, like fingernails on a chalkboard.

You really feel that the DoS 2 UI feels like BG's UI because portraits are on the side ?
Is that only a matter of position according to you ? That's very short.

I really try to do my best while choosing my words (especially in EN) but yea, in EXEMPLE the user interface of P:K, PoE or Tyranny suits way better to a game named Baldur's Gate to me (even wasteland 2 if you want an exemple with a totally different style).

The UI of BG3 and DoS feels like a mmorpg with many informations everywhere, big skills bar, informations and effects everywhere on the screen... There not only one side of the screen where you have nothing in front of the action.
It's very intrusive while it's way more sober in the old BG and suits better to "writing a story" in a RPg according to me.

That was just a clue that maybe, gives the feeling that the game looks more like DoS than that a Baldur's Gate game.

Nope, I`ve never said Dos2 UI looks like bg, please reread my post before start making derisive juzgements. I only said that your description of an UI does not match the old bg games and bg3 interface is different from the one on DoS2 too wink

I`m starting to think that for some people all looks like DoS games

I don't really have a problem with the 3, and to be totally clear I'm someone who played the originals on release, didn't care for DOS and skipped DOS2 (played the first hour on a ps4 and hated the control scheme, I realize that isn't a fair shake). In my opinion the story was an important aspect of BG but not a majorly important aspect. That said, I also do wish that Larian hadn't gone with the 3. It gives them more flexibility and freedom, while still meeting the (realistic) expectations of some of the old school fans like myself. It's pretty clearly a money grab in the era of sequels.

I like a previous post where it could be titled something like BG: <insert title here> so that you can communicate that this is something happening in the same universe and that fans can expect a certain amount of similarity between the two. Wasn't the story finished by the end of ToB? What was the canon ending?

All in all, I feel like the fairest and most balanced thing to do would be to wait for the game and then judge after that.

So the latest iteration of this thread is about saying the UI is not enough BG like and too much DOS like? Am I the only one who doesn't care about how the UI looks like as long as it's practical for the purpose of the game?

Well, I think it goes without saying that that's what most people would want. At this point it's a matter of what do YOU think is practical? Some people are also arguing about the overall design. Personally I prefer the older BG UI, but there can be improvements. I want to be able to mouseover conditions and know what they are without having to open up a character screen, for example. The BG UI also feels bigger to me, which I like. I tend to prefer to have abilities and spells behind an icon, like BG, otherwise it feels cluttered.

When the whole issue of 'this isn't a BG game' arose some months ago, I consistently tried to get some clarity on what the disappointed party meant. After a lot of back and forth, specifics started to emerge, one of which was discontent with the UI. So, at least there are some specifics being mentioned. That being said, I absolutely do agree with you. Moreover, older UIs tended to obscure more of the screen with unnecessary imagery and have less customization options, all while sometimes giving less information. The UIs of today don't look like the UIs of yesteryear for a reason.

Sorry to compare it to DoS especially but on the other hand, it looks many players here seems unable to imagine something else whatever we're talking about the UI, the colors, the textures and the models (i.e a rock looks the same in every games).
Whatever we're thinking, everyone compare BG3 to Larian's game and I guess that's not a problem here.

In ordrer to qualify my remarks, I give more details about the "mmorpg" style, the intrusive UI that gives nformations everywhere on the screen and that very intrusive UI.

I guess that could be something they work on to create BG3's own personnality. That could give on another visual feeling when you look at/play the game and getting inspired by games in which UI suits better to a story telling RP game seems a good compromise to me (i.e the old BG but also PoE, P:K and other more modern game...)

This was for the feelings that give the UI when you look at the game but there are many other exemple of (TB) games that needs nearly the same informations on the screen and have something really lighter, really less mmorpg and really more personnal.

No, you're not the only one.

On this I agree with you. I also like games to constantly keep updating and modernizing their UI with the player's QoL as the key consideration. As such I am all for newer UIs that improve QoL, or even just simply being a case of doing something better than how it used to be done. But at the same time it cannot be dismissed that for some group of people, UI "consistency" is very important to them for some reason, and they will even insist on holding on to an older UI that is not very functional over a newer one that is more functional just because they hate so much that it looks different. On the Beamdog forum there are a ton of people who love the EE versions of the IE games but with the exception of changes made to the UI. On the UI they are adamant that the old UI should not be changed even in the slightest. I am completely at a loss to understand this mentality, but it does exist among many people.

UI looks fine to me. Parts of it could be hidden, but I’d rather just have it designed to be readily accessible. There are so many spells and abilities in 5E, especially if you are a multi class caster. I’d rather have all my abilities displayed all together than needing to through and open a bunch of different submenus like POE.

I expressed my frustrations with D:OS2 UI, before. My issues with it come with functionality rather then looks - having customisable bars is good, but it takes too much tedious management to keep those bars up to date with skills switching, disappearing, items getting added/removed/used. Having an ability to set up a custom hot bar is good, but having to do that to make game playable is pain.

For the very same reason I hate Pathfinder’s UI with passion. It also requires maintenance to be useful, and with game demanding for you to swap spells before many encounters it just adds to already an extremely tedious game. Sure, Pathfinder has traditional skill selection, but abilities are just piled together and you need to manually expand skill and items tabs which adds more clicks hen needed. On top of that, buttons to expand those tabs and switch between spells levels are so small that one needs a Starcraft level of precision not to misclick - amount of times I had to reload the battle because and key moment I gave the unit order to move by accident is fairly high. Log is also rather lacking, and doesn’t function properly. Don’t start me on need to manually put every damn potion into characters item slots instead of being able to just assign it and have it refill automatically as long as there is available stock.

PoEs UI (especially PoE2) are fantastic. Portraits and skills set in the same area, clear distinction between skill types, easy to access to everything from the get go. Little mouse movement and little clicks required. I don’t recall misclicking anything. PoE2 log has even a neat log filter. And there is optional hotbar - it’s biggest fault is not being advertised well. I think it took me almost a full playthrough before I learned about it.

Outside UI functionality: Is your issue with D:OS2 that it is not Skeuomorphic enough? [squeal of joy. It took me forever to find this term].

That's fine. I just wouldn't expect newly developed games to hold on to a vintage UI look. The UI tends to be one of the more easily modded elements of a game, though, so a more vintage look is one that is likely obtainable at some point.

In all fairness, though, I looked over the UIs from PoE and PK, and they don't look archaic, or even vintage to me. I think they look fine, though I'm not sure that I care much for the nested window approach instead of having more functions immediately accessible. I see a good UI as a good balance between more functionality/accessibility and less clutter. I don't think these two criteria leave (or should leave) much room for a third, namely, artistic style.

Haha sorry but the skeuomorph and what I read on the wiki is a little bit too precise for me to understand all the subtleties.

I don't have a problem with that kind of UI BUT it's a very common UI you could find in any games, even in mmorpg. It doesn't translate any personnalities, you don't have any feelings about it. It's very intrusive on the screen if you compare to other games (even to XCom or the new Wasteland 3 to name another modern TB game) but it's functionnal and... that's all.

I think the UI of the old games and of new "old school rpg" aren't only design to be functionnal. UI is a part of what a player see on the screen and it can completely change the visual feeling you have about a game.
BG1/2 are old and outdated but i.e PoE, Wasteland 2 or Xcom wouldn't feel the same with a UI like BG3, whatever their functionality (which is probably one of the most important thing about UI).

As I said I don't have a problem with the actual UI but I'm a part of those that are dissapointed because """this game don't look at all like a BG game""" and I really think that a little bit more poetic/story telling and a more "Forgotten Realms" UI could be a good compromise for everyone.

