Larian Studios
I played BG1 when it came out, same with BG2, then again when ToB dropped, and once more just a few years ago when Beamdog put out the remasters. I love those games, but I'm also really psyched for BG3. Will it be the same, but shinier? Nope, it's going to be a lot more like Larian's other output. It's still more Sword Coast fun times. Rather than whining about what it isn't why not at least try to enjoy it for what it is, and if you don't get a refund and move on?

I'm also glad it's finally going to be turn based, you know, like the source material? Real time with pause was acceptable for 2e, though even then it was hard to actually control a full party in a big melee, it was a terrible fit for 3.X that required kludgy changes to a number of systems, and it have required them to deform 5e even more.
"And now for a word from our sponsors..."

Originally Posted by Andy Butula
I played BG1 when it came out, same with BG2, then again when ToB dropped, and once more just a few years ago when Beamdog put out the remasters. I love those games, but I'm also really psyched for BG3. Will it be the same, but shinier? Nope, it's going to be a lot more like Larian's other output. It's still more Sword Coast fun times. Rather than whining about what it isn't why not at least try to enjoy it for what it is, and if you don't get a refund and move on?

I'm also glad it's finally going to be turn based, you know, like the source material? Real time with pause was acceptable for 2e, though even then it was hard to actually control a full party in a big melee, it was a terrible fit for 3.X that required kludgy changes to a number of systems, and it have required them to deform 5e even more.

Originally Posted by qhristoff
"And now for a word from our sponsors..."

Originally Posted by Andy Butula
I played BG1 when it came out, same with BG2, then again when ToB dropped, and once more just a few years ago when Beamdog put out the remasters. I love those games, but I'm also really psyched for BG3. Will it be the same, but shinier? Nope, it's going to be a lot more like Larian's other output. It's still more Sword Coast fun times. Rather than whining about what it isn't why not at least try to enjoy it for what it is, and if you don't get a refund and move on?

I'm also glad it's finally going to be turn based, you know, like the source material? Real time with pause was acceptable for 2e, though even then it was hard to actually control a full party in a big melee, it was a terrible fit for 3.X that required kludgy changes to a number of systems, and it have required them to deform 5e even more.





Muhahahah, I like it. smile
Wow. Really? I'm not pissing and moaning about what BG3 isn't going to be so that means I'm a shill? Though if "Hey, this might not be bad" is enough to qualify me for the PR team I won't say no to a check.

What is the appeal of constantly bitching about what the game isn't going to be? If you're already convinced it's not for you, why not just move on? Find something else to kill time with.
Originally Posted by Andy Butula
Wow. Really? I'm not pissing and moaning about what BG3 isn't going to be so that means I'm a shill? Though if "Hey, this might not be bad" is enough to qualify me for the PR team I won't say no to a check.

What is the appeal of constantly bitching about what the game isn't going to be? If you're already convinced it's not for you, why not just move on? Find something else to kill time with.



Its late, I'll bite. ( Looks left.. looks right..YOU TALKING TO ME!!!) smile

Be at peace, enjoy what time you have on earth.

-Doom
I backed Sea of Stars on Kickstarter yesterday. A lot of passion seems to be going into making it. It's turn-based too but with a slightly different take on the system. As for BG3, I'll buy it when it's 75-80% off maybe.
Originally Posted by Andy Butula
Wow. Really? I'm not pissing and moaning about what BG3 isn't going to be so that means I'm a shill? Though if "Hey, this might not be bad" is enough to qualify me for the PR team I won't say no to a check.

What is the appeal of constantly bitching about what the game isn't going to be? If you're already convinced it's not for you, why not just move on? Find something else to kill time with.



Point is that negative feedback can be a good thing and improve the game. Devs aren't omniscient, there are tens of thousands of players and a handful of devs, obviously they will come up with more ideas, more improvements to the game.

Also it's kind of hypocritical of you to be "bitching" about "bitching" don't you think?

And yes I am looking forward to buying and playing the game, but I do hope that the game will find it's own identity and I can play without thinking about dos3 meme.

Negative feedback for the sake of being negative is not productive, and certain behaviour is much more likely to show that no changes would be enough than convince that certain changes are needed.
Again tens of thousands of players, you will get all kind of people all kinds of comments. But I heavily disagree with OPs characterisation of criticism as "whining" and "bitching". Not only it's disrespectful it's also very "gatekeep-y".

Andy Butula was responding to specific reactions to the original post. Do you consider those replies to be either constructive or respectful?
Why do you assume references to 'bitching' are meant to encompass every possible criticism? Or do you think there has never been any criticism that could be arguably characterised that way?
Is it really 'gatekeep-y' to want one topic that isn't complaining about what the game isn't (or is assumed not to be)?
Fair enough, I think I had knee jerk reaction to word "whining" and therefore antagonistic attitude towards criticism and interpreted it a biased manner, I should have been more charitable to OP. Mistakes were made.
Overall, I am looking forward to it, aside from the worry if this is a game I will be able to enjoy by myself. I am open to the possibility, that Larian might improve upon their design to make singleplayer playthrough an enjoyable experience, but based on my time with D:OSs that’s my main worry.

I would kill for Larian games were I still in college, but at the moment local, gaming friends are hard to come by.
I don't see a point to this thread. Why would anyone be here if they weren't looking forward to the game?
Originally Posted by Andy Butula
I played BG1 when it came out, same with BG2, then again when ToB dropped, and once more just a few years ago when Beamdog put out the remasters. I love those games, but I'm also really psyched for BG3. Will it be the same, but shinier? Nope, it's going to be a lot more like Larian's other output. It's still more Sword Coast fun times. Rather than whining about what it isn't why not at least try to enjoy it for what it is, and if you don't get a refund and move on?

I'm also glad it's finally going to be turn based, you know, like the source material? Real time with pause was acceptable for 2e, though even then it was hard to actually control a full party in a big melee, it was a terrible fit for 3.X that required kludgy changes to a number of systems, and it have required them to deform 5e even more.


I'm really looking forward to this game and Baldur's Gate 4.

I hope they get as many races/subraces/classes/subclasses/Backgrounds
/Spells/Feats/Patron Deities as possible.
Originally Posted by Andy Butula
I played BG1 when it came out, same with BG2, then again when ToB dropped, and once more just a few years ago when Beamdog put out the remasters. I love those games, but I'm also really psyched for BG3. Will it be the same, but shinier? Nope, it's going to be a lot more like Larian's other output. It's still more Sword Coast fun times. Rather than whining about what it isn't why not at least try to enjoy it for what it is, and if you don't get a refund and move on?

I'm also glad it's finally going to be turn based, you know, like the source material? Real time with pause was acceptable for 2e, though even then it was hard to actually control a full party in a big melee, it was a terrible fit for 3.X that required kludgy changes to a number of systems, and it have required them to deform 5e even more.


Completely useless post.
And here is m completely useless post reply.

Thanks for reading...

Razorback aka Daevin Aruth
"Nullius Pavet Occursum" = "He fears not meeting with any one"
Gold is the money of kings, silver is the money of gentlemen, barter is the money of peasants, and debt is the money of slaves...
https://discord.gg/jxA5AvA
Originally Posted by Exclusif
Completely useless post.

Originally Posted by Razorback
And here is m completely useless post reply.

Guys. <_<
Rolls a saving throw.
Originally Posted by Razorback
Rolls a saving throw.

There's no saving this one, but who can deny a throw
-----
|o o|
|....|
|o o|
-----
Looks like you got a 4 on a D6
Since I learnt that the items won't be generated randomly (http://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=660567#Post660567), I'm 1000% hyped for this game!
I was sure that I was going to find this thread "Am I the only one looking forward to this game?" full of people complaining about the game. You never disappoint, guys.

Anyway, I wasn´t convinced that Larian studio is going to be up to the task, but after the gameplay I am more optimistic, to be honest. I was expecting a videogame based on D&D5e, not a mod of a fantastic previous game, so I´m eager to put my hands in BG3.
Originally Posted by _Vic_
Anyway, I wasn´t convinced that Larian studio is going to be up to the task, but after the gameplay I am more optimistic, to be honest. I was expecting a videogame based on D&D5e, not a mod of a fantastic previous game, so I´m eager to put my hands in BG3.


This almost .... almost, sounds like a cleverly disguised shot at Larian/BG3.
When I said fantastic previous game I meant BG1-BG2, so no, it´s not a shot ha ha ha
I think a lot of people are looking forward to the game, but we may not all be looking forward to the same things.

I'm looking forward to a well-crafted tale set against a broad canvas, with both freedom to act and interesting choices.
I'm looking forward to a fantastic single-player experience that is not hobbled by compromises to support other modes.
I'm looking forward to being offered inventive and novel ways of interacting with and affecting the world and story.
I'm looking forward to immersing my imagined self in the Forgotten Realms, and the spirit of the D&D milieu.

I care not for the game to closely parallel BG2
I care not for the game to closely parallel D:OS2
I care not if the game follows 5e or diverges.

This may or may not be the game Larian are making, and may or may not match what anyone else wants.
I shall remain cautiously optimistic until proven otherwise.
I'm not only just looking forward to it but its my main anticipated game along with Cyberpunk 2077. I'm a huge fan of heavily storydriven, deep rpgs. And the game that made me into this kind of gamer was Kotor! Since then i became a huge fan of BioWare and most of its products, including Baldurs Gate 2 Shadows of Amn. For me the main features of a videogame are: story ( not only main story but side stories as well and Shadows of Amn had probably the best side stories i have experienced in my gaming life), storytelling (like dialigues and various forms of interactions with the game and its characters), characters and role playing depth (player agency). And so far, from what i have seen from larians interwievs and gameplay presentation, BG 3 will excell in all of the features stated above. I'll admit that i prefer rtwp combat over tb and also a little bit darker atmosphere and art. But if larian deliveres with all of the features stated above then i have absolutely nothing to complain about.
Originally Posted by MiQo
I'm not only just looking forward to it but its my main anticipated game along with Cyberpunk 2077. I'm a huge fan of heavily storydriven, deep rpgs. And the game that made me into this kind of gamer was Kotor! Since then i became a huge fan of BioWare and most of its products, including Baldurs Gate 2 Shadows of Amn. For me the main features of a videogame are: story ( not only main story but side stories as well and Shadows of Amn had probably the best side stories i have experienced in my gaming life), storytelling (like dialigues and various forms of interactions with the game and its characters), characters and role playing depth (player agency). And so far, from what i have seen from larians interwievs and gameplay presentation, BG 3 will excell in all of the features stated above. I'll admit that i prefer rtwp combat over tb and also a little bit darker atmosphere and art. But if larian deliveres with all of the features stated above then i have absolutely nothing to complain about.


I'm looking forward to BG3, Wrath of the Righteous, Solasta, and the Exapansion of Age of Wonders: Planetfall. Cyberpunk 2077 doesn't interest me, I don't care for ARPGs.
Originally Posted by Omegaphallic
Originally Posted by MiQo
I'm not only just looking forward to it but its my main anticipated game along with Cyberpunk 2077. I'm a huge fan of heavily storydriven, deep rpgs. And the game that made me into this kind of gamer was Kotor! Since then i became a huge fan of BioWare and most of its products, including Baldurs Gate 2 Shadows of Amn. For me the main features of a videogame are: story ( not only main story but side stories as well and Shadows of Amn had probably the best side stories i have experienced in my gaming life), storytelling (like dialigues and various forms of interactions with the game and its characters), characters and role playing depth (player agency). And so far, from what i have seen from larians interwievs and gameplay presentation, BG 3 will excell in all of the features stated above. I'll admit that i prefer rtwp combat over tb and also a little bit darker atmosphere and art. But if larian deliveres with all of the features stated above then i have absolutely nothing to complain about.


I'm looking forward to BG3, Wrath of the Righteous, Solasta, and the Exapansion of Age of Wonders: Planetfall. Cyberpunk 2077 doesn't interest me, I don't care for ARPGs.

I'm excited for Baldur's Gate 3, Mount & Blade: Bannerlord. Vampire The Masquerade: Bloodlines 2, Cyberpunk 2077, Trials Of Mana (SoM 3 remake), the supposed System Shock remake out this year, Dying Light 2, and Torchlight 3.
This is my list of games that I am looking forward to Baldur's Gate 3, Cyberpunk 2077, Pathfinder Wrath of the Righteous, Vampire The Masquerade Bloodlines 2
OP, I'm super hyped for the games early access smile

Really hope controller use is setup though.
Make no mistake: we (the ones waiting for this game) are many! But haters always make more noise
i generlay dont like talking in "we".
but for what its worth.
No matter what website that ive been on, when it comes to the polls, the side of "catuious optimism" tends to be winning out in a landslide.
I'm looking forward to it! Just wanted to get that out of the way.

I grew up with Baldur's Gate, it (and the other infinity engine games) are very dear to me. I'm a fanboy, okay? I've played DOS 1 & 2 and enjoyed my time with them, but for me Baldur's Gate is on another level. Larian deciding to name their new DnD game Baldur's gate 3, that comes with a lot of expectations. More pressure, more scrutiny. I think that's fair, really. I'm sure Larian knew what they were doing, and I applaud their ambition.

First impressions from the gameplay demo.. It looks a bit too familiar. In a bad way. I couldn't shake the feeling it felt like looking at a cross between DOS 2 and NWN 2. Which sounds kinda cool and interesting in its own right, but... This game is calling itself Baldur's Gate 3. And I couldn't help but feel like, if I didn't know it was BG 3, and if I was to only glance over it and not look too closely I'd think someting like " Damn, Divinity Original Sin 3 looks really good". Which, again, sounds all fine and well in it's own right, but again, this isn't DOS 3. The over-the-top animations, the colour palette, etc.. Can't say I like it a lot. I don't mind it in DOS, but I don't love DOS. This isn't DOS, this game is Baldur's Gate 3..

Now this BG 3 isn't gonna be anything like we might have imagined a BG 3 being like, 20 years ago. Or 10 years ago, even. This is still gonna be a Larian game. And I'm ok with that. I might prefer realtimewithpause, etc etc. And I'm fine with this game being TB etc etc. I'm at peace with those kinda things. But I hoped the game would ooze a little bit less DOS, and feel a little bit more.. new? And same? New, but playing on the nostalgia strings in just the right ways. Modern, but respecting its roots. Fresh, but in touch with its legacy.

I don't envy Larian their job, making a sequel to a cult classic like this. Super difficult, I am sure. But that's what they've decided to go for. Difficult, but not impossible, I'd like to think. And I think Larian can pull it off, I really do. And so do they, otherwise they would've just made DOS 3 instead. I know terms like style, aesthetics, atmosphere and such, are really vague. But that doesn't make them any less important. Challenging to get right, but important that they try.

One of my biggest worries (and still is, a little) was that we'd get a great game, but it'd be DOS 3 with some DND injected into it and a coat of Forgotten Realms paint on it. Potentially a really good game, but not quite... Baldur's Gate 3. And this worry of mine isn't dispelled completely. I think they could do more to leave some of the DOS DNA behind and make BG 3 it's own game. Of course Larian tapping into what they do well makes complete sense, and of course some things in DOS can work quite well (with more, less or no modifications) in a sequel to the Baldur's Gate games.

They can still work on the presentation of the game, add that little bit of dirt or whatever, that bit of extra "weight" to the animations, or somesuch. For example I think the UI could improve, it could look more pleasting to the eye (particularly from a nostalgic infinity engine point of view) while simultaneously supporting all the needs of a next generation Larian Baldur's Gate game. I'm a sucker for the beautiful hand drawn portraits, myself. Pretty Please?

All in all, cautious optimism is the way I'm feeling. Lots of promise, still not liking evertything I've seen (so much we haven't seen, still) and still lots of time for Larian to work and polish on what hopefully can become the best modern CRPG yet, reaching lofty heights that I personally feel neither DOS 2 or the two PoE games didn't quite manage to do, even if they got close.

That's the kind of hopes and expectations you get when you name your game Baldur's Gate 3! smile
Originally Posted by CPT_SLOW
I grew up with Baldur's Gate, it (and the other infinity engine games) are very dear to me. I'm a fanboy, okay? I've played DOS 1 & 2 and enjoyed my time with them, but for me Baldur's Gate is on another level.

These comparisons are made with thick, rose-tinted glasses that warrants some context, cause DO2 is objectively a superior game to BG1-2 in every conceivable way. The original series impressed so much largely because it overdelivered on expectations relative to the simplistic game design of its day. Game design and competition has evolved significantly since then and making that much of a standout game has become almost inconceivably harder. Besides, we were young and naive back and easily impressed. I suspect most people making this comparison mostly miss who they were and how they felt back then.

