I wish this was made in the style of Pillars of Eternity II but even more refined. Pillars II was so impressive, imagine what a company who actually understands and respects Baldur's Gate would have achieved.

I'm playing Divinity II, got to Arx and I've lost all interest in playing the game. The mechanics is some of the sloppy and exploitable stuff I've ever seen, but Larian seems to think everything is peachy and they importing nearly all those gaming concepts into Baldur's Gate. But what I really can't stand is the slowness of turn-based combat and how every enemy goes through a slow casting animation, it makes combat frankly unbearable.

Larian, while creative and brilliant, seem totally whimsical to me as if they don't even give a $*** what we think. A lot of the game mechanics in Divinity II are so unnecessary and sadistic, Obsidian had a faaar better understanding of paying homage to Baldur's gate and I would have LOVED RTwP... they deserved to make it, it's all so sad the state of the world these days, no offense meant to Larian but why can't they make a Divinity III with faster combat instead, it's like some executive saw that Divinity gets good reviews on metacritic and they gave it to them based solely on that.

And I’m so happy that WotC didn’t give the game to Obsidian. POE2 was a joyless, humorless game with a sterile, overly balanced rule system that I ultimately found a chore to sit through. I didn’t find the story particularly compelling, either.

DOS2 is one of my newest favorite games of all time, and I’m enjoying the marriage between Divinity and Baldur’s Gate.

Should have given this game to infinity ward.

I wish it had been given to CDPR. Imagine a first person shooter style for this game. I can't even start to grasp the awesomeness of it!

Paradox for the endless DLCs.

should of given it to EA. I'd love me some playerclasses lock through only lootboxes.

Whilst the tone of the thread is childish you do have a point.
PoE is far closer to the original BG games than DOS and higher ups at Larian also do not seem to be inspired by the OGs as well. In interviews some higher up cites Final Fantasy (absolutely nothing to do with western RTWP RPG) as an inspiration.

I don't remember any interviews in which Larian developers talk about D&D, the older CRPGs or anything related to BG.

I mean, if you wanted a studio to make a shooter, would you go to Id Software or Paradox?

That's an opinion. I can only say I strongly disagree and very glad they didn't. And you say "a company who actually loves and respect Baldur's Gate" as if Larian don't and I think this goes a little beyond an opinion into just being unfair and most definitely wrong.

Larian could mention D&D and BG more though, so to not generate this sort of criticism.

The interview with the guy saying that he grew up playing FF and thats why he loved RPGs kinda baffled me.

You couldn't be more wrong. Larian is the best possible company to create this game.

lol

It's there you just have to look for it and drop the attitude of "Larian doesn't care" and I'm sure you'll see it.
Fun fact - Larian made all of their developers play the original Baldur's Gate games before starting to work on the next title. Just a fun small example

I’ve seen numerous interviews where Swen talks about D&D, so I think you are just not watching the right interviews.

All the way back when they were doing the Kickstarter updates for the FIRST Original Sin, they talked about loving Baldur's Gate and D&D.

Why do I have to look for it then?
Why can't they be more blunt about it like "yeah, we all love PnP D&D, we love the BG games, we want to make the best D&D game ever" instead of saying that they're inspired by FF and the 5e system does not work in a video game?

I honestly never heard this FF bit you talk about. I'm not sure what you expect them to do... Should they start every interview with a praise to the great dnd 5e? Perhaps add "Baldur's Gate is the best game ever" at the start of every tweet? I honestly think that unless you really are guided by some severe confirmation bias you can't miss their love for dnd.
Their game Tagline is "gather your party".... I'm sure you know where that came from.

I would love to see Obsidian's CEO making vids in plate armor, that would add to their roleplaying

I think they should have given it to Bioware...oh wait.

Should have given it to Zynga.

So I have quite mixed feelings on this. If someone asked me about this a couple of months ago, I'd say I wouldn't trust Obsidian to do BG3 justice and that Larian is the best choice - after I've read the interviews and watched the team speak with such passion about this project. I actually did say this many times and argued with the nay-sayers.

But now that we've seen EA... Idk. It seems Larian has a very, VERY different idea about what BG is and what BG3 should be than I do. And I dare say I'm not the only one. (Obligatory disclaimer: no, I'm not calling for IE copy-paste.)

I wish they would have given it to EA, would have love to pay extra for half the game

Obsidian is consumed by the Microsoft tadpole, too late. They also blew it with combat in PoE. I didn't enjoy it in either of the games. BG3 so far is the most promising game for me combat-wise since XCOM. And I think Elder Scrolls pretty much show us that you must have some funny exploitable stuff in a blockbuster game.

Replaying BG1 and 2 now and i'm pretty sure the combat in PoE, 1 at least, is a direct evolution of that. Maybe a bit too reliant on choke points on higher difficulties, but even then it's not that the originals/EE don't have them, it's just that they're not well implemented.