I'll play the EA whatever is the UI but I really think this could be another "link" (or at least not totally another break with the feelings of the older games)

Given there's eventually going to be mod support after 1.0 release, would assume technically UI would be something that mods would be made to give options/variety. So if that ends up true, almost assuredly at least one person out there will make a UI skin/framework that looks similar to old school BG games.

I guess that is fair, but I think the UI has more than enough bits of flare to have a personality and avoid feeling sterile without it being overbearing.

I'm glad to hear you'll be playing the EA. I'm guessing 99% of the people who play the EA will be those who are already gushing about the game and at most have only minor issues with the game. So it's the feedback Larian receives from the other 1% that will truly help improve the game.

Unless what the 1% is asking for is not what the 99% want. Upsetting the 99% for the 1% is not a great way to build a game. If the 99% love it...don't change a thing. This is about money, after all, as is every other game. Even with all that aside...saying that listening to the 1% is how to improve the game is preposterous at best. Just because you are in the minority, or offended or angry or upset or let down, does not make you right.

That sounds doubly presumptuous. Just because someone is stoked for the game does not mean they their feedback will not help to "truly improve the game," nor does it mean that the other non-gushing, major-issue-seeing people's feedback will. If anything, I can see the latter bunch being heavily comprised of unreasonable malcontents who won't be satisfied unless their outlandish, impracticable, and/or extreme demands are met.

I don't get why you'd defend people who are excited and then take the exact same position you defended against on people who are critical. I promise being harshly critical doesn't mean someone is going to demand utter perfection in their own eyes - they'll just push for it because they want the game to succeed.

I know you didn't use absolute language, but this post came off as very disingenuous.

This is what is presumptuous.

Maybe I’m cynical, but presumptuous or disingenuous? I don’t think so. Most of the posters around here are excited, optimistic and positive. I don’t recall any one of them (at least among regular posters) who think everything is going perfect and have no valuable questions and opinions to add. On other hand, I have seen a good number of pessimistic and disappointed posters whose comments range from genuine questions and interesting feedback to extreme prejudice and petulant dismissals.

It was just the implication that someone who is critical will be unreasonable. I've been very critical of the game, but I'm not out here trying to crush peoples' excitement or telling everyone 'wokeness' is destroying D&D and its games. I get being upset at some people who are doing that, but they aren't really being critical, they're just here to spout nonsense.

Both sides are just as likely to have unreasonable expectations or make unreasonable claims. I just ask that you not start taking them as representative of the whole group - on either end.

I think your observations are pretty spot on. Not everyone is interested in seeing this game succeed, some people would rather just impose self-righteous baldur's gate-keeping on their rigid view of what makes a BG game and spend their time being offended at the very thought of Larian taking up the project. Just because people are genuinely excited for the game and have confidence Larian can deliver a quality experience doesn't mean those same individuals are incapable of being critical of the project, despite what some people think. But you're never going to get anywhere with the "extreme prejudice and petulant dismissal" types.

It's not the critical ones I am talking about. It's those with an axe to grind.

Yes, for some reason, EA doesn't tend to get a lot of players who go "I hate everything I've heard about the game, I hate the mechanics of the game, I hate the look of the game, I hate what I've seen of the characters in the game, I hate all the games made by this previous company, I hate that the rock textures remind of of a different game I hate, and the only way I would be happy is if they scrapped everything and redid it to my tastes, but I'm absolutely going to plunk down $60, no refunds for an unfinished game I don't like anything about".

However, as someone who has played the EA/beta versions of Larian's previous two titles, your ridiculous strawman along the lines of "All EA players are brown-nosing fanboys who are guaranteed to love everything and have no complaints" is not even remotely close to what actually happens. EA/beta are full of tons of complaints and suggestions for changes or improvements. Game design is iterative and rarely is everything perfect on the first attempt. That's why testing is done, that's why Larian does these EA releases.

I'd consider myself to be that 1%, but I don't think I'm unreasonable. I'm coming at it as a BG fan, not a fan of DOS and have a few things that I'm curious and concerned about. I figured that as a very longtime fan of the original games I'd have some critiques but I don't think I'm impossible to please either. The type of player that hates absolutely everything about what they've seen probably won't be that involved.

Overall, it depends how much you care about the artstyle of the originals.

Larian clearly is not following the the subtle and monochromatic UI that BG had. It is just a bunch of colorful items, lines and bars.

That does not mean that originals' UI could not be improved or be more functional but it certainly could be more cohesive with the series. In that sense, even Bethesda was more cohesive in Fallout series.

So here is where I learned this term:
https://youtu.be/F0RW3upLoJI?t=870
On UI: 14:30, On Skeuomorphic UI: 15:20

In some ways old UI was far more invesive. But I felt to projected the feel of world better, then D:OS2 which is... abstract? Gamey?

That is an amazing video, thanks for posting. Monochromatic and skeumorphic was the artstyle the originals went for. Whereas Larian was "gamey" and colorful.

The original was more intrusive in the sense they took more of the screen (and I agree we do not need a U shaped UI), but was cleaner in the playable screen without the projected bars, percentages and lines.

I understand where Emriko is coming from completely and I'd have to agree with this. And you don't see it nearly as much on these forums from what I've experienced thus far, as elsewhere (thankfully). To some extent regardless of what angle of approach you're coming from, you have to come into these sort of things understanding the balance between what's likely to or has a reasonable chance for change and what's definitely not going to change. There's a fine yet defined line between truly constructive feedback, and beating the same drum repeatedly as an agent of chaos because choices were made that the person doesn't agree with. And so no one misunderstands what I'm saying: this isn't in any way, just like the point Em I believe is making, to say there's any issue with anyone expressing their feelings about the greater 'BG game' debate at large. But there's a difference between simply and constructively saying that and doing so in a rational/mature manner, and bringing up the same thought ad nauseum, interjecting it wherever possible. That's when it starts crossing the line from being just simply an expression of opinion, and becoming something that becomes counter-productive to the overall objective of constructive discussion and feedback for the overall community at large (and the atmosphere it takes place in).

For Annyliese: This kind of subject is exactly why I said what I did in response to your post the other day too. Constructive criticism and feedback presented in the proper manner is refreshing, and a healthy thing long term for the game and the community's gaming experience in the end...and to my mind input such as that should be positively reinforced whenever possible from anyone. And I'm sure Larian likely feels the same way. But I can definitely understand Em's angle on this as well, having seen more than my fill of it as of late.

Disclaimer: the above is in no way any commentary on the greater 99%/1% thought process or debate therein from where this tangent sprung - just simply reinforcing the specific thought here.

I think you're right in a way but do you know what criticism those that looks to hope BG3 will fail always say ? Something like "This game is not Baldur's Gate".

As everyone here on the official BG3's forum, I have great hopes for this game. Only the name of this game means a lot to me because BG is the best video game experience I had in my life. It absolutely defined all my tastes for video game. It's my top 1, and every RPG in a way were compared to it because it is the ultimate RPG experience to me.
(That doesn't mean it's absolutely perfect)

I'm clearly not alone thinking like this. Everywhere on forums, reddit, social media,... Whatever is their feelings or their opinions, there are many people talking about BG3 only because it's BG.

Reactions arround the game are very different. Some had already forgotten BG3 because it's TB. Others are waiting to see, other hate it and consider Larian/WoTC had betrayed the video game licence for a reason or another... Many others still hope to see a great RPG that will meet several expectations that suits the unbelievable experience they had with Baldur's Gate for the last 20 years.

I'm one of those and that's exactly why I'm here and why I'll play the EA.
I absolutely don't want a "copy" of the older BG.
I really love many fresh and interresting mecanics of DoS1/2 but when I hear about BG3/Larian, I really hoped the game will meet their awesome mecanics with the experience Baldur's Gate was.