Quote
First impressions from the gameplay demo.. It looks a bit too familiar. In a bad way. I couldn't shake the feeling it felt like looking at a cross between DOS 2 and NWN 2. Which sounds kinda cool and interesting in its own right, but... This game is calling itself Baldur's Gate 3. And I couldn't help but feel like, if I didn't know it was BG 3, and if I was to only glance over it and not look too closely I'd think someting like " Damn, Divinity Original Sin 3 looks really good". Which, again, sounds all fine and well in it's own right, but again, this isn't DOS 3. The over-the-top animations, the colour palette, etc.. Can't say I like it a lot. I don't mind it in DOS, but I don't love DOS. This isn't DOS, this game is Baldur's Gate 3..

This is a common complaint, mostly bundled in with "muh RTwP-combat" (which I suspect, more often than not, is a cover for "I hatez turn-based combats" which again ignores that D&D 5e is a hugely complex system incompatible with RTwP-combat). I never saw anyone even attempt to give a proper objective reasoning for their sentiments beyond it looking too much like DOS. Surely it's not the 2D sprites you crave for! The NWN-series that followed BG1-2, was a huge letdown (NWN2 in particular), so I can see why you would make this comparison when holding the original series on such an unrealistic pedestal.

Quote
Now this BG 3 isn't gonna be anything like we might have imagined a BG 3 being like, 20 years ago. Or 10 years ago, even. This is still gonna be a Larian game. And I'm ok with that. I might prefer realtimewithpause, etc etc. And I'm fine with this game being TB etc etc. I'm at peace with those kinda things. But I hoped the game would ooze a little bit less DOS, and feel a little bit more.. new? And same? New, but playing on the nostalgia strings in just the right ways. Modern, but respecting its roots. Fresh, but in touch with its legacy.

Bioware themselves doesn't make games like we might have imagined in much less time than that: From BG to NWN to DA:O to DA2 to DA:I. All hugely different games. In a way, you criticise the sequel from another studio for not being the same and being the same simultaneously. Larian has promised to play on the "nostalgia strings", but expect that to be in the storyline as it should and not purely in a game design sense. Do not expect too much of this to be spoiled though. But let's look at a couple of aspects: The storyline is roughly similar in obvious ways; from Bhaal-spawn with unique powers changing you from within, to "mindflayer-spawn" with special powers changing you from within. The party interaction of BG3, which was what made BG1-2 come alive for me more than anything, has promise to overshadow the original. The intrigue of draining your party companion(s) of blood alone shows this clearly, and this is but one small part of several unique origin stories and unique "generic" stories. As for cameos: Volo is returning. Minsc and Boo spent the last 100 years or so petrified and is alive in the setting. I would be surprised if everyone's favorite drow, Drizzt, won't make a reappearance. Same for the underdark with their mindflayer colonies (though maybe for the sequel I suspect is coming).


Quote
One of my biggest worries (and still is, a little) was that we'd get a great game, but it'd be DOS 3 with some DND injected into it and a coat of Forgotten Realms paint on it. Potentially a really good game, but not quite... Baldur's Gate 3. And this worry of mine isn't dispelled completely. I think they could do more to leave some of the DOS DNA behind and make BG 3 it's own game. Of course Larian tapping into what they do well makes complete sense, and of course some things in DOS can work quite well (with more, less or no modifications) in a sequel to the Baldur's Gate games.

They can still work on the presentation of the game, add that little bit of dirt or whatever, that bit of extra "weight" to the animations, or somesuch. For example I think the UI could improve, it could look more pleasting to the eye (particularly from a nostalgic infinity engine point of view) while simultaneously supporting all the needs of a next generation Larian Baldur's Gate game. I'm a sucker for the beautiful hand drawn portraits, myself. Pretty Please?

If you have seen the demo and Q&A, most of your points are addressed. Larian mentioned developing a system for dirt and grime for characters. The UI is pre-alpha, but vastly superior to that of the infinity engine which didn't even feature a mini-map and would be way to simplistic. It is less intrusive, yet much more detailed. DOS has custom portrait mods and given it was part of the original series, we can expect that to make a comeback.

My advice would be to knock BG1-2 off your pedestal to where it belongs and stop worrying so much. You are setting yourself up for disappointment over pure nostalgia. Ironically it sounds like you would prefer Beamdog studio who has made the enhanced editions of the original series to do the game. They would give you everything you verbalise, and you would have been utterly disappointed with the result. Careful what you wish for, huh? Larian has promised to make this YOUR adventure, but their campaign which will have an appropriately darker theme than the DOS-series. And they are working closely with WotC to make it authentic.

The one and only real concern I have, is how well the hugely complex pen and paper/dice system translates into fun gameplay. But even there, things like the animated dice roll on special occasions, creative use of Mage Hand cantrip to push foes off of ledges sounds like a lot of fun in a game that promises unparalleled verticality unlike the flat-earth of the original series.
Great post, CPT_SLOW !
And here I thought I made it super clear that I am very aware of the thick, rose-tinted nostalgia glasses! smile

Regarding the advice to knock BG of my pedestal and stop worrying so much... Most of us have some things we put on our pedestals, don't we? For whatever reason. If not a game, then a book or an old car or something. Maybe BG never made it to your pedestal Seraphael, or maybe you're just good at taking stuff off of it. But for me it's a little harder than that, not something I can approach with pure logic and sheer rationality. But despite the pedestal -and- me being older now, I'm not impossible to please, or impress. In fact I'd say overall I'm pretty good at managing my expectations, and approaching things with an optimistic mindset.

Games have evolved and progressed massively over the past decades, being such a young medium and with technology advancing so fast. Of course DOS is objectively superior, compared to games a decade and a half older. But it's not really about that. And neither do I believe that "playing on the nostalgia strings" is restricted to writing/narrative. I think it's doable in both game design as well as visuals. While simultaneously breaking new ground and supporting modern/different functionality? Hell yeah it's possible. Very difficult, but possible. And this is the area where I hope Larian surprises me and really rises to the challenge. The challenge of the nostalgia strings laugh

I don't think there's a danger of Larian concentrating too much on playing the nostalgia strings just right and then neglecting other parts of the game. They've shown they can make good games, and I'm sure they're trying their hardest to make this one their best work yet. But I hope that in their mission to develop their best game so far, they still have time for those sweet little nostalgia strings.

I know I write a bit vaguely, broad strokes, not going into much detail. It's probably because I'm not really super interested in specific technical details (yeah the added verticality looks really cool and like a lot of fun), I'm trying to write about how I... feel? And that's just it. Nostalgia aside, it doesn't really matter how they do it. If Larian can make me -feel- (they didn't quite manage to, in DOS), then BG 3 is pretty much up on that infamous pedestal straight away.


Am I setting myself up for disappointment? We'll see!

Oh and thanks Rafoca!

EDIT: I felt like I missed to respond to too many things here, sorry about that. But prefering Beamdog for making BG3? Nah laugh
Originally Posted by CPT_SLOW
I know I write a bit vaguely, broad strokes, not going into much detail. It's probably because I'm not really super interested in specific technical details (yeah the added verticality looks really cool and like a lot of fun), I'm trying to write about how I... feel? And that's just it. Nostalgia aside, it doesn't really matter how they do it. If Larian can make me -feel- (they didn't quite manage to, in DOS), then BG 3 is pretty much up on that infamous pedestal straight away.

That's fine, but it just isn't very helpful. As I wrote elsewhere (which you may or may not have read), the best thing you can do is make a new post about a specific feature you think would accomplish what you're hoping to feel (or if someone else has already started one, just chime in).
I'm, personally, hoping this somewhat scratches the D&D itch I have. My campaign was put on hold, and then one of the players stopped logging into discord.
He's known in that circle of friends (I was the new guy) for disappearing for months at a time, so no worries, but it does mean the campaign is on hiatus.
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Originally Posted by CPT_SLOW
I know I write a bit vaguely, broad strokes, not going into much detail. It's probably because I'm not really super interested in specific technical details (yeah the added verticality looks really cool and like a lot of fun), I'm trying to write about how I... feel? And that's just it. Nostalgia aside, it doesn't really matter how they do it. If Larian can make me -feel- (they didn't quite manage to, in DOS), then BG 3 is pretty much up on that infamous pedestal straight away.

That's fine, but it just isn't very helpful. As I wrote elsewhere (which you may or may not have read), the best thing you can do is make a new post about a specific feature you think would accomplish what you're hoping to feel (or if someone else has already started one, just chime in).



Well, the thread was about looking forward to BG 3, so that's what I tried to write about. I couldn't find the post you refered to, but etonbears post in this thread really resonated with me:

Originally Posted by etonbears
I think a lot of people are looking forward to the game, but we may not all be looking forward to the same things.

I'm looking forward to a well-crafted tale set against a broad canvas, with both freedom to act and interesting choices.
I'm looking forward to a fantastic single-player experience that is not hobbled by compromises to support other modes.
I'm looking forward to being offered inventive and novel ways of interacting with and affecting the world and story.
I'm looking forward to immersing my imagined self in the Forgotten Realms, and the spirit of the D&D milieu.

I care not for the game to closely parallel BG2
I care not for the game to closely parallel D:OS2
I care not if the game follows 5e or diverges.

This may or may not be the game Larian are making, and may or may not match what anyone else wants.
I shall remain cautiously optimistic until proven otherwise.


DISCLAIMER: Having written about the careful playing of the nostalgia strings, I still concur with the part about not caring for the game to closely parallel BG2. With emphasis on closely. BG 2 is a game that is aged in so many ways, there's not much to gain by trying to emulate it too closely. Just a little bit, just enough wink
Originally Posted by CPT_SLOW
And here I thought I made it super clear that I am very aware of the thick, rose-tinted nostalgia glasses! smile

First of all: great post. I share a lot of your feelings, both positive and negative. I wish this forum had a "thumbs up" feature.

As to nostalgia... BG1&2 are classics. Some things might age, and date, but still remain excellent. I might have nostalgia for BG1&2, but people I introduced it throughout the years and loved it didn't. No one claims BGs were perfect, but they were great and they have legacy Larian has to live up to, otherwise they will disappoint many people who fell in love with the series.

I am keeping my fingers crossed and looking forward to what they make.
Originally Posted by korotama
As for BG3, I'll buy it when it's 75-80% off maybe.

Still too much for me. I'd wait for for a humble bundle and then give every cent to charity.

Why yes, I am disgruntled. Why do you ask?
Originally Posted by dlux
Originally Posted by korotama
As for BG3, I'll buy it when it's 75-80% off maybe.

Still too much for me. I'd wait for for a humble bundle and then give every cent to charity.

Why yes, I am disgruntled. Why do you ask?

It's not a good time to be developing video games - no one saw the virus coming. Despite that, BG3 deserved a bigger budget so that a number of design choices would have been more along the lines of the first two titles. Then it would have made sense to try and expand to a greater audience with extra options and features. If it were a spin-off, expectations would be much more tempered but now that the name is final... well, good luck to them.
Originally Posted by dlux
Originally Posted by korotama
As for BG3, I'll buy it when it's 75-80% off maybe.

Still too much for me. I'd wait for for a humble bundle and then give every cent to charity.

Why yes, I am disgruntled. Why do you ask?


No one was asking.
I don't know how to say it in EN but my ass is between 2 chairs atm...

In one hand I really wait for this game. I like D&D games, I like Larian games even if they're far from my best games ever (BG1&2^^).
In another, this is BG3 and I'm very, very disspointed about nearly everything I saw because it looks nearly nothing like BG1&2 according to me.

So what to do ?

Playing EA and continue talking here, with hopes this game is going to be more a BG experience than another improved DoS experience ? (But I'll have to buy it, so if I'm dissapointed I can't turn back).

Or waiting the official release, not saying/trying anything during development and not buy it if I find its name is a joke...?

The best solution would be than Larian give me freely access to the EA, so I can try to help and give my feelings but still not buy it if I feel "betrayed", but this won't happen
biggrin
Originally Posted by korotama
BG3 deserved a bigger budget so that a number of design choices would have been more along the lines of the first two titles.

Do you have any information of their budget for BG3? I wouldn't think their budget is lacking, nor that the design choices (the most part at least) were restrained and/or governed by a budget (within reason).

Originally Posted by korotama
Then it would have made sense to try and expand to a greater audience with extra options and features. If it were a spin-off, expectations would be much more tempered but now that the name is final... well, good luck to them.

More and more options are always nice, but there needs to be a cutoff somewhere (else development goes on forever). BG3 is going to being in the DOS2 crowd and a lot of others who never played just because it's D&D, so I would think that alone will greatly expand their audience.
Originally Posted by Emrikol
BG3 is going to being in the DOS2 crowd and a lot of others who never played just because it's D&D, so I would think that alone will greatly expand their audience.

The only crowd Larian appears to be truly interested in catering to is the D:OS fanbase. Of course they will be happy to have any additional customers, and of course there will be some TT D&D fans who will at least check out the game, but D:OS fans are the core target audience the game is being made for and not for anyone who is not a D:OS fan.
Originally Posted by kanisatha
D:OS fans are the core target audience the game is being made for and not for anyone who is not a D:OS fan.

The DOS fanbase and those who are not fans of DOS are not mutually exclusive. Larian can be making the game for both the huge (and current) crowd of DOS fans as well as those who never played DOS1&2 (i.e those who are not DOS fans).
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Originally Posted by korotama
BG3 deserved a bigger budget so that a number of design choices would have been more along the lines of the first two titles.

Do you have any information of their budget for BG3? I wouldn't think their budget is lacking, nor that the design choices (the most part at least) were restrained and/or governed by a budget (within reason).

Originally Posted by korotama
Then it would have made sense to try and expand to a greater audience with extra options and features. If it were a spin-off, expectations would be much more tempered but now that the name is final... well, good luck to them.

More and more options are always nice, but there needs to be a cutoff somewhere (else development goes on forever). BG3 is going to being in the DOS2 crowd and a lot of others who never played just because it's D&D, so I would think that alone will greatly expand their audience.

Here: http://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=662849#Post662849
You posted in that thread too.

Yes, sales will probably help them break even and then some but reputation takes long to build and not nearly as long to be ruined. Calling it anything other than BG3 would have prevented most negative feedback.
Originally Posted by korotama
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Originally Posted by korotama
BG3 deserved a bigger budget so that a number of design choices would have been more along the lines of the first two titles.

Do you have any information of their budget for BG3? I wouldn't think their budget is lacking, nor that the design choices (the most part at least) were restrained and/or governed by a budget (within reason).

Originally Posted by korotama
Then it would have made sense to try and expand to a greater audience with extra options and features. If it were a spin-off, expectations would be much more tempered but now that the name is final... well, good luck to them.

More and more options are always nice, but there needs to be a cutoff somewhere (else development goes on forever). BG3 is going to being in the DOS2 crowd and a lot of others who never played just because it's D&D, so I would think that alone will greatly expand their audience.

Here: http://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=662849#Post662849
You posted in that thread too.

Yeah, I was thinking of that, and that's why I said "for the most part." We really don't know the cost of implementing that; to do so might require an extensive reworking of their platform, and thus, bang for buck, just might not be worth it.

Originally Posted by korotama
Yes, sales will probably help them break even and then some but reputation takes long to build and not nearly as long to be ruined. Calling it anything other than BG3 would have prevented most negative feedback.

Break even? Maybe you know more about the video game business than I, but I expect a company coming off the success of DOS2 and pairing up with WoTC to do better than that. Why such a bleak outlook?
I'm not saying the game will be a commercial failure but having bought D:OS and played it for a while I am pretty disappointed with the way Larian have handled communication with fans. Some things that were only recently revealed could have been shared via interviews months ago (such as plot continuity with the first two titles) which would have eased concern, on top of that there were perplexing statements on Vincke's part to the effect of "I can't meet fan expectations they're too high" even though his company had asked WoTC to make BG3 at one point.

I mean no offense but I don't consider DOS:2 to be as successful as BG was decades ago when the industry was much smaller so my prediction is that BG3 will be good on its merits but isn't likely to "revitalize" the CRPG genre like the former did. I don't know how much they're going to spend on marketing but no amount of money can bring back lost confidence and yeah saying things like "features that were a given in Baldur's Gate aren't coming back because they cost too much" can be (mis)construed as an admission that they're not willing to invest a whole lot of funds in the game, which leads me to think there isn't much passion in the development process. I'm not feeling it to be honest. Also, certain people working on BG3 have said disparaging things about its predecessors to my surprise as that gives me reason to believe they're more focused on fixing things that weren't all that broken to begin with in lieu of working on the setting, the characters, story etc.
Originally Posted by korotama
perplexing statements on Vincke's part to the effect of "I can't meet fan expectations they're too high" even though his company had asked WoTC to make BG3 at one point.

Seems far from perplexing (reasonable in fact) to want to make a BG3 game but feel that certain expectations will be too high. I would go so far as to change his statement to say "no one can meet certain fan's expectations; they're too high." But that doesn't preclude wanting to make a follow up, nor that is cannot be a great game.