It's a matter of taste but whatever you expect and love this new TB game, this new D&D5 game, this new awesome party based RPG or something else... There are still many people that are dissapointed for a reason or another. I know it because I'm talking about it a lot with many people on other forums, reddit or social media.

I think lots of little things could meet the expectations of many more players and that's why I'm here, trying to give a constructive feedback.
I don't deny that sometimes, the emotion is great because people here tend to love the game and don't want to talk about any changes (that's absolutely normal on the official forum) but also because in french we would say something like : this game walk on eggs...
According to me it will be a great RPG but it could be the end of something... Or it's ressurection.

Maybe I'm too optimistic, maybe I'm not a target for the marketing division of WoTc and/or Larian but I think it's still time to gather more people arround the game instead of dividing them.

I guess no one will read that

Haha. Making a false strawman claim by pushing a strawman yourself. Nice.

A strawman is when you make a up a false position for your opponent and argue against it. Your position is this:



I'm not seeing much, if any, distortion of your position on my end.

It is complete distortion, with a bit of ad hominem attack thrown in too. But I have no interest in arguing this or anything else with you.

To be fair a creature or player character of D&D5e would have more options than one of 2e and there are more mechanics in place in the game than in the old IE games so that would require a more complex UI than before.

That said, a skin that would be related to the style of previous games would be welcome, but an UI that gives the best functionality and the most info on screen should be the priority to make the combat more enjoyable.

It was not clear in the previous gameplays, but I hope that they UI (specially the spell UI) would let us get some kind of customization so you can group and move your spells. Maybe a fav tab with the spells/skills you use more often.

I really missed the "quick casting" UI used in games like NWN2 in other recent modern games like Stygia, Mordheim, Tyranny or Pathfinder. It´s a little clunky at high levels when you have a lot of spells/skills to choose from.

I have no problem with people who feel like any game isn't to their liking, even if I like the game. I also have no problem with people outright hating on a game I enjoy, so long as they can explain their reasoning well and give proper, constructive criticism of the game.

Preferences are things everyone has. Just like butt holes, everyone has one and they'll always stink at some point or another. ^_^

I do like to add in my input here and there and I do enjoy online debates because it helps keep my mind sharp and I may learn new things from people I'll likely never meet.

However, there are a few things that I feel should definitely be addressed, and I feel it applies to the whole BG3 v DOS2 discussion. There are several key differences between what has been shown for BG3 and what is in DOS and DOS2. It's also important to note that BG3 is not even close to being done so not all the aesthetics are final, and they may change significantly during early access, which is something that did happen with DOS2.

I like to use this analogy. A person says they like lemon cake, I say awesome. A person says they like chocolate cake, I say awesome. A person says "I like that lemon cake" while pointing at a chocolate cake makes me raise an eyebrow and go "that's not a lemon cake, it's a chocolate cake with lemon frosting." It looks the same but it's not the same at all.

That little bit of frosting is as much a part of the cake as the cake itself, and for some people that aesthetic and slight taste of the cake can ruin the whole cake for them and they can't get past it. But then there are the people who absolutely insist that the chocolate part of the cake is most definitely lemon and you simply cannot tell them otherwise.

For many, the frosting is no big deal, it's the cake sponge itself that matters. For others they haven't tasted that sponge yet but are judging the whole cake by the appearance and color of the frosting and determining if they like it or hate it. For others they take it as a whole, like some parts of it and dislike others. Maybe the flavors work well but there's a few bubbles of air, or the cake didn't bake fully and is still slightly gooey on the inside.

I feel this analogy applies to the discussion I've read so far. I, for one, am looking forward to tasting this "cake" of a game and seeing how it works out, and hopefully help make it the best "cake" it can be.

Agreed. But I don't think it is too hard to balance a functional UI with skeumorphic/monochromatic look.

Thanks that is very very interresting.
Hope Larian had/will have such an analyse while doing their game because it catch very interresting points about what people liked in the old games (and why they liked it).

man the UI, now weve hit rock bottom.

the Infinity engine UI is awfull. Blatantly.
no it doesnt look "integrated into the world" at all. Its just bad. i dont want to need 3 clicks to cast a spell

I think rock bottom is "those random rocks don't look like Baldur's Gate rocks" and asking for the developers to change them.

It's dated. Takes too much space and covers too much of the screen. U shape isn't necessary with higher resolution screens. Still, there is some functionality I wish Larian would borrow - or even better, from updated PoE2 design. I doesn't need to look the same. Just let me play the game, without having to spend 10 minutes sorting and assigning skills and items to the hot bar.

I find it odd that people say a game does or does not look like Baldur's Gate. Any game, no matter who the developer is, would be using modern graphics and technology so there won't be hand-drawn, 2-D, 8-bit Infinity Engine graphics or UI.

If it wasn't Larian, it would be Obsidion, Owlcat, or maybe none of them and we would't be getting a sequel because Wizards of the Coast would say no to each and every one of them. If it was one of them, it would still be following D&D 5E rules because that's what Wizards of the Coast want.

I honestly feel if another company was making BG3 the complaints wouldn't be "they're just remaking Divinity" but instead would be "They're trying to copy Divinity!"

Obsidian and Owlcat games (whatever they're TB or not, or both) are way closer to what BG1/2 feels and looked like and they also use more modern graphics and technology.
I don't think lot of people asked for 2-D and 8-bit infinity engine graphics or UI, even if that's something lots of you seems to think.

I guess if one of them was chosen by WoTC, whatever the rules, no one would even think about DoS.

Agreed. I think P:K is the most BG-like game of the modern era, for example. I wouldn't think of DOS.

But WotC did choose Larian. So it might give an incentive as to where they want the licence to go.

God damn it stop lying.

I love Pathfinder Kingmaker, i love it for one particular reason: Low(er)poly Models with Hand drawn textures.

You know what that DOESNT look like? Baldurs Gate.

Infinity engine games are the exact opposit of that, youd know that if youd be in any way interrested in the process of how this stuff gets made.
The infinity engines sprites were pre rendered.
that means that they could use higher fidelity 3D than any PC at that time cold render in real time and turn it into sprites. Some of the infinity engine stuff might be Handdrawn, im looking at IWD 1 here but i might be wrong.

Either way for readabilitys sake, The infinity engine games featured "high poly" base meshes with limited colour schemes to make them easier to read. So youd have relativeley big surfaces with the same "colour" , only variations in shading that was rendered.

Pathfinder Kingmaker is the exact opposit.
it uses Low poly (by todays standards) 3D models but hand paints the shadows on it. Lots of Kingmaker models look a bit like a beautifull mess when you look at em from a zoomed out perspective, when you zoom in you see the intricacies of the textures, some realy nice colour blending going on, realy neat hand painted shadows.

Not only is the process the opposit of one another, the stylistic choices are the opposit aswell.

Baldurs Gate and infinity Engine games go through readiability but high "fidelity" before baking it into sprites. Meanwhile Kingmaker is more like expertly painted warhammer miniatures.



Its hard to put these things into concrete terms, but TL;DR: youre wrong.

Larian, with its appeal to photorealism, is much closer to the original Art direction of the infinity engine.
that is high fidelity 3D with easily readable colours and photorealistic palettes that leave the colour variation to the in engine shading.


it just aggrevates me when you people are constantly saying things that are so blatantly wrong to anyone that even takes a cursory glance at what youre talking about, just to shit on something you hate out of principle.

I agree with the first part of what you said. As for the second, all I can say is if WoTC had chosen them instead of Larian, a lot of people would have thought about DOS, as in, "why oh why didn't they choose to use a game like DOS instead of PoE?" And I think WoTC had the foresight to avoid being in the position of having to ask themselves the same question.

But they're NOT D&D 5E, which Wizards of the Coast wanted BG3 to be. D&D 5E has class features that are reliant on a TB combat system. The entire system would have to be reworked from the ground up for practically every single class to move away from a TB combat system.

Which means that it would no longer be D&D 5E.

Maybe someone could have made it amazing, maybe not, but as of right now Divinity: Original Sin 2 is the current king of the crpgs, Obsidion and Owlcat have acknowledged that they relied too much on the nostalgia train.

Pillars of Eternity 2 had a lot of kickstarter support but flopped in sales. Pathfinder: Kingmaker sales went up AFTER a TB mod was made, then they patched in TB mode because of its popularity.

I honestly think if Wizards had gone with either of them, it would still be TB, because DOS2 did so much better than either P:K or PoE2.

Again.
no.

Im not gonna let this slide.

Pathfinder Kingmaker looks less like an infinity engine game than BG3 does.
Im not letting this slide on principle.
you people need to stop repeating untrue nonsense.

Yes - Larian had the experience and the success with an already working TB game. I think WotC is very careful about wanting BG3 and other D&D games to reflect back on the tabletop experience. Larian also has the sales history and now a larger fanbase. Though I really enjoyed P:K more than DOS, I don't think there was any chance of WotC going with Owlcat or Obsidian.

This is blatantly false. To the contrary, the general consensus is that P:Km demonstrated that there still remains a strong market for RTwP cRPGs.

And DA:I did even more better than D:OS2. In fact, the sales gap between D:OS2 and P:Km is small compared with the sales gap between DA:I and D:OS2. And don't even think to try and tell me DA:I doesn't count for blah blah reasons. It absolutely does count as a cRPG in the same genre.

Sorry to interrupt but this is the third time someone mentioned the sales of DoS2 in two days(the other two not from this forum)
From where did you guys get the sales of DoS2?
Did they mention it?
Because I can it find anything about it

Can you please explain me how you think the sales of a game is defined by it's graphics and UI ?

Because that's what we (you) were talking about and what you were answering to. Stay focus.

Amen!

I do not know the exact sales, but DoS2 is over a million copies worldwide, with a revenue of more than 85 million.

https://wccftech.com/divinity-original-sin-2-85m-revenue-2017/

That article states the 85 million was the revenue for 2017, at least as far as the title says ("Divinity: Original Sin 2 Generated $85M in Revenue Last Year According To SuperData Research." The article is dated Jan 30th 2018).

Back on track


The old IE UI was beautiful but does not cut it for modern videogame standards (unless for mobile apps). Not only that, three clicks to cast a spell? the space for multiclass habs was a mess ( cleric-thieves, everyone?), etc.

I think a retro skin would be salvageable, but a game with (somewhat) complex rules needs an UI that handles lot of interact and combat options and also offers info without cover too much screen.

About customization, I prefer just the opposite: I want to be able to customize the bar to my liking for easy access to the skills/spells/items I want.

In games that handle that automatically, like Dragon Age or DoS, my action bar is usually a mess and I like to keep it tidy and functional if possible.

Yes, and this is the only thing I know
DoS2 sold over 1 million copies in six weeks
and generated $85M in revenue
That is it
and that is all from the first month of 2018!
which is like 3-4 months from the release of DoS2
But now we are in Sept 2020
So I thought with all the mention of DoS2 sales, maybe there was another source(recently) that I have overlooked

When I went digging recently, I found this site....while it doesn't delve into any sales revenue figures, it estimates the total number of people who've purchased/played DOS2 at 2.7 mill as it relates to Steam tracking (which doesn't include GoG/other PC sources, nor console sales on the 3 platforms there):

https://playtracker.net/insight/game/1067

I dont understand what version of D&D has to do what the game looks like. If PF:K ran 5E it would look identical except for some minor UI adjustments.

I would pick the Divinity Engine over Unity engine used in Pathfinder:Kingmaker, Tyranny and Pillars of Eternity 100% of the time.

I'm not sure if it's the engine or the developers creating the games in them but every game I've played with the Unity engine had garbage optimization, controls felt clunky and God... the loading screens were horrendous.... Pillars of Eternity was an enjoyable game but the loading screens, especially in multi-floored buildings completely wrecked my immersion. I also felt the worlds were too small, combining that with the constant loading screens made me feel disconnected with the world whereas Divinity Original Sin 1/2 had a (semi) open world experience that not only felt bigger than the other games it also was an immersive experience.

I'd rather see the developers work together in the Divinity Engine, building a story and perfecting it, than having to deal with another poorly optimized buggy game created in Unity.

Given the feedback about changing the UI in DOS2, I would hope that this time round it'll be fully moddable. I have no idea whether or not this will be the case, but it'd certainly be a nice-to-have.

Aside from the character and monster models in the Monster Manual looking exactly like what has been shown off so far, not much, but BG3 is being made from the same engine as DOS2, which will likely be have enough changes at the time of final release so I fail to see the point of complaining about it now. Aside from aesthetics in a few graphics and assets, nothing about BG3 and DOS 2 are remotely similar. In UI, in-game mechanics, setting and lore or characters.

I look at the mechanics and story of a game a lot more than I look at graphics or UI until it gets closer to final release. Any issues I may have in the early access, I can report to Larian and be done with it. I'm not expecting a finished product, or even the graphics as it stands now to be the final graphics. I can look at DOS2 footage on youtube from early access and boot it up and play it now and see huge differences in graphics, gameplay, UI and other features.

If Owlcat were making it, and used the same engine for BG3 as they did for Pathfinder: Kingmaker, and it went into early access, I expect we'd have the same complaints. "It looks too much like Pathfinder Kingmaker. They are clearly using the Baldur's Gate name to do a quick cash-grab." Same is true for Obisidion and if they used Pillars of Eternity's engine.

Let the finished product be the metric we base the game off of, not pre-release, beta footage and gameplay that will change as development continues.

Remember, Pathfinder is an offshoot of D&D, based off of edition 3.5, so monster models in Pathfinder would be entirely reliant on its version of D&D, and different from earlier or later versions.

The UI already changed from the video today and is looking little better

I am deeply amused that for the entirety of this UI debate the UI being debated was already obsolete and changed. 😂

The new one is a big improvement.

ED: Yeah, the UI really changed. Seems the other one was a placeholder.





I respectfully disagree.
The Character and creature design, armour, weapon, etc and possibly the world would be different because Paizo´s pathfinder has a very (very, very, very very very) different style in the artwork than D&D, and, like in any edition, the artwork changes with every installment of the game.

The setting would determine the looks of the world. It´s not the same playing in the lush forests with the proud knights of Lastwall in PF1e than in the dark, undead infested lands of Lastwall in PF2e, the same the game look very different if we´re playing in the Sword coast, the snowy mountains of Icewind Dale or in the plane city of Sigil or the gothic-oriented lands of Ravenloft.

Also, different combat mechanics and rules need different UI.

Not counting the fundamental differences there are with the way they do things in Owlcat and Larian, something @Sordak already exposed, that also would make a D&D game made by Owlcat look distinct



etc etc

So, If they want to make a faithful representation of the TT game the videogame is based to, the edition and the TT game would make the game look very different indeed.

Yes, and it will more likely change even further. Still, if players express their worries then Larian can address those, if they find it appropriate. If D:OS2 UI was blameless I wouldn't worry, but I had quite a few issues with it, and I would like those to be addressed in BG3.

Yup. Maybe the UI was changed precisely because some people spoke up. So the UI debate is most certainly not obsolete.

The new UI is really better than what we saw before.
I still have little concern about it but it's a positive improvement. I'll wait to see how it works/other elements before thinking about it again.

This is good job.

Possibly, but unlikely. Larian isn’t slapping together those community videos in a few days. If they are showing off a new UI it would be a safe bet that what they are showing was rendered and approved at least a month ago.

Either way, new UI is much better and this probably won’t even be its final iteration.