Originally Posted by korotama
I mean no offense but I don't consider DOS:2 to be as successful as BG was decades ago when the industry was much smaller so my prediction is that BG3 will be good on its merits but isn't likely to "revitalize" the CRPG genre like the former did

Relatively speaking, that is certainly possible, but I would say it speaks more to the times then the games themselves.

Originally Posted by korotama
I don't know how much they're going to spend on marketing but no amount of money can bring back lost confidence and yeah saying things like "features that were a given in Baldur's Gate aren't coming back because they cost too much" can be (mis)construed as an admission that they're not willing to invest a whole lot of funds in the game, which leads me to think there isn't much passion in the development process. I'm not feeling it to be honest.

I construe it as not as an unwillingness to invest, but a simple and practical business decision based on what they have and where they have come from. Certain things might seem easy and cheap to implement, but we cannot really know. If they can spend X amount of $ to get feature A in the game, or use X amount of $ to get features B,C and D in the game, it seems reasonable to me (provided a rough equality between features A-D). Everyone has a budget to work with. As for passion, Larian seems to me to be as passionate about their work as any developer I can recall.

Originally Posted by korotama
Also, certain people working on BG3 have said disparaging things about its predecessors to my surprise as that gives me reason to believe they're more focused on fixing things that weren't all that broken to begin with in lieu of working on the setting, the characters, story etc.

Which things?



Originally Posted by korotama
I'm not saying the game will be a commercial failure but having bought D:OS and played it for a while I am pretty disappointed with the way Larian have handled communication with fans. Some things that were only recently revealed could have been shared via interviews months ago (such as plot continuity with the first two titles) which would have eased concern, on top of that there were perplexing statements on Vincke's part to the effect of "I can't meet fan expectations they're too high" even though his company had asked WoTC to make BG3 at one point.



Uh?

Interviews with Miles Merle (WoTC) and Sven Vincke (Larian) in august-september 2019:

Mike and Swen strike back in a Podcast for Kotaku https://kotaku.com/the-ranger-class-is-getting-some-changes-in-d-d-and-ba-1835659585 Swen said they "picked the canon WOTC ending of baalspawn crises " in 24.05 . The canon ending is that the baalspawn was a mercenary called Abdel Adrian that chose to forfeit divinity.

https://wccftech.com/larian-studios-interview-innovating-baldurs-gate-3/
The BG3 game will use Larian´s Divinity engine 4.0 (DoS EE was 3.5) and that you will have 5e classes and subclasses. The game will be longer than DoS2, approximately 100 hours.

"With respect to the combat system, this is based on D&D, so we’re using their combat system" (not the BG one)
https://www.pcgamesn.com/baldurs-gate-3/larian-developer-interview

Baldur´s gate III will be the sequel of the PA of WoTC "Baldur´s gate: Desdent into avernus" and possibly "Murder in Baldur´s gate", events that happened more than 100 years ago from the first game https://www.polygon.com/2019/7/4/20677851/dungeons-dragons-baldurs-gate-3-timeline-universe
I meant continuity with the games, not the books (which were nowhere near as successful as the games unless I'm mistaken). They hadn't expanded upon returning characters etc. until fairly recently which led to tons of speculation. Commenting the engine is largely pointless because you cannot verify how much of it has been rewritten. As for combat, there's a pinned thread for it so I'm not going to derail this one.

Quote
Which things?

A certain senior designer, see my last sentence.
Originally Posted by Emrikol

I construe it as not as an unwillingness to invest, but a simple and practical business decision based on what they have and where they have come from. Certain things might seem easy and cheap to implement, but we cannot really know. If they can spend X amount of $ to get feature A in the game, or use X amount of $ to get features B,C and D in the game, it seems reasonable to me (provided a rough equality between features A-D). Everyone has a budget to work with. As for passion, Larian seems to me to be as passionate about their work as any developer I can recall.

Nah, I can't walk into their offices and cross-reference the new engine with the old one. Given the features that are going to be missing from BG3 I'm willing to bet it's been rewritten to a much lesser extent that they're letting on. Budgets aren't set in stone either. Passion can overcome many issues but it seems to me they want to be reasonable first and foremost. That's okay but if I recall BG1 was not expected to perform great commercially yet here we are today. If you want to win big you have to take chances, right?
Originally Posted by Emrikol
I would go so far as to change his statement to say "no one can meet certain fan's expectations; they're too high."

There is no need to change anything, because that was essentially the reply. Swen Vincke was asked about the highest of the fan expectations, and Korotama conceded that the reply was factually accurate in the related topic at the time. Korotama's 'paraphrase' is somewhat less factually accurate.
Quote
Larian is making Baldur's Gate 3 now and Baldur's Gate is such a beloved franchise. How are you going to live up with the fans' expectations?

Nothing here suggests the journalist meant the "highest" of expectations, although Mr. Vincke sure was quick to deflect. If only there were as much passion going into development as there is in your PR efforts (but what do I know about public relations, heheh)! That's okay, it's not the first company to have its reputation ruined by greed. I conceded for a different reason.

It is really not hard to live up to low expectations, and I fail to see why a reporter would ask about living up to average expectations. In the context of the question, it should be obvious it was referring to high expectations, and that was what the answer was about.
Originally Posted by korotama
I meant continuity with the games, not the books (which were nowhere near as successful as the games unless I'm mistaken). They hadn't expanded upon returning characters etc. until fairly recently which led to tons of speculation. Commenting the engine is largely pointless because you cannot verify how much of it has been rewritten. As for combat, there's a pinned thread for it so I'm not going to derail this one.
.


They never talked about the books in the interviews, they were talking about the games and WOTC.
They asked almost in every interview since last summer if they are going to take the story of the original BG games or if you can import the saved games and they always were very forthcoming about the fact. They usually deflect questions about combat mechanics and stuff but not about the story, the mindflayers, etc.

Abdel Adrian is the canon Baalspawn Hero of Baldurs gate that refused divinity and became duke of Baldur`s gate. That is the canon history of the baalspawn crisis as stated in WOTC`s D&D lore and Player modules in the Sword coast setting like Murder in baldur´s gate, Descent into avernus, etc.

PD: Sources, all of them interviews from august-september 2019. As you can see they never said that they were going to use the previous games as reference and they stated every time that they only use sources from the D&D lore of WoTC.

Mike and Swen strike back in a Podcast for Kotaku https://kotaku.com/the-ranger-class-is-getting-some-changes-in-d-d-and-ba-1835659585 when they asked them about what ending of BG2-TOB they will pick Swen said they "picked the canon WOTC ending of baalspawn crises " in 24.05 .(Sven or Mike Merle did not even remember the endings of the original games, only the canon ending that was stated for 10 years)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9VgaaNPVeo

Murder in Baldur’s Gate, a 5E D&D playtest module, is a launching point for Larian’s story, and in the events in that adventure result in Bhaal, the God of Murder, returning.
Jon Irenicus, the villain in Baldur’s Gate II, isn’t coming back in the new game. Vincke confirms this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxwCz51nVhA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ju12JNh8gJs

Baldur’s Gate III takes place a century after the events of Shadows of Amn. It’s after The Sundering, another event in Faerun that involved the gods, their followers, and the ushering in of a new D&D edition (as the Time of Troubles did in 2E, setting up part of Baldur’s Gate story in the first place, and 4E’s Spellplague).

“It’s about 100 years after the game. We try to avoid giving specific years, because we have some amount of flexibility in our tabletop campaigns,” Mearls said. “Unless the precise year is really important, we don’t usually refer to it.”

It starts outside the city of Baldur’s Gate, Vincke said, and the city does feature in it. Vincke said Larian’s team used Murder in Baldur’s Gate as a launching point. “And then we worked closely with Adam Lee, who’s working on Baldur’s Gate: Descent into Avernus,” he said. “The original reference we used when we were looking at the city was Murder in Baldur’s Gate.”

He terms Descent into Avernus as a prequel “in a certain way. It’s complementary to the story of Baldur’s Gate III, but Baldur’s Gate III is very much its own story, the next chapter of what happens to the city.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ju12JNh8gJs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxwCz51nVhA

"Vincke said Larian’s team used Murder in Baldur’s Gate as a launching point. “And then we worked closely with Adam Lee, who’s working on Baldur’s Gate: Descent into Avernus,” he said. “The original reference we used when we were looking at the city was Murder in Baldur’s Gate.”

“And then we worked closely with Adam Lee, who’s working on Baldur’s Gate: Descent into Avernus,” he said. “The original reference we used when we were looking at the city was Murder in Baldur’s Gate.”He terms Descent into Avernus as a prequel “in a certain way. It’s complementary to the story of Baldur’s Gate III, but Baldur’s Gate III is very much its own story, the next chapter of what happens to the city.”

Baldur’s Gate III takes place a century after the events of Shadows of Amn. It’s after The Sundering, another event in Faerun that involved the gods, their followers, and the ushering in of a new D&D edition


Originally Posted by Emrikol
Originally Posted by kanisatha
D:OS fans are the core target audience the game is being made for and not for anyone who is not a D:OS fan.

The DOS fanbase and those who are not fans of DOS are not mutually exclusive. Larian can be making the game for both the huge (and current) crowd of DOS fans as well as those who never played DOS1&2 (i.e those who are not DOS fans).

Yes all fanbases are to one extent or another cross-cutting. But don't you think it is telling that the only fanbase that is near-universally thrilled with this game is the D:OS fanbase, whereas the BG and D&D fanbases are at a minimum divided and at most only lukewarm in their reactions to this game? I mean if, as Swen and other Larian people have been saying, this game is not a D:OS game and is truly a BG and D&D game, then shouldn't at least some portion of the D:OS fanbase feel like this is NOT their game? I love the PoE games. But I don't care at all for The Outer Worlds. So just because I love some games of a certain developer does not mean I will or should love all their games, right? But I cannot find any D:OS fans who intend to pass on BG3. That says something to me. It says a whole heck of a lot, actually, that the D:OS fanbase itself fully expects BG3 to be a D:OS game but just with D&D rules and set in the Realms.
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Yes all fanbases are to one extent or another cross-cutting. But don't you think it is telling that the only fanbase that is near-universally thrilled with this game is the D:OS fanbase ... shouldn't at least some portion of the D:OS fanbase feel like this is NOT their game?

Is this actually the case at all? I can speak for nobody else and nor shall I attempt to, but I would quite like to see a BG game be BG. Will it be? I dunno. Will somebody else be the arbiter of that? Goes without saying, probably for multiple values of "somebody else".

Then again, am I a DOS fan? I'm a Divinity fan. There're things DOS (both of them) does that I like less than other games. But I've taken them on their own merits, which is what I'll do with BG3; and it'll be easier working from the position that it isn't trying too hard to live up to expectations that are rooted in something else.
Divinity : Original Sin is not the same game as Divinity 1&2.
None of them are named Divinity 3.
Baldur's Gate : Dark Alliance is not the same game as Balgur's Gate 1&2.

Keep that in mind and stop with that poor argument...

Baldur's Gate 3 should definitely "have the same spirit" as BG1&2, exactly like DoS 3 should have the same as DoS1&2.

Talking about spirit because these are old games that have to be upgraded on many points, that's true.
Larian is not working on any upgrade, they"re doing something totally different.

This is a fact and that's the reasons why many BG fans screamed/scream/will scream.
(And I said many, because it's not about 2 or 3 people. Many fans of BG1&2 I'm talking with since 20 years have the same feelings. Many polls, every forums, facebook, youtube... they all confirmed).

This is not about the quality of the new Larian games, the majority agree to say it's gonna be a (very) good game... But not a good Baldur's Gate main series game...
And that's obviously BG fans that have to say it is or not...
I'm not going to say Divinity 2 is not a good Divinity game if I just don't care about Divinity 1... This is obvious.
As a huge BG fan, I'm not gonna say they stole the name just yet. I'm willing to wait until release at least! Shouldn't we wait until we've seen the rest of the game (and after Larian's actually finished it) until we render that kind of judgement? laugh

Having said that, my first impression was mixed. So.. Here's to hoping they can turn all the skeptics around. Let's give them a fair chance at least.
It's gonna be too late if we wait till the release.
That's why it's important to say things now.

Of course there is a way to say things and there are still many things to see.

Originally Posted by kanisatha
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Originally Posted by kanisatha
D:OS fans are the core target audience the game is being made for and not for anyone who is not a D:OS fan.

The DOS fanbase and those who are not fans of DOS are not mutually exclusive. Larian can be making the game for both the huge (and current) crowd of DOS fans as well as those who never played DOS1&2 (i.e those who are not DOS fans).

Yes all fanbases are to one extent or another cross-cutting.

I was just saying that they can certainly hit two birds with one stone. They can simultaneously be targeting both DOS fans and people who never played DOS1 or 2

Originally Posted by kanisatha
But don't you think it is telling that the only fanbase that is near-universally thrilled with this game is the D:OS fanbase, whereas the BG and D&D fanbases are at a minimum divided and at most only lukewarm in their reactions to this game?

I don't know that you should go so far as to include the D&D crowd in there, of which the BG crowd is a subset. I was and am a D&D fan long before a DOS fan. I'm sure they are scores of thousands like me.

Originally Posted by kanisatha
I mean if, as Swen and other Larian people have been saying, this game is not a D:OS game and is truly a BG and D&D game, then shouldn't at least some portion of the D:OS fanbase feel like this is NOT their game?

Maybe some portion does. But I would say that most fans of DOS have faith in Larian to deliver a great game because of what they did in with DOS2 (and 1). I don't think DOS fans are hung up on the particulars of DOS games. And what "is not a DOS game" or "is truly a BG and D&D game" means can vary greatly from person to person.

Originally Posted by kanisatha
I love the PoE games. But I don't care at all for The Outer Worlds. So just because I love some games of a certain developer does not mean I will or should love all their games, right? But I cannot find any D:OS fans who intend to pass on BG3. That says something to me. It says a whole heck of a lot, actually, that the D:OS fanbase itself fully expects BG3 to be a D:OS game but just with D&D rules and set in the Realms.

Similar to what I said above, all it says to me is that DOS fans expect another spectacular experience. I know I don't expect a lot of what is in DOS2 to be in BG3, but I also expect a similar experience. I think it will be an improvement.
Originally Posted by korotama
Yes, sales will probably help them break even and then some but reputation takes long to build and not nearly as long to be ruined. Calling it anything other than BG3 would have prevented most negative feedback.

Originally Posted by kanisatha

Yes all fanbases are to one extent or another cross-cutting. But don't you think it is telling that the only fanbase that is near-universally thrilled with this game is the D:OS fanbase, whereas the BG and D&D fanbases are at a minimum divided and at most only lukewarm in their reactions to this game? I mean if, as Swen and other Larian people have been saying, this game is not a D:OS game and is truly a BG and D&D game, then shouldn't at least some portion of the D:OS fanbase feel like this is NOT their game? I love the PoE games. But I don't care at all for The Outer Worlds. So just because I love some games of a certain developer does not mean I will or should love all their games, right? But I cannot find any D:OS fans who intend to pass on BG3. That says something to me. It says a whole heck of a lot, actually, that the D:OS fanbase itself fully expects BG3 to be a D:OS game but just with D&D rules and set in the Realms.

The game looks and plays quite a bit like DOS, so that game's fans would NATURALLY be more satisfied. Relative to that, others would OBVIOUSLY be less excited as they have no/less hands-on experience with that type of gameplay or with Larian in general. Simply stating something that obvious is superfluous, let alone making an innuendo out of it. That says something to me. It says a whole heck of a lot, actually, that you have in your possession a tinfoil-hat +5! I'm absolutely convinced that a the large majority of the negative feedback is almost exclusively over the turn-based combat issue. I never saw any thread where that matter wasn't the crux of the grievance, with accusations of the title being a shameless money grab, and "looks too little like muh BG" (while failing to explain why that is) or alternatively "looks too much like bleh DOS" seemingly tacked on to add weight to their entitlement.

On what grounds rooted in D&D would pure-D&D fans have to dislike BG3? Nothing obvious, and certainly not the turn-based combat that is a must for 5e. On what grounds rooted in BG would pure BG-fans have to dislike BG3? Turn-based combat? As for the money grab issue, Larian has stated that there will be significant tie-ins to the original, but there is indubitably aspects of that for sure. This is a business after all. But is it a money grab of the proportions of Fallout 3, 3NV, 4, let alone 76, though? Is BG3 any less of a BG game than Bethesda's/Obsidian's newer Fallout games are Fallout games? The latter are hugely more dissimilar to their origin than BG3 is to it's origin after all.
I have to point out that the game looks like Dos2...in pictures.

Anyone that played DoS games even for a few hours and watched the gameplay could clearly see that mechanically those are very different: BG3 uses D&D mechanics, spells and classes and those are nothing like DoS games.

DoS games do not have party initiative like X-com, for starters; no cooldowns for spells; check rolls for skills, and the actions are limited by action points not by one-movement, one bonus-one action, not every class can evade attacks of opportunity, you do not have damage bonuses for high ground in BG3, spells are nothing alike, you can avoid fall damage, sneak requires a check, the animations are different, The shove action does not exist in DoS games, etc, etc... I could be here all day stating the differences.