Speaking of UI. I dig those one screen dice rolls and modifiers from newest Solasta trailer.

https://imgur.com/SH73w4n

But Icewind Dale looks like Baldurs Gate. Are you saying because of the snow textures it doesnt? Its like, yea in 5E there are no areas with forests, plains and mountains so I guess it would be impossible for Owlcat to create the Stolen Lands but with a different name. Also, your arguement that Paizo and WotC use (not a very very very very very) different art style doesnt make sense because Owlcat would've still been Owlcat and they wouldve used the same engine and artists.

Uh, Icewind Dale and BG are based in the same edition of D&D: 2nd edition. but if you say that IWD looks like BG to you despite the snow theme and the terrain and building design, I think I have nothing more to discuss. That would be pointless.

What is the right word in EN to say that ?
IWD is a BG-like... It looks like saying IWD looks like BG is a mistake according to you... Exactly when some said that PK and PoE "looks" more like BG1/2 than BG3.

Maybe he should have say "IWD feels like BG" not for you to say he's wrong ?

Real question because I totally understand what he mean but you seem not to.

What I do not understand is what has to do IWD and BG if we were talking about different editions of D&D (or different TT games) and if they change the way a game looks.

Fascinating. Does anything look the same to you? Give me an example if so.

Yeah, your ability to change the topic to another unrelated one when you do not have arguments to refute always look the same to me.

I thought we were talking about the similarities of video games. Its a topic that can be expanded to lots of things, like music or any kind of art. I dont think I've pivoted, my initial arguement was that I dont think changing the ruleset from 3.5E to 5E would at a fundamental level change how the game looks. You and I seem to have a extremly large difference of opinion when it comes to "sameness" in aesthetics.

That´s why i said it would be pointless.

Your example for a change of edition from 3.5 to 5e are two games, BG and IWD, made by the same studio, based on the same edition of D&D2e, in two places of the same setting (Forgotten Realms), made roughly in the same years, etc. It would be a surprise if they do not have similarities.

I fail to see how those are related to the topic, to be honest.

Its the same engine and the same rendering style, the same time period , by the same developers.
Of course it bloody looks the same.

However. Lets jog your mind. What game made today looks lke this?
Solasta doesnt, Kingmaker doesnt, Black Geysir also doesnt. None of them do.

Not even ToEE looks like this. Nothing does because the "look" is specific to the way it was made.

You cannot achieve this lookw ithout beeing pre rendered and having sprites.

At this point, you migh taswell say Warlords Battlecry 3 is a better successor to Baldurs gate because it looks closer.
Which it does.

Yeah you're right, the game you named had absolutely NO similarities in their look or "the feeling you have playing them" with the old IE games...
Are u blind seriously ?

All those games are at least as far removed from infinity engine games, visually, as BG3 is.
Besides warlords battlecry 3 that s. whicha ctually looks pretty simmilar...

Really ?
What about the camera view (/angle/rotation) and/or isometric/3D ?
What about dialogs ?
What about the way the UI is designed ?

That's just 3 "little" exemples that comes in mind... Do we have to enter the details...? Or maybe you want less obvious exemples ?

A visual look is not only about colors, models or textures...

EDIT : I have to admit I didn't look a lot at solasta atm... maybe you're right about this one, idk.

Think of it this way, lets say you show a screenshot of the wilderness of Baldurs Gate and another of the wilderness of Icewind Dale to someone who isnt familiar with the genre. My guess is that they would think its the same game except in the snowy screenshot the party has travelled to another area up north.

If you do the same thing for the other games you've listed it becomes quite clear that its not the same. All modern games cRPGs are inspired by the Infinity Engine games and thus will emulate certain elements and visual styles. To say a game from 1998 doesnt look like a game from 2018 is absolutly true, for obvious reasons, but I dont think its a stretch to imagine if BG was made in 2018 it would look kinda like PoE and PF:K.

And the visual style of D:OS stands out in this regard. Atleast from my perception.

Yeah, well, if BG3 was looking like PoE, people would complain it looks like PoE. Don't you guys see it's a never ending debate which leads pretty much nowhere? We know how the game looks by now, some gamers don't like it, some do, like for every single game on the planet. It can't be helped. Let's move on now, shall we?

It's a bit like expecting modern DOOMs to use 2d sprites. It's nice of budget retro-shooter, but it won't make the cut if you want to attract more people then those remembering the originals.

Can't we just enjoy this as a game on it's own rather than overzealously comparing it to it's predecessors? I fear the die-hard Baldur's Gate fans will downvote BG3 into oblivion because it may not fully align with what they expect from a Baldur's Gate game.
Larian Studios is currently the biggest(?) studio that creates RPG's like this at the moment and toppling this studio just because BG3 isn't close enough to it's predecessors will only hurt the genre as a whole.

The only reason I bought and even came across games like Pillars of Eternity and Pathfinder: Kingmaker is because DoS lured me into the genre and I can imagine a whole bunch of people bought those games with a similar backstory as mine.
I would say the successes these games brought is something this genre desperately needed, as it's not just Larian Studios profiting from it but other studios as well and this opens up the possibility of new studios popping up to create games in this genre because of it's successes.

I'm not saying that the entire genre dies out if Baldur's Gate 3 fails to deliver, but it certainly doesn't help as we're not exactly swamped with choices in this genre in the first place.

This situation is in a way comparable to how the Zelda games evolved from NES to current-gen, even if I don't enjoy the newer games as much as I did the one's on (S)NES, they're still good games on their own and rightfully so have earned their stripes.

Fear not, this game will be a massive success.

It carries the name of one of the most important franchises in crpg and probably has the biggest budget in IE-like games, so naturally expectations are high.

I imagine Dragon Age 3 possibly had the highest budget of any IE-like games. I hate that game so much.

With the cinematics and scope of BG3 I imagine it can be higher, although Bioware may not be the wisest in managing finances.

I was not even considering DAI an IE-like game

Not sure anyone consider Dragon Age as a IE-like game anymore since 2011 (release of DA2)

Yeah, they have strayed pretty far, but the essence is still there. Custom protagonist in a party based epic fantasy RPG that mixes (ostensibly) tactical combat with a player driven narrative experience. DA has a bit of an identity crisis where it is trying to appeal as both a tactics game and an action game, and in my opinion ends up being a poor demonstration of both. That and I feel modern BioWare RPGs are more about your companions than they are about the actual story, which wouldn’t be so bad but for me not liking most of the party members.

Still, I would still considers the series in the same lineage. Bloated and inbred, but related.

Its not. Dragon Age is more of a predecessor to games like The Witcher.

That's personal opinion. I certainly consider Dragon Age to be very much a part of this genre, and I love the DA games, even DA2. And DA:I sold over 10 million copies.

The first Witcher game came out in 2007. Dragon Age Origins was 2009.

Witcher games are single character action RPGs. DA and IE games are party based RTwP games.

With you on that one. DA games are definitely an evolution of the formula, and by the developers of BG to boot. Even if many don’t like the direction they took with it, it seems weird to suggest it somehow doesn’t count in discussions about the genre.

I like them too, but I do have criticisms about Inquisition in particular. More about quests and world design than mechanics though.

Oh sure. I have my own criticisms too. In DA:I, their need to fill the space of an open world with something resulted in far too many pointless trash fights. But overall, I still liked the game, still replay it, and am looking forward to DA4.

I disagree with the concern that this will backfire. I think there are plenty of old school Baldur's Gate fans (like myself) who understand that this is an entirely different game and love it for that. If I want to play BG 1 and 2 I can go do that. I'm super excited to play 3 for the style it is. Variety is a win! And as an old school player who's been following the BG story (including playing the Descent Into Avernus bridge between BG2 and BG3) im extremely excited to continue the story!

Really? I stand corrected, why do I feel like DA is like an oldschool game.

But I would still maintain those games are within the same subgenre which is distinct from IE inspired games.

It still is old school in my opinion, it still came out over 10 years ago. And while it was perhaps an 'in the spirit of' evolution game into 3D from the old IE engine games, I too agree there's a distinct separation in my mind between those and what DA represents.

If a game being 3rd person instead of isometric or having modern 3D graphics makes it distinctly different from the IE games, then that means BG3 itself is distinctly different from the IE games.

The DA games are story-focused, single-player, party-based, high-fantasy cRPGs. They are in every way a part of the same genre as the IE games, just simply newer.

Thanks for the movie tip! It sounds like one to keep in mind.

Eh...I'd argue that as subjective perspective though from a holistic view, not one in which either angle of view is necessarily right or wrong - the DA games have both similarities and differences to what came before them. While there may be stylistic carry overs intended in gameplay and basic constructs in the DA games, you're still dealing with a completely different game engine, IP/content set in a completely different fantasy universe, etc. As Dagless said before, it's more of an evolution to what came before.

To your last point in the first line, I also wouldn't argue that BG3 isn't different to varying degrees depending on the contextual angle of approach, from the IE games as it relates to game mechanics, because of course it is going to be compared to the older games on that measure alone just simply due to the fact that it will be a modern game using a true D&D turn based rules based implementation (or as close as they can get to it).

You're quite welcome - I've always felt it was one of those 'lesser known/underappreciated' movie gems.

I under stand both sides of the argument but you guys have to remeber that the ORIGINAL baldurs gate 3 which was called Baldurs gate 3 the black hound had nothing to do with the bhaal spawn what so ever in the saga you can check out screen shots and some other small tid bits from it.

Screenshot, really ?
Can you please show us what you're talking about because I can't find anything else than artwork / concept art (or whatever the name)
I'm really interrested

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldur%27s_Gate_III:_The_Black_Hound

He didn't say anything about artwork, he's just making the point that the 'connecting tissue' as it relates to the story framework has far more depth in terms of Larian's BG3 than the original ideaology in Black Hound....or so I'm assuming.

Sorry, I read something like "you can check out screen shots".
Maybe I missunderstood

I don't really think anyone was waiting a story that is the rest of the original story.

I could have misunderstood as well, he did include that bit....but I took it to mean/interpret as more as the overall point of basically saying, the original design for some version of a BG3 has less ties by far to the first two games than what Larian is doing.

Sure, but I also have to add here, that Black Hound was Baldur's Gate in name only - due to IP rights. It wasn't created or intended to be Baldur's Gate3
https://twitter.com/jesawyer/status/1234228179906134016

Agreed, the key concept here being "story, single player, party and high fantasy". A game that checks all those boxes, no matter the camera style, is in the same genre as the IE games, in my opinion.

Yup. These four plus combat system are the five boxes on my personal core criteria checklist. I have many more preferences and wants and likes, of course, but those are all very much secondary. These five are the ones that can potentially be dealbreakers for me if they're absent. A game doesn't have to check every one of those five boxes. But each box unchecked is a major strike against the game, and once you get to about three boxes unchecked, odds are against my being interested in that game.

I can say that personally, the game being called Baldur's Gate 3 has had a negative effect on my willingness to purchase it. I came in excited for a true successor to those games. I did not care if it did not continue the story of the previous games (that ended in Throne of Bhaal).

But from everything I've seen, this is not a Baldur's Gate game. So far it seems to recreate very little of what made those games what they were. What it appears to be is a very good D&D game. But that's not what the title promised me. Call it Baldur's Gate: Attack of the Brainsquids, but not "Baldur's Gate 3". If I knew nothing about this game, saw it for sale, and purchased it, I think I'd be very very disappointed.

Do we know why it's even called Baldur's Gate 3? Is it purely for name recognition? That I get, but why the "3"? Why not just "Baldur's Gate: Blah Blah Octopus Adventures"?

You should ask WotC. They are the ones who pushed the name I guess, as they were also the ones trusting in Larian to make it a successor to the original games.

Larian (and specifically Swen) has stated on numerous occasions that it will have several connections back to the story/plot of the first 2 and builds upon the events that took place therein, and specifically has said (paraphrasing because I don't have the exact quote in front of me at the moment), 'we wouldn't call it Baldur's gate 3 if it didn't connect to the previous games'.

It's very light because absolutely no one waited from BG3 that the story continue. These "connexions" looks like smoke to me because Bhaal IS not only what define what Baldur's Gate 1/2 SoA+ToB were.

I'm waiting to see because we don't really know atm about the story but everytime I hope something """like""" in the old BG, I'm dissapointed asz soon as they show a little bit more.

"The god of murder" and "D&D" is not enough to me to claim the 3.

This type of post is so hillarious. If your hesitation about the game is baes on the lore you cannot make an infomed opinion on the sucess or faliure of Larian to write a proper BG3 title.
If your hesitation is based on this game having different game mechnics, well... its a 20 year old title. Final Fantasy, Mario, Zelda, they all change mechanics over 20 years. Different decade, different DnD ruleset, different IP owner, different developer, sifferent game engine. It would be more weird if the game didnt change mechanics.

A game can improve old mecanics, adapt new rules or even change things without becoming a total different game.

Please, can u try to name something that is not specifically related to D&D and to the FR that feels ""like"" BG in BG3 ?

And please, don't hide behind the "WoTC decided" argument. That's a fact but it changes nothing to the feelings of many players.
There are many ways to gather everyone but please, tell me why this kind of feeling is hillarious.

We are playing as a leader of an ensemble group of adventures in an epic fantasy, narrative driven, tactical combat RPG using D&D mechanics with a story mysteriously connected to at least one of the Dead Three and featuring the city Baldur’s Gate.

This is a synopsis for both BG1 and BG3. Good enough for me

Yea, I forgot to add not to talk about things that could apply to nearly every CRPGs

I'm glad it's good enough for you but that still don't leads me to feel BG in BG3. Any concrete exemple ?

The game will have, according to Swen, several story elements directly linking BG3 to the past games. That’s pretty concrete.

I’m not sure what you are looking for that feels like the older games.

Setting is the same. General out of combat gameplay is the same. In combat gameplay is different, sure, but everything else seems pretty reminiscent to me.

Not sure it's really concrete until we see what he's talking about.
I'll write it again... but Bhaal is not only what defined BG... (+ That's related to the FR... we're turning round if u don't keep what was said before in mind).

I saw that, but asking how this game should feel like its predecessors without permitting mention of most of the things that defined those games (the story, the setting, the rules) seems to me a bit of a rigged game.

Artistically both games are a match as much as possible, seeing BG1 and 2 were low resolution pixel games.

What more do you need?

What do we need? visual proof that this is something more than just DOS2 with an upgraded graphics engine. PR promises are not enough.

So far they have shown NOTHING that is reminiscent of any of the previous Baldur's Gate entries.

Being set in Forgotten Realms and featuring one of the canonical Forgotten Realms gods is not enough to make it a Baldur's Gate game if none of the actual "game" remains.

- no open world
- no late game party dynamics or changes
- no ai scripting or dynamic combat
- no day/night cycle
- no random encounters
- no meaningful alignment (as per WotC)
- ... I could go on.

Instead all we have been shown are improvements to the DOS2 parts of the game, and the pre-teen masturbation fodder.

This game gets worse and worse with every update, and it absolutely does not deserve the BG title. This is just "random D&D module made by Larian" as far as I am concerned.

Whatever is the title, this could be a good game and then an even better can follow.

This game won't be a "3" following BG 1 or 2, too many things have changed since. Trying to clone that after so long time, by completely different people, while just changing a few variables here and there (to keep it alike), would lead to a worse game than having the freedom to innovate and create a completely new version, keeping only those parts & references which can still fit here.