It was like the first witcher and Neverwinter nights 2. Both use the Aurora game engine so the models look similar in pictures, but when you play you soon forget that because the gameplay is too different.
You choose the most minor, superficial things to say it looks nothing like DOS.

If you took away all marketing and intros from the gameplay, and put that video side by side with DOS on one side and BG on the other, and showed those videos to someone who has never played EITHER game ...

can you honestly sit here and say that they would think it was BG?

"D&D" isn't enough of a differentiator.

They are party based RPGs, setting is kind of irrelevant to the mechanical "game" part of the title, as you can have a D&D setting in ANY kind of game, and likewise an RPG could have ANY setting.
>the most minor, most superficial things

So... the gameplay mechanics? The combat mechanics (aka 90% of the dnd ruleset and 98% of the OS2 ruleset) are different.
TOTALY THE SAME GAME BRO.

I cant even tell whats a parody account anymore.
Originally Posted by qhristoff
You choose the most minor, superficial things to say it looks nothing like DOS.

If you took away all marketing and intros from the gameplay, and put that video side by side with DOS on one side and BG on the other, and showed those videos to someone who has never played EITHER game ...

can you honestly sit here and say that they would think it was BG?

"D&D" isn't enough of a differentiator.

They are party-based RPGs, the setting is kind of irrelevant to the mechanical "game" part of the title, as you can have a D&D setting in ANY kind of game, and likewise an RPG could have ANY setting.


For once I have to agree with Sordak.
So, now the setting and the combat mechanics are minor, superficial things when you try to define an RPG and compare games. That´s a first.

But putting gameplay video (I mean, not playing the game, you have to only watch the video) of a videogame of 2002 from another company and another from a videogame of 2018 of the same company, using the same engine and compare it with a videogame of 2020 to compare the similarities and you found out that the game of 2020 it´s more similar to the modern game... That´s the ultimate way of comparing games, It seems.

[Linked Image]
Ravenloft: Strahd's Possession, Dark Sun: Shattered Lands and Spelljammer: Pirates of Realmspace are completely different games only by being on different settings. Has similar graphics and almost the same game mechanics but the setting makes playing then completely different

Same with mechanics. Diablo 2 and 3 has a similar setting but are completely different games not just by the wow arstyle of D3, but also by WoW mechanics on D3 and mechanics(which ruins the game as someone who hates things like cooldowns)

Mechanics and setting is what DEFINE a RPG. Putting DOS2 mechanics into Dark Sun would make it a completely different game but a Dark Sun on DOS2 engine with AD&D mechanics and Dark Sun setting can feel like dark Sun.

That said, the unique big depart from Original BG is the turn based. And i an probably one of the few people here who is neutral between RtWP and TB. Both can be good and both can be bad.
playing a very semantic game to avoid the the point of the comparison.

BG3 irrefutably LOOKS like DOS. No one would look at footage of BG 3 and think "oh hey, an new BG game!" if it wasn't pre-labelled. You know that was my point, but you choose instead to pick at semantics.

- character and environment models have the same proportions
- environmental interactivity is 100% carry over from DOS
- lighting and tone are the same as DOS
- they took GREAT lengths to hide the D&D mechanics so that you have combat that looks like DOS
- they are making just as many changes to core 5e as Bioware did back with 2e - so it's not even the "faithful" D&D game that people think it will be.

You also have Swen Vincke on video saying that he thinks BG name has wider reach than Divinity so he think it will be a good way to bring people to Larian-style RPGs.

There never was and there never will be an intent by Larian to make this game anything like Baldur's Gate that people are familiar with.

No one said anything about that BG3 does not look like a DoS game. I mean, both are made by the same company and use the same engine.

What the previous posts said is that the LOOKS of a videogame does not define a game. The setting, the game mechanics, combat rules, etc... yes.

Personally do not care if bg3 is made in 8bit graphics and looks like the Tetris game or Castlevania as long as it´s playable.
The look of a game does matter, and matters a great deal. Regardless of the underlying mechanics or lore, a video game by its very nature is something visual. Everything about the game happens through what you see on your display, and that visual gateway for the game is what you are going to be spending hundreds of hours being engaged with. Even Swen himself recognizes this and has said they are very aware that the game should not come across as a game with a D:OS skin. So it matters that the game should not look like a D:OS game, and it matters that it does (for now) look like a D:OS game.
>hide the Dnd elements
what?
how?
>Muh lighter tone
bullshit.

Go back to RPG codex.
Im beyond giving a shit. Fucking few post accounts spouting the same nonsense every sngle thread.

And bruh, its not gonna look like baldurs gate.
Nobody makes 2d RPgs anymore. get over yourself, it was gonna be 3d one way or another.
Originally Posted by qhristoff
No one would look at footage of BG 3 and think "oh hey, an new BG game!" if it wasn't pre-labelled.

Make new posts, or chime in on ones already created, about each specific feature that you think Larian should do to make the game more BG and less DOS.
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Originally Posted by qhristoff
No one would look at footage of BG 3 and think "oh hey, an new BG game!" if it wasn't pre-labelled.

Make new posts, or chime in on ones already created, about each specific feature that you think Larian should do to make the game more BG and less DOS.

"not make DOS reskin"

which is exactly what's happening, and it isn't going to change, which is why new threads aren't productive, because pedants like you come along and obfuscate differing opinions under a litany of superfluous, surface level rhetoric. hook like and sinker you've eaten up the marketing spin.

this game will be financially successful, but it isn't and never will be "Baldur's Gate" because it is 100% a modified DOS game. They took DOS, and modified the engine. I don't care how much it was modified, it's still just a glorified user mod to adapt DOS2 into D&D 5e.

It will never capture the same magic that BG did because it isn't innovating anything, it isn't introducing anything new, it isn't creating a whole new genre that will capture people's imaginations for 3 decades like BG did. Bioware did this because it made something new and never seen before.

Larian is incapable of doing this. It is, in Swen's own words, using the reach of the BG name to bring more players to Divinity style games.

you want to respect the spirit of BG? don't just rely on the tricks you already know.

Ooops ... too late.
The game doesn't look like Baldur's Gate BUT at the same way is NOTHING like dos2. Only by not having item fever, Zimbabwe number inflation and cooldowns, already made it a solid RPG experience.
^ if you put DOS2 and BG3 side by side with no branding and showed them to a new gamer, they'd think they were watching different areas of the same game.

i get that a lot of people are looking forward to Divinity: Baldur's Gate, but please stop pretending like BG3 looks nothing like DOS. It is disingenuous, and frankly almost gaslighting towards people who don't know the difference.

Again, no one refutes that the BG3 gameplay and DOS2 do LOOK alike, what all the people here besides you are saying is that a game is not all about looks, there are plenty of other things like combat mechanics, setting, character creation, etc... and I think its a pipedream that you think a game made in 2020 by a different company is going to look like a game of 2002, no matter how incredible is the game.
Originally Posted by qhristoff
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Originally Posted by qhristoff
No one would look at footage of BG 3 and think "oh hey, an new BG game!" if it wasn't pre-labelled.

Make new posts, or chime in on ones already created, about each specific feature that you think Larian should do to make the game more BG and less DOS.

"not make DOS reskin"

which is exactly what's happening, and it isn't going to change, which is why new threads aren't productive, because pedants like you come along and obfuscate differing opinions under a litany of superfluous, surface level rhetoric. hook like and sinker you've eaten up the marketing spin.

this game will be financially successful, but it isn't and never will be "Baldur's Gate" because it is 100% a modified DOS game. They took DOS, and modified the engine. I don't care how much it was modified, it's still just a glorified user mod to adapt DOS2 into D&D 5e.

It will never capture the same magic that BG did because it isn't innovating anything, it isn't introducing anything new, it isn't creating a whole new genre that will capture people's imaginations for 3 decades like BG did. Bioware did this because it made something new and never seen before.

Larian is incapable of doing this. It is, in Swen's own words, using the reach of the BG name to bring more players to Divinity style games.

you want to respect the spirit of BG? don't just rely on the tricks you already know.

Ooops ... too late.


You aren't the first around here to share opinions (again, opinions) like this. Blanket statements, complaints, criticisms, etc. are of no constructive purpose or use. Now, if by "I don't care how much it was modified, it's still just a glorified user mod to adapt DOS2 into D&D 5e" you think that no changes short of a complete overhaul of what Larian is doing will be satisfactory, what is your point here? To vent? If so, congratulations. You've done so. We're very all impressed. Now move along.
I had a hate towards larian too on past. Thanks to Shadiversity i purchased dos2 but honestly din't liked. Cooldowns, item fever, Zimbabwe currency number inflation, archers limited to 13m(...) and some people mentioning dos2 as "modern baldur's gate" when dos2 has everything that i hate on modern games.

Even created some rage threads when Vincke mentioned that "misses obvious not work", that "leveling is too slow" and other things ( http://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=85196&Number=652816#Post652816 )

But after thinking a little more, my hate was just a irrational feeling due not liking most modern games and some comments generating high expectations.

I admit. Some things on the BAldur's Gate gameplay i din't liked like the fact that level 1 characters can deal with intellect devourers and the toy range of spells/bows will KILL the ranger class(that is already one of the weakest classes ever), but i confess that i was expecting a Sword Coast Legends feat Divinity Original Sin 2 and got a decent adaptation. Not a amazing adaptation like ToEE, but a decent one.
Originally Posted by _Vic_

Again, no one refutes that the BG3 gameplay and DOS2 do LOOK alike, what all the people here besides you are saying is that a game is not all about looks, there are plenty of other things like combat mechanics, setting, character creation, etc... and I think its a pipedream that you think a game made in 2020 by a different company is going to look like a game of 2002, no matter how incredible is the game.

The look of a game does matter. A lot.
And saying someone not liking the look of BG3 means they want it to look like a game from 2002 is the very definition of a straw man.
what else could it mean.
Baldurs Gates artstyle is incredibly generic, it beeing 2d is it sonly feature
Originally Posted by Andy Butula
Wow. Really? I'm not pissing and moaning about what BG3 isn't going to be so that means I'm a shill? Though if "Hey, this might not be bad" is enough to qualify me for the PR team I won't say no to a check.

What is the appeal of constantly bitching about what the game isn't going to be? If you're already convinced it's not for you, why not just move on? Find something else to kill time with.


Its either

a) You express positivity and you're a shill

or

b) You express negativity and you have multiple accounts coordinating a "hatestorm"


Noone on these forums have a genuine opinion about anything, especially if that opinion is opposite your own.
Is that really a thing, multiple accounts to force through negativity? frown

I agree that visuals are important. It's not necessarily about pushing the tech, having the highest fidelity, most detail, state-of-the-art graphics. But beautiful visuals that fit the gameplay, world and story is a massive boon for any game. I like both Pillars of Eternity games, they did some things very well and a few not so much imo, but one thing they absolutely nailed in my opinion is the visuals. Both of those games are gorgeous, and look very much like what I'd imagine a modern spiritual Baldur's Gate game would look like.

If Larian takes any notes at all from Obsidians efforts, I hope this is one of them laugh

I know BG 3 is deep into development and they've already shown us gameplay, and things like graphics aren't a thing that changes much at this point. But they really wouldn't have to change all that much to suit my personal preference a bit more, so a man can dream. The devs mentioned a dirt/grit system so that might be a step into that direction smile
Originally Posted by CPT_SLOW
Is that really a thing, multiple accounts to force through negativity? frown

Less often than you might think but it does happen. Some are less subtle than others; I dare say there're some we don't know about but if someone's prepared to put in that amount of effort for a small forum... *shrug*
I've never played any Baldur's Gate game, but judging from the gameplay vids it looks interesting.
Just to state the hopefully obvious:

You are now developing Baldur's Gate 3. Larian is no longer a niche dev making goofy lovable games off in the corner.

This is no longer a "small" forum.

There are 5 main points of access for information to fans:

1) Twitter
2) this forum
3) reddit
4) steam forums
5) RPG codex

with other ancillary sources all over the place.

Twitter and this forum are the ONLY official channels.
Originally Posted by CPT_SLOW
Is that really a thing, multiple accounts to force through negativity? frown

)


Sadly yes, as Vometia pointed out, and he/she/they even brag about it in Reddit weeks ago...


got a reddit link?
i got some sources on that from another website alltogether
Ah, what a shame. Seems a bit immature. You'd think this isn't the type of games that attracts the toxic Call of Duty / Fortnite crowds (of 12yearolds) laugh
Originally Posted by Sordak
got a reddit link?
i got some sources on that from another website alltogether

No kidding? Do you think it´s the same person or did they multiply? o.O

Couldn't find it, but IIRC that was crazy, even for Reddit standards. He/she/they even had a mini-tutorial on how to use VPN or some nonsense to make multiple accounts to encourage people to do the same and weird stuff like that. If I find it I will post it, just for the Lulz, because it was pure comedy-channel material.
Originally Posted by qhristoff
Just to state the hopefully obvious:

You are now developing Baldur's Gate 3. Larian is no longer a niche dev making goofy lovable games off in the corner.

This is no longer a "small" forum.

There are 5 main points of access for information to fans:

1) Twitter
2) this forum
3) reddit
4) steam forums
5) RPG codex

with other ancillary sources all over the place.

Twitter and this forum are the ONLY official channels.


Yep, that "small indie dev charm" went away in DOS2 for me. Felt like a tripple A product, fully polished and perfect in every way. Why I dont think thats a good thing, I dont know. Is it comparable to something hand crafted and something massproduced?
Originally Posted by Torque

Yep, that "small indie dev charm" went away in DOS2 for me. Felt like a tripple A product, fully polished and perfect in every way. Why I dont think thats a good thing, I dont know. Is it comparable to something hand crafted and something massproduced?

It is the transversal from "design by artistic process" to "design by sales expectations". The same thing happened with Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire. The reason it didn't resonate was because Pillars 1 was a work of art, whether you liked the combat or linear balance or not, it was a crafted experience. Deadfire was a backer driven mess of schlock romances and pointless ship combat.

You see the same parallel with DOS to DOS2 where DOS, despite some flaws like the dialogue system and the barely 2-tier paper-rock-scissors combat, was a crafted work of passion. DOS2 was an ego trip... it just so happened to also be a successful one, which is why there is so much of that fan momentum pushing BG3 forward. Egos need to be stroked.
Yes Larian is making triple A titles now with the BG name but for me the only reason I am even here is because of the BG3 announcements. Now since then I have purchased and played through D:OS 2 just to get a feel of the studios "Resume" and I was actually quite impressed so color me optimistic but I think we are in good hands.
Originally Posted by qhristoff
t is the transversal from "design by artistic process" to "design by sales expectations". The same thing happened with Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire. The reason it didn't resonate was because Pillars 1 was a work of art, whether you liked the combat or linear balance or not, it was a crafted experience. Deadfire was a backer driven mess of schlock romances and pointless ship combat.

You see the same parallel with DOS to DOS2 where DOS, despite some flaws like the dialogue system and the barely 2-tier paper-rock-scissors combat, was a crafted work of passion. DOS2 was an ego trip... it just so happened to also be a successful one, which is why there is so much of that fan momentum pushing BG3 forward. Egos need to be stroked.


Divinity: Original Sin is an uncut diamond, DOS2 turned it flawless. I dont think its about ego though, its more like success brings a certain set of expectations. And what I think happens then is that developers listen too much on feedback than just making a game that they want to play. The phrase "we listened to the community and improved alot for the sequel" is standard these days, and I'm not so sure its so great? People become fans of the developers and if expectations arent met they get irrationally mad and start demanding change. There are probably some interesting things psychology can teach us about this behavior. As an armchair psychologist myself I suggest that people get so emotionaly invested that they feel entitled: "YOU are not ruining MY game!".

Anyways, I dont think devs should listen too much to the community (I realize the irony of this post) but instead do what feels right. It took Larian decades to get a breakthrough hit. Not sure what the secret ingredient was (probably several) but I doubt there was statistical analysis of some nebolous idea of "what people want".
Originally Posted by Torque

Anyways, I dont think devs should listen too much to the community (I realize the irony of this post) but instead do what feels right.

Don't worry, they're not.

Originally Posted by Torque
DOS2 turned it flawless.

it most certainly did not. you may really like it, but it is not a "flawless cut diamond".

the writing is crap.
the narrative is stunted.
the characters are memes.
the combat is repetitive and too reliant on cheese mechanics.
the combat is slow and tedious and lacks impressive set battles.
the restrictions to ranged combat are arbitrary and clearly a bandaid to some other design flaw they couldn't overcome.
the itemization of gear and loot is atrocious and meaningless.
the graphics look like they were all wrapped in saran wrap to keep them fresh until opened.

I could go on.
Hey I wouldn't call DOS2 a flawless diamond either but you do sound very triggered about it lol

qhristoff despite the list you wrote, do you look forward to BG3?

Apologies if you've already said, I skimmed through the thread but couldn't find.
I do look forward to BG3.

Baldur's Gate is 100% my favourite game of all time. BG1&2 represent a "true" masterpiece in the artistic sense where the confluence of writing and the level of player influence over the story hit a peak that, quite honestly, have NEVER been seen since. And they likely won't be. The only other game to ever match BG was Chrono Trigger - which I think is the best game of all time (even if I *like* BG more - mostly because I love RTwP combat).

I also believe 100% that Larian wants to make the best game they can, I am never going to fault Larian for passion or desire or intent. They love games, they love RPGs. But I honestly have reservations about how much they actually love Baldur's Gate, given the repeated bashing of it by Imbert and others which has created a negative atmosphere amongst the easy persuaded fan base.

I think that the hints of the Three pulling the strings is an interesting narrative choice, and the subtle hints that perhaps the mind flayers aren't actually the villains is also neat.

But why is this a Baldur's Gate game? I would be sincerely surprised if the links were more than just easter eggs and setting throwbacks.

None of the graphic style remains, none of the characters remain, none of the combat or innovative D&D adaptations remain. It could be called anything other than Baldur's Gate and still be an impressive new entry for D&D fans.

Imagine if DOOM Eternal were a tactical shooter like Rainbow Six and it's only link was the past existence of the Icon of Sin and demons from Hell, and Doom Guy easter eggs. Would you still call it DOOM?

I do not like Larian games. I find their writing and their goofiness to be off putting and insipid. I find their combat design to be exceptionally basic and gimmicky. Without flinching from the fact, when I first heard that Larian got the BG license, my heart dropped.

But BG is something I love, so I am willing to sit through all of the hatred from Larian fans who think I am just a troll because I am disappointed. I will buy the game because I am a collector, and because I cannot fully judge the game until I play it.

But I have been gaming for 3 decades. I've seen everything that has come out and I have followed every thread of the evolution of the gaming industry. I have absolutely no faith that what we saw in the gameplay reveal will substantially change. I have absolutely no faith that Larian is capable of making anything but re-iterations of what they've already done. They are taking zero risk by editing the DOS2 engine. No matter how you slice it, BG3 is just a heavily modified DOS2.

Swen himself said in an interview in Malaysia that he thinks BG has wider reach than Divinity, and so this is an opportunity to show more people what Divinity games are like, and to sell more Divinity games. Although, much of what he said during the AMA gave me more respect for him. Part of me thinks that Wizards is pulling more strings than the marketing is letting on.

I have zero faith or expectation that BG3 will be anything more than Divinity: Forgotten Realms. Which would be amazing and great if they didn't openly admit to gutting the soul of Baldur's Gate to do exactly that.

It's heartbreaking.
Dude I have been gaming for several millennia and I have a feeling BG3 will be a success. They're not gutting the series, they're merely trying to teach you how DnD is meant to be played.
what does that even mean "teach you how D&D is meant to be played"? As if I need to be taught? Baldur's Gate is a computer RPG based on D&D. It was never meant or designed to be an accurate translation of PnP rules.

Even Larian is making exceptional changes to D&D to make it work as a video game. Which is the same reason Bioware went with RTwP, to harness the video game part of the product.

Wizards is making a HUGE error in trying to push BG3 as an entry to PnP D&D.

Of course BG3 will be a success, though. It already bought its success through marketing.
Originally Posted by qhristoff
I do look forward to BG3.

Baldur's Gate is 100% my favourite game of all time. BG1&2 represent a "true" masterpiece in the artistic sense where the confluence of writing and the level of player influence over the story hit a peak that, quite honestly, have NEVER been seen since. And they likely won't be. The only other game to ever match BG was Chrono Trigger - which I think is the best game of all time (even if I *like* BG more - mostly because I love RTwP combat).

I also believe 100% that Larian wants to make the best game they can, I am never going to fault Larian for passion or desire or intent. They love games, they love RPGs. But I honestly have reservations about how much they actually love Baldur's Gate, given the repeated bashing of it by Imbert and others which has created a negative atmosphere amongst the easy persuaded fan base.

I think that the hints of the Three pulling the strings is an interesting narrative choice, and the subtle hints that perhaps the mind flayers aren't actually the villains is also neat.

But why is this a Baldur's Gate game? I would be sincerely surprised if the links were more than just easter eggs and setting throwbacks.

None of the graphic style remains, none of the characters remain, none of the combat or innovative D&D adaptations remain. It could be called anything other than Baldur's Gate and still be an impressive new entry for D&D fans.

Imagine if DOOM Eternal were a tactical shooter like Rainbow Six and it's only link was the past existence of the Icon of Sin and demons from Hell, and Doom Guy easter eggs. Would you still call it DOOM?

I do not like Larian games. I find their writing and their goofiness to be off putting and insipid. I find their combat design to be exceptionally basic and gimmicky. Without flinching from the fact, when I first heard that Larian got the BG license, my heart dropped.

But BG is something I love, so I am willing to sit through all of the hatred from Larian fans who think I am just a troll because I am disappointed. I will buy the game because I am a collector, and because I cannot fully judge the game until I play it.

But I have been gaming for 3 decades. I've seen everything that has come out and I have followed every thread of the evolution of the gaming industry. I have absolutely no faith that what we saw in the gameplay reveal will substantially change. I have absolutely no faith that Larian is capable of making anything but re-iterations of what they've already done. They are taking zero risk by editing the DOS2 engine. No matter how you slice it, BG3 is just a heavily modified DOS2.

Swen himself said in an interview in Malaysia that he thinks BG has wider reach than Divinity, and so this is an opportunity to show more people what Divinity games are like, and to sell more Divinity games. Although, much of what he said during the AMA gave me more respect for him. Part of me thinks that Wizards is pulling more strings than the marketing is letting on.

I have zero faith or expectation that BG3 will be anything more than Divinity: Forgotten Realms. Which would be amazing and great if they didn't openly admit to gutting the soul of Baldur's Gate to do exactly that.

It's heartbreaking.


[Linked Image]
^ as yes, the Larian brigade is arriving to belittle and derail.
Originally Posted by qhristoff
Imagine if DOOM Eternal were a tactical shooter like Rainbow Six and it's only link was the past existence of the Icon of Sin and demons from Hell, and Doom Guy easter eggs. Would you still call it DOOM?


The game mechanics will gonna be D&D 5e; with changes(always to worse), so the game will not gonna be like divinity.
Originally Posted by qhristoff
what does that even mean "teach you how D&D is meant to be played"? As if I need to be taught? Baldur's Gate is a computer RPG based on D&D. It was never meant or designed to be an accurate translation of PnP rules.

Even Larian is making exceptional changes to D&D to make it work as a video game. Which is the same reason Bioware went with RTwP, to harness the video game part of the product.

Wizards is making a HUGE error in trying to push BG3 as an entry to PnP D&D.

Of course BG3 will be a success, though. It already bought its success through marketing.

Think of it as a lecture. Everyone loves one, don't they? For decades fans of the original games have had their heads stuck in the sand thinking their favorite games were some sort of gospel for the video game industry. Well, BG3 is being made just to prove people like you wrong. In fact, BG1 and 2 were terrible games and you'll see why when this game launches.
Originally Posted by SorcererVictor
Originally Posted by qhristoff
Imagine if DOOM Eternal were a tactical shooter like Rainbow Six and it's only link was the past existence of the Icon of Sin and demons from Hell, and Doom Guy easter eggs. Would you still call it DOOM?


The game mechanics will gonna be D&D 5e; with changes(always to worse), so the game will not gonna be like divinity.

This just isn't true.

They are hiding all of the mechanics behind Divinity graphics. The PLAY of the game is 100% exactly like DOS2. You control the game and interact with the game 100% the same way. All the switch to 5e does is change the tactics you use during combat. But the combat is still going to PLAY exactly 100% the same as DOS2.
Originally Posted by qhristoff
what does that even mean "teach you how D&D is meant to be played"? As if I need to be taught? Baldur's Gate is a computer RPG based on D&D. It was never meant or designed to be an accurate translation of PnP rules.

Even Larian is making exceptional changes to D&D to make it work as a video game. Which is the same reason Bioware went with RTwP, to harness the video game part of the product. (...)


Do you know that BG is not the unique D&D adaptation? ToEE proved that you can have a faithful adaptation
Originally Posted by korotama
Originally Posted by qhristoff
what does that even mean "teach you how D&D is meant to be played"? As if I need to be taught? Baldur's Gate is a computer RPG based on D&D. It was never meant or designed to be an accurate translation of PnP rules.

Even Larian is making exceptional changes to D&D to make it work as a video game. Which is the same reason Bioware went with RTwP, to harness the video game part of the product.

Wizards is making a HUGE error in trying to push BG3 as an entry to PnP D&D.

Of course BG3 will be a success, though. It already bought its success through marketing.

Think of it as a lecture. Everyone loves one, don't they? For decades fans of the original games have had their heads stuck in the sand thinking their favorite games were some sort of gospel for the video game industry. Well, BG3 is being made just to prove people like you wrong. In fact, BG1 and 2 were terrible games and you'll see why when this game launches.

Excuse me? BG1/2 are a MASTERPIECE not just for BG fans, but regarded by THE ENTIRE GAMING INDUSTRY as the greatest cRPGs ever made.

The very notion that BG fans need a "lecture" about how to play D&D is fucking insulting.

The very notion that you think that BG fans expect a new game to be exactly like a 20 year old game is fucking insulting.

Larian fans, in general, are just fucking insulting.
Originally Posted by SorcererVictor
Originally Posted by qhristoff
what does that even mean "teach you how D&D is meant to be played"? As if I need to be taught? Baldur's Gate is a computer RPG based on D&D. It was never meant or designed to be an accurate translation of PnP rules.

Even Larian is making exceptional changes to D&D to make it work as a video game. Which is the same reason Bioware went with RTwP, to harness the video game part of the product. (...)


Do you know that BG is not the unique D&D adaptation? ToEE proved that you can have a faithful adaptation

yes, TOEE, the lowest selling least memorable D&D cRPG ever made, next to maybe Sword Coast Legends.
I agree that the name of the game has the potential to be quite unfortunate for us BG fans, even if it turns out to be a great game. You gotta wonder if it hadn't been a better idea for Larian to call their DnD game something else, brand/franchise recognition be damned. We'll find out for sure eventually!



Originally Posted by qhristoff
Originally Posted by korotama
Originally Posted by qhristoff
what does that even mean "teach you how D&D is meant to be played"? As if I need to be taught? Baldur's Gate is a computer RPG based on D&D. It was never meant or designed to be an accurate translation of PnP rules.

Even Larian is making exceptional changes to D&D to make it work as a video game. Which is the same reason Bioware went with RTwP, to harness the video game part of the product.

Wizards is making a HUGE error in trying to push BG3 as an entry to PnP D&D.

Of course BG3 will be a success, though. It already bought its success through marketing.

Think of it as a lecture. Everyone loves one, don't they? For decades fans of the original games have had their heads stuck in the sand thinking their favorite games were some sort of gospel for the video game industry. Well, BG3 is being made just to prove people like you wrong. In fact, BG1 and 2 were terrible games and you'll see why when this game launches.

Excuse me? BG1/2 are a MASTERPIECE not just for BG fans, but regarded by THE ENTIRE GAMING INDUSTRY as the greatest cRPGs ever made.

The very notion that BG fans need a "lecture" about how to play D&D is fucking insulting.

The very notion that you think that BG fans expect a new game to be exactly like a 20 year old game is fucking insulting.

Larian fans, in general, are just fucking insulting.


So what? Insulting fans is key to long-term commercial success. You're supposed to attack them, humiliate them, disparage their opinions. It feels good.
Originally Posted by qhristoff
Originally Posted by Torque
DOS2 turned it flawless.

it most certainly did not. you may really like it, but it is not a "flawless cut diamond".

the writing is crap.
the narrative is stunted.
the characters are memes.
the combat is repetitive and too reliant on cheese mechanics.
the combat is slow and tedious and lacks impressive set battles.
the restrictions to ranged combat are arbitrary and clearly a bandaid to some other design flaw they couldn't overcome.
the itemization of gear and loot is atrocious and meaningless.
the graphics look like they were all wrapped in saran wrap to keep them fresh until opened.

I could go on.


Alot of those things are subjective, I'm sure you realize. I dont like DOS2 either but my point about it being flawless was the amount of polish and perfection they made to "improve" from DOS1. I like the writing and the whacky humor mixed with a serious tone, though. Which is something people seem to absolutly detest, I mean there are no bounds to the absolute hatred people will conjure up whenever the topic of Larian writing comes up. I loved every bit of the story/narrative/tone of DOS1. (Cant speak for DOS2 though because I didnt play enough of it).

Originally Posted by qhristoff
the graphics look like they were all wrapped in saran wrap to keep them fresh until opened.


Nicely put. The ligthing effects, shadows and all that technical stuff can be summed up exactly like that, its "looks like its wrapped in saran wrap".
Originally Posted by Torque
but my point about it being flawless was the amount of polish and perfection they made to "improve" from DOS1.


a highly polished turd is still a turd, but at least DOS 1 was an artistic turd, where DOS 2 was a corporate marketing turd.
Originally Posted by qhristoff
Originally Posted by SorcererVictor
Originally Posted by qhristoff
what does that even mean "teach you how D&D is meant to be played"? As if I need to be taught? Baldur's Gate is a computer RPG based on D&D. It was never meant or designed to be an accurate translation of PnP rules.

Even Larian is making exceptional changes to D&D to make it work as a video game. Which is the same reason Bioware went with RTwP, to harness the video game part of the product. (...)


Do you know that BG is not the unique D&D adaptation? ToEE proved that you can have a faithful adaptation

yes, TOEE, the lowest selling least memorable D&D cRPG ever made, next to maybe Sword Coast Legends.


Eh, that's not so important. BG3 doesn't even have to sell a thousand copies in order to be better than either BG1 or 2. As long as Swen and that Mearls guy can play it co-operatively online (complete with a faithful adaptation of 5E rules) it will have been a success that reinvigorates the entire genre.
yes, let's reduce BG to being a forgettable entry like ToEE just so that Swen and Mearls can stroke their egos more.
Originally Posted by qhristoff
Originally Posted by Torque
but my point about it being flawless was the amount of polish and perfection they made to "improve" from DOS1.


a highly polished turd is still a turd, but at least DOS 1 was an artistic turd, where DOS 2 was a corporate marketing turd.

Agreed. At least BG3 will capture the mood of the times - the early 21st century has been a highly polished turd after all.
Originally Posted by korotama
Originally Posted by qhristoff
Originally Posted by Torque
but my point about it being flawless was the amount of polish and perfection they made to "improve" from DOS1.


a highly polished turd is still a turd, but at least DOS 1 was an artistic turd, where DOS 2 was a corporate marketing turd.

Agreed. At least BG3 will capture the mood of the times - the early 21st century has been a highly polished turd after all.


Could you guys sound any less bitter lol frown
because it was a buggy mess mostly.
ToEE is a great game. Mechanics wise at least.
Originally Posted by CPT_SLOW
Originally Posted by korotama
Originally Posted by qhristoff
Originally Posted by Torque
but my point about it being flawless was the amount of polish and perfection they made to "improve" from DOS1.


a highly polished turd is still a turd, but at least DOS 1 was an artistic turd, where DOS 2 was a corporate marketing turd.

Agreed. At least BG3 will capture the mood of the times - the early 21st century has been a highly polished turd after all.


Could you guys sound any less bitter lol frown

Nah, I'm just having a little fun. Bitterness will come later.
Originally Posted by qhristoff
(...)
Do you know that BG is not the unique D&D adaptation? ToEE proved that you can have a faithful adaptation

yes, TOEE, the lowest selling least memorable D&D cRPG ever made, next to maybe Sword Coast Legends. [/quote]

Are you really comparing the most faithful adaptation with the LEAST faithful adaptation? Anyway, look to gold box games then. They are mostly turn based and EXTREMELY harder
Originally Posted by qhristoff
Originally Posted by Torque
but my point about it being flawless was the amount of polish and perfection they made to "improve" from DOS1.


a highly polished turd is still a turd, but at least DOS 1 was an artistic turd, where DOS 2 was a corporate marketing turd.


Why are you on a dedicated Larian forum if you hate the games they make?
being a faithful adaptation doesn't make it a good game by default.

this is literally the central design philosophy behind Baldur's Gate.

Bioware knew that a perfect adaptation wasn't possible, so they put their chips and effort into the real time capabilities of computers.

Their risk resulted in BG being the best selling PC game launch of all time and created an industry distribution model that became the STANDARD for all games. The weapon wheel is Bioware's greatest legacy, and is a direct result of the RTwP innovations that they pursued as a studio.

Baldur's Gate is a masterpiece for a great many reasons.