The Game of Thrones changed so much after season 1& 2, and less time have passed. Star Wars the same, and not a single game or movie could keep up with an initial "legendary" success, if that happened at initial parts. First Love happens once in a lifetime, never ever again. There is still joy after, but never the same. Good games are still made, and the new generation will start with these, and fall in love, like those old ones never existed.

This is what's important to you and maybe what defined/feel BG to you.
That's fine but there are a lot of other things that defined the old video games and some of them are (more/as) important for lots of players that grew with the Baldur's Gate video games.

I'm glad you asked
Here are a few clue that are probably already mentionned here :

- the D/N cycle was an important part of the old games for many reasons
- the way you travel through maps was another important feature (especially in the 1st game)
- the party of 6
- BG1/2 was the story of the player, not the story of everyone (every origin characters).
- The inventory and the ammunition management was also a part.of it. Whatever you like staying for 30 Real Time minutes in front of a merchant or not, it was a part of the game.
- There were A LOT of companions you could meet everywhere
- The random encounters gave the feeling of.a.dangerous World

I could give more informations about all this, talk about many other things and share how.I imagine include those old.things in a New game but that's not the point.

Obviously, some of those old things absolutely need improvement or doesn't suit modern games but that were parts of the spirit of BG to me.

I'm absolutely sure that, as I said many things could still gather players arround those few "easy" exemples and I'll only focus on 1 thing atm (let's wait the EA for the others)

=> The stealth mecanics was very obscure to me in BG1/2 and it looks awesome in BG3.. Awesome but at the same time ridiculous to me... The shadow of a tree under the sun is not a place you can.hide...
Stealth in D&D looks to me like someone that is very discreet and.silent... not as someone.wearing a magical cloak of invisibilité that is a little bit less efficient under the daylight.

This would be absolutely awesome for everyone with a real D/N cycle and that D/N cycle could really increase the ambiant and the level of immersion of the game.

And for the record, I have to remind people of this, that despite my criticisms against this game being "Baldur's Gate 3" ... I still believe Larian wants to genuinely provide a top tier experience.

I just wish WotC hadn't pursued the cash grab.

We have the module BG: Descent Into Avernus so why not call this BG: Something Something.

I could understand if the city were the main character, but it is just the backdrop of the first two games, and is so far the same in BG3. I could understand if Bhaal is the main character again. But why be so tight lipped about it? There is no reason why they couldn't have used the resurrection of Bhaal (which is canon) as part of the PR to clearly link the two games together? In my estimation the only reason for secrecy is that there is no connection - because the events of the original trilogy are over, and ToB is already "BG3" - and that the links to the prior games are in FR setting and lore only, which means easter eggs and stuff we already know as fans of the series. So again, why the secrecy?

All we've been shown time after time are DOS2 systems and structures with more polish. The problem with wanting to "show more people their own formula of cRPG" is that their approach has become formulaic.

Sorry, but you can't use this as one of your points. The original BG games were not open world games either. I love them both myself, but if you consider either of those open world games, then you've obviously never played an open world game to know the difference.

The map was segmented for performance reasons, but if you actually paid attention you'd know that they were all precisely interconnected at every edge. You could go anywhere at any time, except for the city of Baldur's Gate itself. But even once you reached Baldur's Gate, you could still go back to anywhere you wanted.

This is what open world RPG means. The freedom to go where you want when you want.

Locking content to acts is the antithesis of this. The game is practically on rails. The term for this is arena based design. Each of the acts is a single arena that is non-contiguous with the rest.

The imposition of DOS 2 structural design into BG3 is becoming embarrassing at this point:

- No open world (major flaw since many games nowadays are open-world and even BG2 was semi-open with free exploration)
- No D/N cycle (major flaw; common even in non-RPG games)
- Combat (major flaw since many RPGs transitioned from TB to action elements, including conservative JRPGs).
- Generic artstyle
- Narrator
- Party of 4
- Party members story arcs with deals with devil/magic/vampire.
- Speaking to the dead and animals
- Party members enrollment deadline at Act1

Nostalgia is an ugly thing. Almost every series will evolve over time, and the fact that we're not getting a reskin of Baldur's Gate 2 with better graphics isn't a bad thing. The expectations that people have can and never will be reached, because most people aren't game developers with decades of experience under their belts.

I don't think that it *is* a fair criticism that the mood and feel are different. It's been 20 years. The landscape has changed. Marketing a clunky UI, dated systems, and esoteric invisible mechanics is silly.

And as with every large gap between sequels and releases, there's always going to be the "game hipsters" that will invariably write something off because what's being produced isn't identical to their rose-colored memories. The people complaining about it will buy it, and even if they enjoy it, they're still going to huff and puff in the public eye about how it's too different in order to validate their status as a long-time fan of the series in some weak attempt at impressing people with their dedication to the Baldur's Gate name.

And can we just be really honest here and say that the fact that Baldur's Gate 3 even exists as a concept is because of Larian's excellent efforts and successes at reviving *an entire genre*?

As a long-time fan, I think they're doing great, and I'm happy that they've taken this new direction with the series and have set the industry standard for what RPG storytelling is supposed to look like.

Screw action.

LOL, that's why Pillars of Eternity and Pathfinder introduced TB to their game because apparently it was missing.

Guys, TB/RT conversation is over here, so please take it over there. Thanks.

Not specifically turn-based / RT as such (really not interested in all of that), but what prompted my response was that surely every other RPG going "action" and twitch combat in some form in particular early to mid 2000s was driven mostly by marketing decisions rather than anything else, so cannot possibly be a plus as such. In particular considering how narrow the choice in combat had become at that point. For many devs (including Larian), it was either some form of action, be it a Diablo clone in early Divinity or else... That there are viable choices apart of action again should be celebrated as a good thing, plus you don't ever set trends if you simply follow them.

If the argument had just been that the combat was not like the originals, fine.

Which is fine, as long as it stays away from "that" discussion (by way of an explanation, for a time it was at risk of becoming the TB/RT forum as the debate was going on in many different topics at the same time, to the exclusion of the actual discussion).

In terms of "generic action and twitch combat" I think can see the point. Where e.g. Mass Effect could be viewed as an "action RPG" in a literal sense, I think they took it too far with Mass Effect 2 which felt way too much like a shooter for too much of the time, which IMHO was not really conducive to the gameplay. Which is of course subjective and many people very vocally preferred it to the original; and while I didn't hate the game overall, I don't think their move in that direction enhanced gameplay, which I preferred to be more methodical and less, well, shooty.

man the fucking cope in this thread.

Yeah the non generic artstyle of baldurs gate.
Lmao

It is not about changing, but evolving. CP2077 has many amazing concepts that is not just copying RPGs from the past.

TB was the first model back in the 80s, so it is even more nostalgic, I am sure you can introduce many action elements in the spectrum and continue to be tactical.

You know 1st person shooters are also really old too? Same with first person RPGs. CP2077 is not like the 1st person games from the 80s just like BG3 isn’t like a turn based game from the 80s.

Could Larian make an action-RPG BG3? Sure, but why would they want to? DOS2 was more popular than PoE2 or Kingmaker, and the XCOM reboot and games like Fire Emblem are doing great as well, so there is definitely an audience for turn based tactical games.

Except for that you have ZERO evidence that it was the TB aspect of D:OS2 that made it "more popular" than those other games. It could've been so many other factors.

Hmmm, you could say that about most games. I have zero evidence that the first person aspects of Call of Duty or Halo is what makes those games sell well and that they wouldn’t sell better if designed to be third person. That doesn’t change the apparent fact that there is an audience for FPS games.