All the complaints about RTwP boil down to limitations in computing 20 years ago. The fact that no one has innovated it since Infinity Engine is kind of tangential - the potential is still there.

Originally Posted by Torque
Originally Posted by qhristoff
Originally Posted by Torque
but my point about it being flawless was the amount of polish and perfection they made to "improve" from DOS1.


a highly polished turd is still a turd, but at least DOS 1 was an artistic turd, where DOS 2 was a corporate marketing turd.


Why are you on a dedicated Larian forum if you hate the games they make?


if you'd even bothered to read the conversation thus far, you'd know it's because I am a Baldur's Gate fan.

Larian chose to take on a franchise with existing fans. I didn't choose them. Deal with it, like I am.

This is the official Baldur's Gate 3 forum.
Even though I think you're a little overly harsh, I share a lot of your sentiments qhristoff.

Originally Posted by qhristoff


if you'd even bothered to read the conversation thus far, you'd know it's because I am a Baldur's Gate fan.

Larian chose to take on a franchise with existing fans. I didn't choose them. Deal with it, like I am.

This is the official Baldur's Gate 3 forum.


It seems like Baldurs Gate 3 will be a game that you will hate aswell.
and a perfect adaptation of balurs gate isnt possible either, and shouldnt be done.

almost all of the arguments can be made for the other side aswell.

man this topic is fucking boring.
Originally Posted by Sordak
and a perfect adaptation of balurs gate isnt possible either, and shouldnt be done.

almost all of the arguments can be made for the other side aswell.

man this topic is fucking boring.


Is anyone honestly expecting or asking for a perfect adaptation though? Asking / expecting a closer adaptation than what we've been shown so far, yes 100%. But that's hardly the same thing. If the topic's turned boring for you, why engage?
Originally Posted by CPT_SLOW
Is anyone honestly expecting or asking for a perfect adaptation though?


No, and I wish I knew what to call the logical fallacy wherein somehow the argument keeps getting reduced to "BG fans only want a 100% copy of BG" ... as if we aren't also looking for updates, innovations, and improvements to the game we love - which INCLUDES the RTwP combat.

Pillars of Eternity had numerous flaws (linear progression and a stunted ending, most notably. the story is actually incredibly rich if you take the time to dive into the implications of what the Leaden Key really means, etc. I bought their books to use it as a campaign setting for PnP), but it at least improved upon the technical and visual components in a way that tugged on my heart strings rather than cut them in twain. I find P:K too cartoony and bulky for my tastes, which makes the game seem to move very slowly, but they also understand the value of improving upon RTwP and modernizing it.
were in a thread where people argued that it doesnt look like baldurs gate enaugh.
and then also argued that "no they totaly dont want a 2d game"

so basicalyl the argument applies.

you cannot make a game look like baldurs gate without also toning down tis graphics.
Expecting that is an impossibility.

You can call it a logical fallacy all you want. Doesnt make it less true.
Originally Posted by korotama
Originally Posted by qhristoff
what does that even mean "teach you how D&D is meant to be played"? As if I need to be taught? Baldur's Gate is a computer RPG based on D&D. It was never meant or designed to be an accurate translation of PnP rules.

Even Larian is making exceptional changes to D&D to make it work as a video game. Which is the same reason Bioware went with RTwP, to harness the video game part of the product.

Wizards is making a HUGE error in trying to push BG3 as an entry to PnP D&D.

Of course BG3 will be a success, though. It already bought its success through marketing.

Think of it as a lecture. Everyone loves one, don't they? For decades fans of the original games have had their heads stuck in the sand thinking their favorite games were some sort of gospel for the video game industry. Well, BG3 is being made just to prove people like you wrong. In fact, BG1 and 2 were terrible games and you'll see why when this game launches.

This is a bit of a false dichotomy. Qhristoff is a zealot, not really representative of BG fans. I loved the original BG-series dearly and replayed it when Beamdog's Enhanced Edition was released. That alone places me among the more ardent parts of the fandom. But I was knowingly chasing nostalgia more than a classic that could withstand the test of time. So what made the original series a classic? Mostly because the games overdelivered so hard on contemporary expectations which even Bioware has admitted isn't possible today. Removed from that context, I agree Baldur's Gate should *not* be gospel in terms of game mechanics which is the focus of almost all of the BG3-criticism. That said; BG has made RPG staples like party interaction/banter, romance, character evolution and a deep storyline. DOS2 (my first and only Larian game) was more of a spiritual successor of the original series than Bioware's own NWN and DA in all regards in my opinion.

I think we agree BG3 is a smart move for both Larian and especially Wizards of the Coast. BG3 will revive a dead classic and furthermore showcase both D&D 5e and Larian. Taking the example of another Black Isle Studio title; the rights to Fallout was bought by Bethesda back in 2007. Fallout 3 was a revolution in terms of game mechanics and played nothing like its prequels, yet brought millions new gamers into the fandom.
Originally Posted by Seraphael

I think we agree BG3 is a smart move for both Larian and especially Wizards of the Coast. BG3 will revive a dead classic and furthermore showcase both D&D 5e and Larian. Taking the example of another Black Isle Studio title; the rights to Fallout was bought by Bethesda back in 2007. Fallout 3 was a revolution in terms of game mechanics and played nothing like its prequels, yet brought millions new gamers into the fandom.


If, as with the change in the Fallout franchise, Larian were producing BG3 as a first-person, real-time, single-player RPG set in the Forgotten Realms with newly-developed mechanics, I would be looking forward to it with much greater anticipation. But that is not what BG3 is going to be.
Originally Posted by Seraphael
Qhristoff is a zealot,


LOL. I would like you to quantify your statement, or fuck right off.

What's your steam username? because that's the only other place where people call RTwP fans zealots.
I wish we knew *who* was representative of the fandom. Normally, a company would conduct a survey to gather such data but if you're 100% sure your product is going to be a hit I guess you don't need to (*cough* group-think). smile
^ interestingly, in the post-mortem video about Deadfire with Josh Sawyer, he talks in the early part of the lecture about data he had received from Swen Vincke (who is a data-hound par excellence, btw, don't argue numbers with that man) that showed there was almost zero overlap between the Pillars and Divinity demographics.
Originally Posted by qhristoff
^ interestingly, in the post-mortem video about Deadfire with Josh Sawyer, he talks in the early part of the lecture about data he had received from Swen Vincke (who is a data-hound par excellence, btw, don't argue numbers with that man) that showed there was almost zero overlap between the Pillars and Divinity demographics.


Really? I wonder, does that mean people only like one having tried both, or does it mean they only purchase one, not both? Most people posting here seem to have played both PoE and D:OS. I started both and finished neither, as they were both lacklustre games. I'm certainly hoping BG3 is a significant improvement.
Originally Posted by etonbears
Originally Posted by qhristoff
^ interestingly, in the post-mortem video about Deadfire with Josh Sawyer, he talks in the early part of the lecture about data he had received from Swen Vincke (who is a data-hound par excellence, btw, don't argue numbers with that man) that showed there was almost zero overlap between the Pillars and Divinity demographics.


Really? I wonder, does that mean people only like one having tried both, or does it mean they only purchase one, not both? Most people posting here seem to have played both PoE and D:OS. I started both and finished neither, as they were both lacklustre games. I'm certainly hoping BG3 is a significant improvement.


Same here.. well with the exception that I was able to finish PoE eventually. D:OS was novel for a while as I played it with a buddy of mine but we kind of got bored I suppose. Wasn't a fan of the virtually non-existent character development in PoE while D:OS didn't even take itself seriously.
Keep in mind, marketing demographics aren't just based on binary "do you like it" kind of measurements but rather a huge amount of cross referenced points, and Josh Sawyer didn't go in to deep detail, but the comment itself was interesting, to suggest how little crossover there is.

It correlates with the poll from PC Gamer where there is a very unusually clean split in preference between combat systems with a 46/54 split which almost does make it look like a binary split.
It makes sense. PoE is RTwP, dark and gloomy. D:OS is TB and goofy. They're practically binary opposites.
Originally Posted by korotama
It makes sense. PoE is RTwP, dark and gloomy. D:OS is TB and goofy. They're practically binary opposites.


I love TB and RTwP games. Love ToEE and BG
Originally Posted by qhristoff
Keep in mind, marketing demographics aren't just based on binary "do you like it" kind of measurements but rather a huge amount of cross referenced points, and Josh Sawyer didn't go in to deep detail, but the comment itself was interesting, to suggest how little crossover there is.

It correlates with the poll from PC Gamer where there is a very unusually clean split in preference between combat systems with a 46/54 split which almost does make it look like a binary split.


That's why I was interested in what his comments meant. A lot of gamers will try something they are not sure of ( although perhaps later in the lifecycle, and at a discount ), but can't then be relied upon to buy subsequent games in a series.

Sometimes it is as simple as a preference for some mechanic or other, but generally it's more about whether the game was enjoyable or not. I bought PoE, didn't finish it, so was obviously not waiting with 'bated breath for Deadfire ( particularly as the Deadfire marketing stressed pirates, which are a turn-off for me ). I think I have subsequently bought it in a Steam sale, because I think I will eventually go back to finish PoE, as it had some redeeming features.

The same is true of D:OS. I tried it, didn't finish it and therefore didn't buy D:OS2. But alhough I prefer RT, the combat system alone wouldn't prevent me from buying a game. The problem with D:OS was that I didn't get engaged by the world, the story, the character system, the item system, or aything else. The one good idea D:OS had ( environmental interaction ) was ruined through over-use. I don't know that I will ever go back to finish D:OS as there are so many better games available.

But not liking Original Sin games does not mean I won't like BG3. At the very least, it has a great setting in the Forgotten Realms, I have hopes that their story-telling has improved ( the higher production values will help here ), and although D&D has gone downhill since the early editions, the character and item systems are still better that Original Sin.

This is why I am surprised that a "typical gamer" might be considered to be rigid and inflexible.
and me, I loved PoE so much I spent 400 hours playing every class through to the end, but I cannot stand DOS or DOS2. I was heartbroken by what Obsidian did with Deadfire. It as so disappointing to go from modern classic to modern crap.

In DOS I get about as far as the fist city where you end up meeting a woman in a tub who tells you to get out. By that point, my frustration with the dialogue system reaches peak and I just say fuck it. Likewise, in DOS2 I just can't get out of Fort Joy because the meme level companions just piss me off so much I want nothing to do with the game.
Originally Posted by etonbears
Originally Posted by Seraphael

I think we agree BG3 is a smart move for both Larian and especially Wizards of the Coast. BG3 will revive a dead classic and furthermore showcase both D&D 5e and Larian. Taking the example of another Black Isle Studio title; the rights to Fallout was bought by Bethesda back in 2007. Fallout 3 was a revolution in terms of game mechanics and played nothing like its prequels, yet brought millions new gamers into the fandom.


If, as with the change in the Fallout franchise, Larian were producing BG3 as a first-person, real-time, single-player RPG set in the Forgotten Realms with newly-developed mechanics, I would be looking forward to it with much greater anticipation. But that is not what BG3 is going to be.


Thank the Gods it's not that.
Originally Posted by Omegaphallic
Originally Posted by etonbears
Originally Posted by Seraphael

I think we agree BG3 is a smart move for both Larian and especially Wizards of the Coast. BG3 will revive a dead classic and furthermore showcase both D&D 5e and Larian. Taking the example of another Black Isle Studio title; the rights to Fallout was bought by Bethesda back in 2007. Fallout 3 was a revolution in terms of game mechanics and played nothing like its prequels, yet brought millions new gamers into the fandom.


If, as with the change in the Fallout franchise, Larian were producing BG3 as a first-person, real-time, single-player RPG set in the Forgotten Realms with newly-developed mechanics, I would be looking forward to it with much greater anticipation. But that is not what BG3 is going to be.


Thank the Gods it's not that.


From whose perspective? TT D&D has always been a niche interest since its introduction in the 1970s, and I seriously doubt that BG3 can, or will, do anything to change that, if that is truly what WotC hope. As for Larian, they would have a much larger market potential if BG3 were more like TW3 or Bethesda games.

I've been saying for a long while now that the D:OS fanbase does not have a significant overlap with the BG fanbase, so the D:OS and PoE demographics having little overlap makes complete sense to me. This is why I also say that Larian making BG3 primarily for the D:OS fanbase rather than for the BG fanbase does not make sense. And yes, the game IS being made primarily for the D:OS fanbase.
Originally Posted by kanisatha
I've been saying for a long while now that the D:OS fanbase does not have a significant overlap with the BG fanbase, so the D:OS and PoE demographics having little overlap makes complete sense to me. This is why I also say that Larian making BG3 primarily for the D:OS fanbase rather than for the BG fanbase does not make sense. And yes, the game IS being made primarily for the D:OS fanbase.

Overlap between fanbases of both games? I suspect there is a lot. Overlap between fanatics who hold one or the other to be an inviolate, sacred masterpiece? Probably not.
Originally Posted by kanisatha
I've been saying for a long while now that the D:OS fanbase does not have a significant overlap with the BG fanbase, so the D:OS and PoE demographics having little overlap makes complete sense to me. This is why I also say that Larian making BG3 primarily for the D:OS fanbase rather than for the BG fanbase does not make sense. And yes, the game IS being made primarily for the D:OS fanbase.

Larian fans are just happy to be getting a new game and I'm happy for them too. That said, trying to sell this game to BG fans without some of the series staples is quite a gamble. Maybe it will work, maybe it won't.
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Originally Posted by kanisatha
I've been saying for a long while now that the D:OS fanbase does not have a significant overlap with the BG fanbase, so the D:OS and PoE demographics having little overlap makes complete sense to me. This is why I also say that Larian making BG3 primarily for the D:OS fanbase rather than for the BG fanbase does not make sense. And yes, the game IS being made primarily for the D:OS fanbase.

Overlap between fanbases of both games? I suspect there is a lot. Overlap between fanatics who hold one or the other to be an inviolate, sacred masterpiece? Probably not.

Apparently Sawyer and Vincke have reached the conclusion there is very little overlap. Well, between PoE and DOS at least. It makes sense but no one knows for sure how representative POE is of the BG fandom. Actually, there are a lot of unknowns here a company can ill afford.
Originally Posted by korotama
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Originally Posted by kanisatha
I've been saying for a long while now that the D:OS fanbase does not have a significant overlap with the BG fanbase, so the D:OS and PoE demographics having little overlap makes complete sense to me. This is why I also say that Larian making BG3 primarily for the D:OS fanbase rather than for the BG fanbase does not make sense. And yes, the game IS being made primarily for the D:OS fanbase.

Overlap between fanbases of both games? I suspect there is a lot. Overlap between fanatics who hold one or the other to be an inviolate, sacred masterpiece? Probably not.

Apparently Sawyer and Vincke have reached the conclusion there is very little overlap. Well, between PoE and DOS at least. It makes sense but no one knows for sure how representative POE is of the BG fandom. Actually, there are a lot of unknowns here a company can ill afford.

PoE and DOS? Maybe not, considering they are basically contemporaneous. But how many fans of DOS never played or liked BG1&2? If there are many, I suspect they are mostly younger people who got into gaming anywhere from a few to many years after BG2 was released.
Originally Posted by kanisatha
I've been saying for a long while now that the D:OS fanbase does not have a significant overlap with the BG fanbase, so the D:OS and PoE demographics having little overlap makes complete sense to me. This is why I also say that Larian making BG3 primarily for the D:OS fanbase rather than for the BG fanbase does not make sense. And yes, the game IS being made primarily for the D:OS fanbase.

I don't know who was in charge of market research but when you have a high-budget project on your hands like this you're going to want to find out as much as you humanly can about your target audience. You'll run a few surveys (I believe this is what companies like Atlus do on a regular basis) to gauge stuff like preferred art direction, lore continuity, gameplay mechanics, which helps you make an informed decision. In the long run such valuable info will have saved you time, money and even pain. You'll also have found out who the overwhelming majority is, who the zealots are etc. Then we wouldn't even be having this argument right now.
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Originally Posted by korotama
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Originally Posted by kanisatha
I've been saying for a long while now that the D:OS fanbase does not have a significant overlap with the BG fanbase, so the D:OS and PoE demographics having little overlap makes complete sense to me. This is why I also say that Larian making BG3 primarily for the D:OS fanbase rather than for the BG fanbase does not make sense. And yes, the game IS being made primarily for the D:OS fanbase.

Overlap between fanbases of both games? I suspect there is a lot. Overlap between fanatics who hold one or the other to be an inviolate, sacred masterpiece? Probably not.

Apparently Sawyer and Vincke have reached the conclusion there is very little overlap. Well, between PoE and DOS at least. It makes sense but no one knows for sure how representative POE is of the BG fandom. Actually, there are a lot of unknowns here a company can ill afford.

PoE and DOS? Maybe not, considering they are basically contemporaneous. But how many fans of DOS never played or liked BG1&2? If there are many, I suspect they are mostly younger people who got into gaming anywhere from a few to many years after BG2 was released.

That might be true but your guess is as good as mine. I've read posts on here to the effect that BG is one of their favorite series of all time despite being young themselves - they had learned of the series through word of mouth, via reviews that heaped praise on it etc.
^ almost every day on /r/baldursgate new players arrive and post about how much they love the game.

1998 to 2020.

That's why it's a masterpiece. It is literally timeless.

I want Larian to succeed, despite all my criticism, but I highly doubt they will because they are choosing to circumvent this 22 year legacy to push their own RPG identity into the franchise.

They'd have been far better off calling it something like "Baldur's Gate: Absolution" or "Baldur's Gate: Ceremorphosis" (that second one sucks, I admit, I was just filling in space, I think "Absolution" after the Cult of the Absolute is so poignant and a much better title).

the 3 indicates a DIRECT narrative connection between 1/2 and 3 ... which implies Bhallspawn legacy, but that is over which has been confirmed. This is a new story with new characters that feature the Dead Three - it's more about them than it is the previous games, in which case "Baldur's Gate: the Three" would be an apt pun on this being the third title, and also being about the Dead Three.

BG3 is pure nostalgia bait, and a really cheap low blow by Larian.

Best analogy I can come up with is Starcraft. Imagine Blizz came along and said "SC3 will be TB" and just left it at that. Videogames are still games, and that core game PLAY part is a piece of the recipe that, if changed, completely changes the flavour of the finished product.
Originally Posted by qhristoff
BG3 is pure nostalgia bait, and a really cheap low blow by Larian.

Best analogy I can come up with is Starcraft. Imagine Blizz came along and said "SC3 will be TB" and just left it at that. Videogames are still games, and that core game PLAY part is a piece of the recipe that, if changed, completely changes the flavour of the finished product.


Well heres a thought : What if Wizards of the Sword Coast encouraged them or even gave them specifically the license to make Baldurs gate 3 with that specific title?
and they have even confirmed direct narrative connection to the first two... is that not good enough? I dont know, I played and loved BG2 when i was a kid and I am
by no means convinced that it will be so radically different based primarily on the combat system.
I mean, sure, we don't know 100%, but at present the only narrative link that they have confirmed is that BG1/2 happened 100 years ago and people remember as history to varying levels of accuracy. We know that the Dead Three are involved.

But, that just confirms that BG1/2 are cannon. So is the Underdark and Menzoberannzen. The existence of Forgotten Realms deities doesn't necessarily make it Baldur's Gate.

We know 100% certainly that the Gorion/Jon Irenecus story is FINISHED, completed, and done. Adam Smith goes to great lengths to point out that this is a rare thing when making a sequel, which has freed them up to make new stories and characters.

Imagine if Disney had called Mandalorian "Star Wars 10" just because it features the empire and a throwback to Yoda, and it takes place 50 years later.

It doesn't really matter who made the decision to call it BG3 .. it was a marketing decision, not an artistic one. That's why I call it a low blow.
To be fair, although using BG3 as the name is clearly a marketing tactic, I doubt that the name alone would actually convince many people to buy it. How often does anyone here buy games without at least looking at a few reviews or non-marketing information sources?

I certainly want to like the game enough to buy it, or I wouldn't bother commenting here, but I am still on the fence as I am not a fan of the Original Sin games, or games that have a poor SP experience or weak RP credentials.
Good points from both of you I must admit. Here's hoping we at least get a game that will keep us entertained for a good while...
Originally Posted by Omegaphallic
Originally Posted by etonbears
If, as with the change in the Fallout franchise, Larian were producing BG3 as a first-person, real-time, single-player RPG set in the Forgotten Realms with newly-developed mechanics, I would be looking forward to it with much greater anticipation. But that is not what BG3 is going to be.


Thank the Gods it's not that.

I was actually going to pin a troll thread announcing exactly this on April the 1st. I was told not to. *sulks*
we almost made progress in these threads and now were going back to the same bullshit you posted weeks ago.
Do you never get tired of the same nonsense?
Marketing tactic? Realy? when they were asked to do it. takes a 5 minute google search to figure out.
And of course theres no overlap between PoE and DOS fanbases.

The PoE games are almost universally considered to be terrible and the only people that play them are contrarians who hate innovation or games jouranlists.

sayng that theres no overlap between the DOS fanbase and the infinity engine fanbase is ridiculous.
Only you dont count people that played the Infinity engine games back in the day and then evolved thei taste.

You only count those who refuse to play anyhting but.
POE was largely received to critical acclaim. It was POE2 that failed and fans of the series near unanimously agree that Deadfire improved upon the mechanical game in myriad ways.

POE1 is a modern cult classic.
by games journalists.
PoE 1 is not a modern cult classic by any metric.

you gotta live in fantasy land to think that.
PoE played it way too safe and was far too unmemorable fo rthat title.
If aynthing, thatd be Pathfinder Kingmaker
Pillars was a critical success, not a financial one. Metacritic score 89%. Same score as games like DOOM Eternal and Ori and the Will of the Wisps. Also both critically acclaimed titles. Only 4 points below DOS2, which has 93% Metacritic. DOS 1 only got 87% though ... HMMMMMMMMMMMmmmmMMmMmMMMMmmmmmm......

How is that for a metric?

"you'd have to be delusional" to ignore actual facts and statistics that you happen to disagree with.

edit: for those playing the home game, BG1 and BG2 got 91% and 95%, respectively - the EEs considerably less.
yeah, bunch of limp wristed game journalists calling someting good doesnt make something into a cult classic.
Because thats not what PoE is.

maybe you think that on RPG codex, but thats just another echo chamber
Be fabulous to each other, guys, because we are not... er, certain other places. And I have a headache.
The number of large western party based RPGs is so small that I guess most players who have played one of them have also played some of the other games.
Lets see, there are the IE games (original and EE), NWN1+2, Dragon age origins ( I have not played later parts so I cannot talk about them) PoE1+2 and Pathfinder Kingmaker.
Lets add Numenera ( much worse than PST) and KotoR1+2 (part 1 was quite standart, I really liked part 2 with Kreia being one of the best characters ever).
There was also Drakensang1+2, does anybody outside of germany know them?

I think that D:OS1+2 are a bit different than the ones above. The character system is rather simple, they are based on cooldowns, they have random items with levels and they focus a lot on interaction between elements themselves (water+fire=steam) and on interactions with the environment (teleport, barrels, . . .).

Personally I like the games from the list above more, so I am happy with the direction BG3 is going.
I also like JRPGs (Trails series is fantastic as example for great games as good ans large as the ones above) and some Pixel Art, RPG Maker or SNES style games. Its impressive what a single person or a small team can do. Undertale was great (OK the game mechanics were far from perfect for me, but it had more great ideas than most other games together)

My point is: I think it makes no sense trying to divide people in BG fans, PoE fans and D:OS fans as completely different groups.
There are so few games in this market that most people who liked one of them also played some of the others.
In every forum when talking about one game almost all members are always comparing it with stuff from one or more of the other games which makes me think this member has played them.

So when a dev creates a game, they will try to attract players from All of the games above plus some others, because it makes no sense to make a small market even smaller.
So yes, BG3 will have stuff that reminds of BG1+2 (because its part of the series, no matter if the name is just chosen for marketing or if wotc forced them or whatever reason), it will have stuff that reminds of D:OS1+2 (because Larian wants to keep the players they already have) and it will have stuff that reminds of some others things, plus several new things hopefully.
Larian says they make games because they love gaming, but its still a company and they need to make money to pay their employees. Its only natural that a company looks what products were popular so far and tries to include stuff that made them so popular.
BG3 will not feel exactly like BG1+2 with new graphics, because it makes no sense to ignore everything that happened the last 20 years.
Originally Posted by Madscientist
My point is: I think it makes no sense trying to divide people in BG fans, PoE fans and D:OS fans as completely different groups.
There are so few games in this market that most people who liked one of them also played some of the others.

And I say you are completely and totally wrong about this. This may be true for the people on this forum, who make up a tiny fraction of 1% of the total number of people who've bought and played those games. The people on this forum, and all such forums, are not even close to being representative of the overall fanbases of these games.

For a long time now the broad, general population of gamers have been complaining about RPGs as being unplayable for them. D:OS came along and said to those gamers, here's an RPG that fixes all your complaints but is still and RPG: no deep story, don't have to read a lot, silly dialog and characters, cartoony writing and characters, glitzy shiny graphics, full VO, co-op play, lots of gimmicks like blowing up oil barrels, and most important of all - a very simple, superficial, easy to understand and use set of game rules and mechanics combined with the ease of TB combat. And all of THIS is what brought in hundreds of thousands of new gamers, people who normally DON'T play cRPGs, into the D:OS flock, because D:OS was specifically made to appeal to gamers beyond the traditional, classic, hardcore cRPG fanbase which accounts for only about half a million to one million gamers. This is how D:OS was able to bring in better sales than its contemporaries such as PoE, because games like PoE (and P:Km) continued to cater only to that hardcore cRPG fanbase.

But now Larian is making a D&D game. And the D&D ruleset and mechanics, even in its much simplified 5e form, is much, much, much more complex, deep, sophisticated, and convoluted than anything one will find in a D:OS game. Many of the casual D:OS fans - to be very clear, these are the vast majority of D:OS players who are NOT on this forum - will take one look at BG3 and run away because even 5e D&D mechanics are very far from the simple, silly, gimmicky mechanics of D:OS. And this is why Larian is going out of its way to try and reassure those D:OS fans, not the tiny fraction of hardcore fans who are on this forum but the hundreds of thousands of casual fans out there, that BG3 will be "just like D:OS." They need to do this to hold on to the whole of the D:OS fanbase. But the more they do this, the more they alienate the hardcore D&D/BG/cRPG fanbases. It's a catch-22. Strictly speaking of cRPGs, either you can create a deep, complex, sophisticated, story-focused rather than combat-focused game that sells at best about 500,000 to 1 million, or, you can create a superficial, glitzy, shallow, gimmicky game heavy on blow everything up "cool" combat that will sell several million. But you cannot have both. So contemporary developers of cRPGs have to make a decision on which path they want to take. Larian has clearly opted for the second path, because big sales numbers are what they want/need. A studio like Owlcat has decided on the former - making hardcore games for the hardcore gamer fanbase and accepting that their sales numbers will never get very high. Studios like Obsidian and inXile are in the process right now of figuring out what direction they will take.

This is my personal take on things.
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Originally Posted by Madscientist
My point is: I think it makes no sense trying to divide people in BG fans, PoE fans and D:OS fans as completely different groups.
There are so few games in this market that most people who liked one of them also played some of the others.

And I say you are completely and totally wrong about this. This may be true for the people on this forum, who make up a tiny fraction of 1% of the total number of people who've bought and played those games. The people on this forum, and all such forums, are not even close to being representative of the overall fanbases of these games.

For a long time now the broad, general population of gamers have been complaining about RPGs as being unplayable for them. D:OS came along and said to those gamers, here's an RPG that fixes all your complaints but is still and RPG: no deep story, don't have to read a lot, silly dialog and characters, cartoony writing and characters, glitzy shiny graphics, full VO, co-op play, lots of gimmicks like blowing up oil barrels, and most important of all - a very simple, superficial, easy to understand and use set of game rules and mechanics combined with the ease of TB combat. And all of THIS is what brought in hundreds of thousands of new gamers, people who normally DON'T play cRPGs, into the D:OS flock, because D:OS was specifically made to appeal to gamers beyond the traditional, classic, hardcore cRPG fanbase which accounts for only about half a million to one million gamers. This is how D:OS was able to bring in better sales than its contemporaries such as PoE, because games like PoE (and P:Km) continued to cater only to that hardcore cRPG fanbase.

But now Larian is making a D&D game. And the D&D ruleset and mechanics, even in its much simplified 5e form, is much, much, much more complex, deep, sophisticated, and convoluted than anything one will find in a D:OS game. Many of the casual D:OS fans - to be very clear, these are the vast majority of D:OS players who are NOT on this forum - will take one look at BG3 and run away because even 5e D&D mechanics are very far from the simple, silly, gimmicky mechanics of D:OS. And this is why Larian is going out of its way to try and reassure those D:OS fans, not the tiny fraction of hardcore fans who are on this forum but the hundreds of thousands of casual fans out there, that BG3 will be "just like D:OS." They need to do this to hold on to the whole of the D:OS fanbase. But the more they do this, the more they alienate the hardcore D&D/BG/cRPG fanbases. It's a catch-22. Strictly speaking of cRPGs, either you can create a deep, complex, sophisticated, story-focused rather than combat-focused game that sells at best about 500,000 to 1 million, or, you can create a superficial, glitzy, shallow, gimmicky game heavy on blow everything up "cool" combat that will sell several million. But you cannot have both. So contemporary developers of cRPGs have to make a decision on which path they want to take. Larian has clearly opted for the second path, because big sales numbers are what they want/need. A studio like Owlcat has decided on the former - making hardcore games for the hardcore gamer fanbase and accepting that their sales numbers will never get very high. Studios like Obsidian and inXile are in the process right now of figuring out what direction they will take.

This is my personal take on things.

If "most people who liked one of them also played some of the others" is "totally wrong," that seems to imply you believe that "most people who liked one of them played few to none of the others," or "a few people who liked one of them also played some of the others," or "most people who liked one of them also played none of the others," or any such nonsense. What he said is not totally wrong. It is mostly correct. A lot of people have not only played but actually enjoyed one or all of not just those three games, but many others as well.

And drop the whole "hardcore gamer/fanbase"stuff. Just because you and some other like games to be a certain way doesn't make you any more or less "hardcore" than anyone else. You're not better, or special, or pure, or true, or skilled, or any such crap.
As far as I know, the world of the CRPG developers is a small one. The guys and gals of DCRed Project, Owlcat games, Larian, Inxile, obsidian, Tactical adventures know each other.
You can see them posting photos together in media. They publicly congratulate each other on Twitter. Larian is one of the usual crowdfunders in kickstarter CRPG games like the ones of Tactical adventures 5e game "Solasta" The Beamdog studio, that initially made a request to do BG3, congratulates them when they got to make the game,

You can see David Gaider, Josh sawyer, Tim Cain, Avellone, joking in twitter about each others games. They congratulate the others when they finally get to made games because they know how hard it is. When they asked the Owlcat studio devs about BG3 they give then their regards because they were also flamed due to their decision to include a TB option in their RPWP game PF: WoTR and they simply stated "Let Larian do BG3 whatever they want"


All this controversy always come from a (usually) toxic portion of (self-)called fans that only made a somewhat niche game types, the CRPG, even more niche. The devs get along with each other end doesn´t really care about those artificially-made wars between fans of games, never supported it, never gave their opinion about them besides to try to calm things down, never cared. They just made the best games they can and support the effort of the others that try to made CRPG games in the era of Call of Duty, FIFA's and the like.


Personally I played BG games, DoS games, PoE games, ToEE games, Divinity games, Pathfinder games, and also Fallout games, Last of us, Mass effect games, etc... and I liked them for different reasons and I always find pointless to try to convice other people that you should dislike another game because you play one of the "others" that you like. You can like both, or neither, who cares?

Originally Posted by kanisatha


But now Larian is making a D&D game. And the D&D ruleset and mechanics, even in its much simplified 5e form, is much, much, much more complex, deep, sophisticated, and convoluted than anything one will find in a D:OS game. Many of the casual D:OS fans - to be very clear, these are the vast majority of D:OS players who are NOT on this forum - will take one look at BG3 and run away because even 5e D&D mechanics are very far from the simple, silly, gimmicky mechanics of D:OS. And this is why Larian is going out of its way to try and reassure those D:OS fans, not the tiny fraction of hardcore fans who are on this forum but the hundreds of thousands of casual fans out there, that BG3 will be "just like D:OS." They need to do this to hold on to the whole of the D:OS fanbase. But the more they do this, the more they alienate the hardcore D&D/BG/cRPG fanbases. It's a catch-22. Strictly speaking of cRPGs, either you can create a deep, complex, sophisticated, story-focused rather than combat-focused game that sells at best about 500,000 to 1 million, or, you can create a superficial, glitzy, shallow, gimmicky game heavy on blow everything up "cool" combat that will sell several million. But you cannot have both. So contemporary developers of cRPGs have to make a decision on which path they want to take. Larian has clearly opted for the second path, because big sales numbers are what they want/need. A studio like Owlcat has decided on the former - making hardcore games for the hardcore gamer fanbase and accepting that their sales numbers will never get very high. Studios like Obsidian and inXile are in the process right now of figuring out what direction they will take.

This is my personal take on things.