Plus, there is evidence- DOS1 and 2 received a lot of praise for their combat.

In the RPG genre, TB (even 1st person TB Wizardry-like) was the foundation and was the predominant system for many years.

DOS2 was more popular because it is a better game overall. The "fair" comparison would be Dragon Age Series.

I wouldn’t say DA is a fair comparison. DAI is a AAA game developed by the elder god studio of the RtWP genre with a huge marketing budget. DOS2 is a AA Kickstarter developed by a relatively unknown but rising independent studio with comparatively no marketing.

DOS2 had a lot of post-market exposition, because of its scores. But the point made is that is not the combat that makes DOS2 attractive.

DOS2 received universal acclaim from critics and very high scores from players, and while every part of the game was praised, the combat was pretty much always applauded. There is no evidence that all of these people liked it in spite of the turn based combat, and plenty of evidence that lots of people genuinely enjoyed it.

So back to my original point: Larian could make BG3 in a different genre, but why would they? They made a thing, millions of people bought the thing, and the overwhelming preponderance of the feedback that they got was that people liked the thing.

They have no reason to change something that isn’t broken.

Guys, as just discussed, don't bring the TB/RTwP debate here, please. If you want to continue with that discussion, please take it to the appropriate place. Further comments about the subject outside of its own topic are likely to be deleted.

Yes ma’am.

PoE2 also received universal acclaim from critics and very high scores from players. So these things don't necessarily translate into sales.

And yes, oftentimes people do buy and play cRPGs even though they don't like the combat system. The emphasis here is on *cRPGs* because for a great many RPG fans their love for that genre of game has to do with things other than the combat.

Yeah, sure, that is true. I bought Pillars 2 despite being somewhat underwhelmed by the combat.


But my point is still that Larian has no reason to change what has already worked for them. The studio has been around for a while, and they have finally found a formula that has helped them break out into a mainstream developer. The post I was responding to said they could do things differently than they are. I was just saying that sure, they could, but there isn’t any evidence that they need to, so why should they?

Maybe because it is a different franchise that is known for another system? Maybe because being in the comfort zone (which clearly they opted for) don't expand your audience?

Being in their comfort zone and refining and iterating something that they were familiar with already did expand their audience, with DOS2 outselling 1. Furthermore, WotC contacted Larian during DOS2 prerelease and offered them BG3 because they liked what they saw with that game. Many other studios besides Larian, such as Obsidian and InXile, had pitched to get the BG licensing rights, but WotC wanted the DOS2 model for BG3. Clearly Larian isn’t going to change their approach when that is what their client is requesting.

To some extent. That philosophy would certainly apply to DOS 3, but feels insufficient to BG3.

Regarding WoTC, not sure if they care about mechanic details of the game as long as they carry the 5ed flagship. Their quality control has not being great, especially in their mid and low tier franchises such as the new Dark Alliance.

WoTC: "Hey Larian, we love what you did with DOS2 and we'd love you give our flahship title!"

Larian" "Wow! Great. We're in!"

WoTC: "So what can we expect?"

Larian: "We're gonna roll the dice with something completely new and untested, which may or may not end up being better, but is going to cost a lot more money and time to produce!"

WoTC: "..."

Then don't take on a project you can't deliver.

WotC asked for BG3. They are getting DOS3: Forgotten Realms.

I don't understand point that you're trying to make. Are you upset about higher production values and subsequently longer production times (especially during a global pandemic,) or are you implying that Larian isn't sticking to the D:OS2 model that helped them secure the rights in the first place (even though they mostly are?)

Emrikol was showing through hypothetical example how absurd it would be for Larian to try and reinvent the wheel and do something different than what they know.

It looks like it's BG3 to me, as evident by the title, lore, and mechanics. your silly little gatekeeping of what makes a BG title is no doubt of zero concern to WOTC, Larian, or plenty of people who will have no problem enjoying the game.

No, Larian is delivering exactly what the license holder asked for. Wizards of the Coast loved DOS2, and that is what they wanted for BG3.

Yeah, I'm sure WoTC had no idea what Larian intended to make before they agreed to the deal.


I'm not upset about anything. And I think they are sticking to the basic formula behind DOS2 with BG3. I suspect they wouldn't have been given the chance to make BG3 if they didn't.

The argument can go in both directions. You are either making changes in core features of a established franchise vs changes in Larian Modus operandi.

Yeah, it is more ambiguous without the part that says WoTC: "Hey Larian, we love what you did with DOS2 and we'd love you give our flahship title!" And sure, it is possible WoTC expected something completely unlike DOS2. But do you really believe that?

i'm Forgotten Realms fun, so BG in the title doesn't bother me at all, since i played most of the games within that settings.

if i had to pick what irks me the most, it's current poster, very similar to DOS2, but i'm sure it will change with time and the game will have it's own identity

Not ambiguous, but could be used in both sides.

I don't see WoTC rejecting Larian if they said " We want to keep D/N cycle, open world and Rtwp" (3 "nostalgic" traits that had become standard in many games nowadays).

My point is that it was up to Larian to decide.

Yes, it was up to Larian to decide what they wanted to propose to WoTC. But more importantly, it was up to WoTC to decide if they accepted that proposal. If WoTC wanted "D/N cycle, open world and Rtwp," it would be a really odd choice for them to go with Larian, since that isn't their thing. I'm sure WoTC isn't micromanaging the development of this game, but I am just as sure they knew and approved of what Larian is doing. Also, if their is something WoTC insisted on, it would be in the game. For example, we know WoTC told Larian they didn't want alignment to be rigid like it used to be. Are we to believe that is all WoTC demanded? Or that they demanded other elements that Larian either refused to accept, or worse, agreed to but chose to ignore anyway?

By and large, there is no reasonable argument to suggest that the game Larian is making is anything but what WoTC wanted BG3 to be. WoTC is the big cheese here. If they wanted something different, they'd have it.

https://youtu.be/LI4v6hC_rjM?t=155

Despite the comic and oversimplified nature, that is probably what WoTC wants in the game. Swen said in many interviews they are not micromanaging.

The alignment comes from 5ed more liberal approach.

And before goin back in circular discussion, they probably don't care about the execution (if it is word by word or more abstract) as long is faithful in meaning. As they were ok in the past with Bioware.

Swen actually said that early in the development that WotC was much more hands on and cautious in their review process, and it is only after Larian built up their trust were they given more freedom. That might have been in the Dropped Frames interview.

Anyway, I’m not sure what the point is here.

I guess you lost the point when you introduce the Wotc/Larian thing again

They did say that. But not micromanaging, just overseeing. (They said they share the same idea of creating adventures and quests).

And more likely to stay true to the lore itself, because starting at Avernus was a decision that came from WotC (and likely mindflayers plot).

My point was that WotC gave Larian the rights to BG3 over other studios which were making games more faithful to BG’s mechanics specifically because WotC liked what they saw in DOS2. Therefore, Larian has no imperative to do anything differently in their formula, as it is that formula which got them the gig.

Whether they really like DOS2’s gameplay or are ambivalent seems to me to be a bit of a silly tangent that doesn’t in any way address the core conceit - Larian could make a different game than the one that they are but they don’t need to.

No problem, I know.
That's always the last argument when someone don't agree with a player saying that the game could/should be a little bit less DoS and a little bit more BG

Sorry about those 2 useless posts.

On that topic about overseeing timestamp 15:32, per Mike Mearls:

https://youtu.be/Ju12JNh8gJs?t=932

All gravy, beau. 😘😘😘

The artists actually tried a few different things to avoid that; if you want to feature the characters and have the name/logo prominent, though, there are a limited number designs that are effective and look good.

Yeah, and to argue that anything action is an evolution of more cerebral gameplay is just wrong. You may have a preference for one over the other (I personally don't), but that's different.