I think the key is to let the player customize the game as they see fit. Give them options, options and more options. If you're aiming for a six-figure sales target you obviously have to gear the core of the game towards casual players. However, exploration should be rewarded as well as mastery of the game's mechanical underpinnings. Although, I can't help but think of the Souls series which has sold several million copies worldwide despite being pretty hardcore. Maybe we're heavily underestimating the D&D/BG/cRPG fanbase and much of the genre's current plight is simply attributable to a decline in quality since BG's heyday compared to its competitors.
i dont even know how to respond to kanisatha without mockery.
yeah sure buddy, youre the hardcore people out there.
Baldurs gate is the dark souls of crpgs

meanwhile tons of grogs whining on the divinity steam forums because they are getting filtered by by the scarecrow
Originally Posted by Sordak
i dont even know how to respond to kanisatha without mockery.
yeah sure buddy, youre the hardcore people out there.
Baldurs gate is the dark souls of crpgs

meanwhile tons of grogs whining on the divinity steam forums because they are getting filtered by by the scarecrow


From what I've seen, I don't think you know how to respond without mockery. Period. laugh


Regarding the topic of mainstream vs niche, I myself play Call of Duty & Fifa and I play Baldur's Gate & Original Sin. I get that it's tricky for developers to appeal to a broader audience and keep their company thriving and the workplace secure, but at the same time avoiding becoming too casual and loosing old fans because of it. Larian seem to be able to balance this pretty well.

As for crossover within the crpg bubble itself, I dunno. The few people I know RL that play these type of games, have to my knowledge played (or at least purchased and tried) most of DoS, PoE, etc etc.
i dont think anyone is trying to make CRPGs for a broader audience.
the only ones that tried were Bioware with dragon age.

Realy, CRPGs are a niche genre and i think Larian, Obsidian and Owlcat all know this.
The fanbase is small and dedicated, but they also like experimentation.

Hence why the next owlcat game is gonna have a HoMM like mode in it.

Bioware got name recognition, but at the end of the day, CRPGs just dont have tripple A appeal
Originally Posted by CPT_SLOW
From what I've seen, I don't think you know how to respond without mockery. Period. laugh


Not to mention he never even gets people's points. So best to ignore him. Same thing with a few others, who deliberately ignore your point and throw out straw men to attack.

Originally Posted by CPT_SLOW
Regarding the topic of mainstream vs niche, I myself play Call of Duty & Fifa and I play Baldur's Gate & Original Sin. I get that it's tricky for developers to appeal to a broader audience and keep their company thriving and the workplace secure, but at the same time avoiding becoming too casual and loosing old fans because of it. Larian seem to be able to balance this pretty well.


Yes this is part of the point I was making. Larian was able to pull off some semblance of a balance with the D:OS games. But D&D is quite a different animal. I don't see them being able to do the same with a D&D game. Either it will appeal to D:OS fans or to D&D/BG fans. But not both. [In general terms, obviously, as of course it is understood there will be exceptions.]

Originally Posted by CPT_SLOW
As for crossover within the crpg bubble itself, I dunno. The few people I know RL that play these type of games, have to my knowledge played (or at least purchased and tried) most of DoS, PoE, etc etc.


That's the non-representative forum bubble. As Larian's data showed, and Obsidian came up with similar data, this is not true of most gamers.
Originally Posted by Sordak
i dont think anyone is trying to make CRPGs for a broader audience.
the only ones that tried were Bioware with dragon age.

Realy, CRPGs are a niche genre and i think Larian, Obsidian and Owlcat all know this.
The fanbase is small and dedicated, but they also like experimentation.

Hence why the next owlcat game is gonna have a HoMM like mode in it.

Bioware got name recognition, but at the end of the day, CRPGs just dont have tripple A appeal




Maybe they should try then, if Bioware's attempt with DA: Origins is anything to go by. It's one of my favorite games. What came after, not so much. frown
im more talking about 2 and Inqusition.
Id say DAO was still a bit niche.
It didnt try to compete with the Open World RPGs of its time like Oblivion
That's because DAO was the next gen cRPG as a direct spiritual followup to BG. It wasn't trying to be an open world sandbox like Elder Scrolls. It was a party based narrative cRPG with RTwP combat.
my point.
it started going downhill when they tried beeing something else.
CRPGs will never have mainstream appeal. not even the populartiy of dnd can change that
Baldur's Gate literally made cRPGs main stream. Baldur's Gate was the best selling computer game of all time when it game out, and still rivals most game launches today. The entire purpose of making the game RTwP was to make a game that would appeal to computer gamers who'd never played D&D before.

The entire legacy of Baldur's Gate was making RPGs mainstream.
CRPGs were never main stream and baldurs gate didnt make em maisntream.

the most mainstream CRPG would be Fallout.

Baldurs Game sold massiveley.... for a computer game at ts time.
computer games werent mainstream in the late 90s.

And that was the golden age of CRPGs, after that, this kind of RPG was always outsold by more broadly appealing single character RPGs.
Which is why Dragon Age Inqusiiton couldnt compete iwth the Skyrims and the Witchers out there. Despite playing a lot more like those games than it did like an infnity engine game
I think you misremember your history because you were probably as obstinate back then as you are now.

Baldur's Gate is one of the most famous and renowned games of all time.

It literally set the standard for both RPGs and for video game distribution and marketing models for decades to come.

It propelled Bioware to become one of the most renowned and favoured developers of all time, and allowed them to further innovate RTwP and introduce what became the foundations for the weapon wheel, with the model used in DAO.

lol, you are grasping at straws, my man. lol
i think you dont understand what consittues a niche game or genre.
all of what you said is also true for everquest, yet MMORPGs wouldnt truly hit mainstream appeal till wow came along.

but sure, if what you say is correct then baldurs Gate 3 would propel larian to tripple A status by name recognition alone :^)
Originally Posted by Sordak

Which is why Dragon Age Inqusiiton couldnt compete iwth the Skyrims and the Witchers out there.


Dungeon Hack sold well on earlier 90s and was a single character RPG. Ultima Underworld and Daggerfall too.

The reason that inquisition can't compete with skyrim and witcher is not that inquisition is party based. If Skyrim had tactical pause and command to companions, it would't had any impact on their sales. The problem with inquisition is that felt like a single player wow clone. Skyrim has shallow rpg elements, you can kill the emperor and join imperial legion, but skyrim doesn't have cooldowns(except on shouts), nor bullet sponge repetitive enemies.

Other thing that skyrim has that other games doesn't has is modding support. I din't liked their implementation of """necromancy""", but i can in less than a minute, find a lot of necromancer mods that makes necromancy far more interesting. Din't liked that dragons are too easy. Deadly dragons.

Inquisition in other hands, i an forced to play with the worst iteration of necromancy ever. They just picked everything from spirit tree from origins, removed animate dead, increased the cooldowns and made it scale 100% with your weapon(despite one of initial dialog awnsers being that i don't need a staff to be deadly) and even took away blood magic to put the worst iteration of necromancy ever.

Be single or party focused doesn't impact much the game. More action oriented RPG's sells more. This is truth today and even on 90s. Diablo 1 sold far more than Ultima.
not saying its the only eaosn inquisition failed.
but its the reason it never had a chance to begin with.

and well yes.
aciton oriented games sell.
Specifically strategy oriented games as a rule of thumb dont.
hence why RTS is dead outside of total war.

RTWP doenst appeal to the action RPG market, because realy, it isnt.
the closest you can get to a broad appeal party focused RPG is dragons dogma
I think Inquisitions problems (frostbyte the source of most of them) have been well documented. Inquisition couldn't compete with the success of Skyrims and Witchers? Well yeah, Skyrim is a bit of a flash in the pan, isn't it. Not a whole lot that can compete with it. Regarding The Witcher 3, the reason why Inquisition flops miserably in comparison is that it's simply a worse game. It plays worse, it looks worse, it's just worse in most regards. The Witcher 3 is a masterpiece. Inquisition sure isn't. I believe this correlates directly to mainstream success / appeal (and lack thereof) regarding these two established franchises & developers. I don't think party based / RTwP is the reason why Inquisition didn't have a chance to begin with (although their choice of engine might very well be).

3rd person action or RTwP, solo or party based.. It's all in the implementation, the execution. The finished product. This is where Witcher 3 (and Skyrim, over contemporary games such as DA 2 and Witcher 2) shines.

I hate JRPG's, but the new FF remake will gonna be real time with a tactical pause
FF7 Remake is amazing. There is so much content. The combat is fluid, and it is more strategic than first glance. You really have to get good at swapping between characters to build up their ATB meter, which is what lets you pause in combat. the AI is solid for when you are not in direct control, no one derps around, but it really shines when you swap frequently.
Originally Posted by Sordak
im more talking about 2 and Inqusition.
Id say DAO was still a bit niche.
It didnt try to compete with the Open World RPGs of its time like Oblivion

Maybe it's just the people I associate with, but most people I know who played Oblivion also played Oranges too. In terms of overall accessibility, I'm one of those people who takes a while to get the hang of any sufficiently complicated rule set and can't say I found either to be more complex than the other. I liked the other Dragon Ages too, though I do think the introduction of The Awesome Button™ saw them lose something (I forget the exact comment, but something like "...and when you press a button, something awesome happens!") but still preferred them to Skyrim. Not so much because of gameplay, just that Skyrim felt soulless to me, which counted against it more than the game mechanics, "awesome" or otherwise.
Originally Posted by _Vic_
As far as I know, the world of the CRPG developers is a small one. The guys and gals of DCRed Project, Owlcat games, Larian, Inxile, obsidian, Tactical adventures know each other.
You can see them posting photos together in media. They publicly congratulate each other on Twitter. Larian is one of the usual crowdfunders in kickstarter CRPG games like the ones of Tactical adventures 5e game "Solasta" The Beamdog studio, that initially made a request to do BG3, congratulates them when they got to make the game,

You can see David Gaider, Josh sawyer, Tim Cain, Avellone, joking in twitter about each others games. They congratulate the others when they finally get to made games because they know how hard it is. When they asked the Owlcat studio devs about BG3 they give then their regards because they were also flamed due to their decision to include a TB option in their RPWP game PF: WoTR and they simply stated "Let Larian do BG3 whatever they want"


All this controversy always come from a (usually) toxic portion of (self-)called fans that only made a somewhat niche game types, the CRPG, even more niche. The devs get along with each other end doesn´t really care about those artificially-made wars between fans of games, never supported it, never gave their opinion about them besides to try to calm things down, never cared. They just made the best games they can and support the effort of the others that try to made CRPG games in the era of Call of Duty, FIFA's and the like.


Personally I played BG games, DoS games, PoE games, ToEE games, Divinity games, Pathfinder games, and also Fallout games, Last of us, Mass effect games, etc... and I liked them for different reasons and I always find pointless to try to convice other people that you should dislike another game because you play one of the "others" that you like. You can like both, or neither, who cares?



Fantastic post, thank you smile up
I am a hardcore RPG fan even though I am not a very good player.
I like complex rules even if they give me problems sometimes and I think D:OS1+2 was a bit too simple for my taste (not game difficulty, I mean character creation complexity.)

As a fan of complex games I do not know what the average player thinks and how much complexity they want or at least accept.
But with the huge success of the original BG games, I think they can accept quite a lot.
BG1+2 were the first very complex games I have ever played and they made me a "hardcore fan". (Yes, one person is not representative for all players.)

RPGs are a niche genre, but I think that DnD is the mainstrem within this niche (or Pathfinder for those who still think that 3E was the best).
Personally I like the changes from 5E, but I can understand when extreme hardcore fans call it "dumped down" ( a term that I do not like at all, some people use it on everything they do not like) while "casual players" (whatever that is) call it too complicated.
Only time can tell who is right, but I think Larian did some market research before working on a new game.
Can't wait for this game. Hopefully early access will be this year despite Covid-19.
complexity is a term most people struggle with.
i personally dont think most editions of DnD are very complex.
They are bloated.
Trap options arent complexity, tons of different (trap) options arent complexity.
having many stats to invest in isnt complexity if most of those stats are basically irrelevant for the class you play.
Originally Posted by Sordak
complexity is a term most people struggle with.
i personally dont think most editions of DnD are very complex.
They are bloated.
Trap options arent complexity, tons of different (trap) options arent complexity.
having many stats to invest in isnt complexity if most of those stats are basically irrelevant for the class you play.


Sorry, I am not a native english speaker.
What would be a better term?

The existence of trap choices is bad, I guess.
Lets say a game has 100 options to build a char and 90 of them are bad.
An expert will ignore 90% of the stuff the game offers and he will feel great when doing crazy stuff with his OP char.
New players cannot see what is a trap choice, so they will consider most choices as being equal and they will probably end up with a bad char which will ruin their fun.

Kingmaker was my first pathfinder game and I made a bad char even though I did lots of reading about the rules before.
The game has so many classes, races, feats, skills and so on that its very easy to get lost even if you have played other RPGs before.
I am a bit scared because the new pathfinder game will have even more classes, races and so on plus your chars will become mystic.
At least in BG1+2 reading the manual was enough for me to understand the basics and make a useful char (after endless rerolling).
Originally Posted by Madscientist
(...)
I am a bit scared because the new pathfinder game will have even more classes, races and so on plus your chars will become mystic.(...)


Kingmaker isn't hard to make a VIABLE character. A solo unfair char, yes, it is hard to make. You will need to min/max to pun-pun levels, but normal is not that hard... About Mythic paths, that is good. I really miss some P&P classes on kingmaker like witch, arcanist, oracle, etc. Loved the kineticist class that they added via DLC. As for the mythic path, i an wanting a game with path to lichdoom. The unique game with a path to lichdoom that i've played is M&M VII/VIII. Dread necromancer(mod) on nwn2 doens't give fully undead template even on lv 20.

In general, i prefer vampires over liches but a path to lichdoom is welcomed since there are decades since i saw it in any game.

And no, i an not in favor of lichdoom on BG3. One thing is having a lv 18 PC Lich or Vampire. Which is fine. Other thing is having a low level PC Vampire(low level guys can't become a Lich). Almost every DM agrees that it disturbs the campaign.

[Linked Image]
I concur, there are astonishing good builds in PF that you can use that are much more effective than others, and there are a lot of power-gaming guides and posts in the net about the game, but you can beat P: K with a party of 6 bards or a solo water-earth kineticist If you want to (well, if you do not play in insane mode, you need a min-max party builds to play in the highest difficulties, the game is hardcore).

Originally Posted by Madscientist


RPGs are a niche genre, but I think that DnD is the mainstream within this niche (or Pathfinder for those who still think that 3E was the best).
I like the changes from 5E, but I can understand when extreme hardcore fans call it "dumbed down" ( a term that I do not like at all, some people use it on everything they do not like) while "casual players" (whatever that is) call it too complicated.
Only time can tell who is right, but I think Larian did some market research before working on a new game.


The word I usually hear about 5e is even stronger than "dumped down", Its "Dumbed down" haha... and I think 5e is, in fact, more simple in character creation and mechanic-wise, it's laxer about the rules but that gives you more space to roleplay for the players and to homebrew for the DMs. Some people like it, some don´t.

Former D&D editions and PF1e are like Harrod´s where they give you a product polished for years and they take it to your home and assemble it for you. It´s ready to go but if it breaks you need a Ph.D. to repair it and 5e is like Ikea, they give you the simplest, basic setting and rules and you have to put it together yourself, but you can paint it pink and make a two-story sofa if you want to without a sweat, anyone can learn to do it in a few.
Using the SRD you can easily create star wars 5e, Witcher 5e, Sword Art 5e , etc...and many more you can find in the net.

Personally, my choice would be PF 2e: It has the middle term between roleplay and complexity, at least I found it very enjoyable in that regard. It would be nice if some studio could make a game using 2e.

Originally Posted by _Vic_
Former D&D editions and PF1e are like Harrod´s

I've never been to Harrods. I suspect they probably wouldn't let the likes of me enter their store anyway. I have been in Ikea. I can recommend not putting lingonberry sauce on the meatballs in gravy: the result is exceedingly bizarre. It's not inedible but it's like a sort of savoury toffee sauce. tbf to them, I don't think you're actually meant to do that; it was just the usual misadventure that I seem to make a pastime.
Lingonberry sauce on meatballs with mashed potatoes is definetly a thing. I quite like it smile

Wait what are we talking about again
Dunno, but I´m hungry
No you're not only one. When I saw the demo, nearly lost my &%*t. I haven't played a turn based D&D video game since Warriors of the Eternal Sun. The graphics are amazing. I had resigned myself that NWN2 was going to be my last D&D video game. But now...
I didn't know much about 5e, but I learn Basic, Expert, AD&D, 2e, 2.5e (what my group called the black covered option books), 3e, & 3.5. So how hard can it be. Wow this game has really changed of the last forty some years. So I started watching You-Tube videos on the rules. With everything that's going on, I had a lot of time. Bought the PHB, Death Domain from the DMG, and the Githyanki from D&D Beyond. I've working on builds ever since. So yeah, I'm obsessed at the moment.
I borrowed your Lich pic for my Necromancer build "LIch's Apprentice" on D&D Beyond.
© Larian Studios forums