Having said that, i think Bioware would have higher chances of getting BG3 than Obsidian, if they just hadn't blown Andromeda and Anthem (granted, the former has a worse reputation than it deserves, even if it's Mass Effect in the same way the new ACs are Assassin's Creed).

Barrelmancy, you shall be remembered forever. Now, I demand more sexy bucket magic

EA would've never accepted a project that might reach some 5M in sales. They aim for something like 10M minimum with their yearly releases.

I don't understand why anything said in publicity mode could ever be taken as earnest. Of course Larian is going to say in interviews they loved BG and love DnD when they're making a DnD BG game.

Personally, I think Larian is the right team for the job simply because they're one of the biggest names making RPGs right now. Would I rather had some other company give it a try? Yes, I would. But I would also rathermost BG3 had been released in 2004 under the name the Black Dog and made by Black Isle. And we didn't get that either.

Exactly the opposite of my experiences. D:OS was easily the worst RPG I've ever played, and every single aspect of that game was a painful chore, worst of all the horrible world the game is set in.

By contrast, everything about the PoE games was awesome, from the world to the characters to the story. And the best part of those games is the new set of rules they created that are NOT based on D&D/D20, which is one of the worst rulesets for RPGs.

Besides, seems you're admitting BG3 has a lot of D:OS in it, despite all of the many attempts at denial in this forum.

It is, except they could not use D&D, invented their own rules and those rules are a convoluted mess. I don't know what makes D&D rules special, but they are. I couldn't even finish the 2nd one in turn based mode and I absolutely prefer that one to active pause.
In any case, I am super excited about what Larian is doing. A bit of polish and it will be a game with some huge replay value.

Actually the PoE ruleset is far easier to understand than 3.5e from NWN or Kingmaker. Not that I think that simple systems are good, as I do like complexity, but it definitely cannot be called a "mess".

If anything, the issue with PoE is its overreliance on "balance", an issue the second game suffers more from.

I’ve personally always embraced that BG3 has a lot of DOS2 in its DNA. For me BG3 is 2 of my favorite games having a baby, and I am fully on board with that. I don’t think it would be fair to say this game is DOS3 and not BG3, as some like to claim.

I wasn’t a huge fan of DOS1. It was okay for me, but nothing groundbreaking. I am very much an evangelist for the sequel, though.

I think that is a problem and should be treated as such.
BG3 should not be the combination of D&D and DOS, it should be pure D&D or almost it. Just remember how the first gameplay reveal was trashed for looking like a DOS mod. The majority of RPG fans are more into D&D than DOS, so the developers should take that into consideration.

I'd say it's not about "majority of RPG fans" but about what BG3 was marketed as. And this is primarily "Baldur's Gate proper main entry". As well as a D&D game. For me it matters not whether I would like or dislike D:OS (haven't played yet). I like TES, but I would not want TES in Baldur's Gate. I also like The Witcher games, but I would not want Witcher in Baldur's Gate. And so on. Baldur's Gate should be primarily Baldur's Gate, not primarily a mix of Dragon Age and Divinity based on 5e rules.

The first gameplay reveal was met with overwhelming positivity, as has been the general consensus of the Early Access so far. Not everybody shares your opinion, and the circumstances seem to be as such that most people don’t.

And I said BG3 was a combination of BG and DOS, not DOS and D&D. The elements from DOS I am referring to, such as turn based combat, open ended quest design, system driven gameplay with lots of room for improvisation, and the way party interactions and multiplayer are implemented are not mutually exclusive from D&D, so your distinction (whatever you intended it to be) isn’t applicable to what I’m talking about. In fact, these elements are all very much a part of D&D, so in many respects BG3 feels to me more like D&D than BG 1 and 2 did.

What? The reception was such that I felt really bad for Larian, that they got trashed so hard. I'm not saying there was no positivity, but there was a lot of negativity too.

Go to any video of the PAX gameplay reveal on YouTube and you will see significantly more likes than dislikes. I’m not sure where you saw any reception that was encourage pity for Larian. Despite some vocal opposition here and there, there hasn’t been much for them to complain about.

The one in which the main developer gets his ass kicked in the very first fight and has to resort to surface effects from DOS?
Player thoughts used as narration?
Goofy movement animations?
Reused assets from DOS2?

Well, more likes than dislikes on youtube doesn't really say much... And I watched the reveal live, and looked at many different places around that time. Yes, it was a vocal minority, but it was very vocal, and there was indeed a lot of hate towards Larian. There was even a thread on reddit along the lines of "I feel bad for Larian" that was exactly about that.

And whether there "wasn't much to complain about"... One thing is that people will always find something to complain about and the other that they had some of the same material to complain about that we have now. And people, like yours truly, certainly do complain a lot now. Of course we have a lot more material courtesy of EA, but the preview was a glimpse. Turn-based, for one thing. Origins, for another. Systems they've actually changed based on feedback.

Some people are whining while Larian seriously delivers. That would be probably the 1st cRPG where you can kill a bugbear by throwing a squirrel at it. And that squirrel is a rather nasty one, if you bothered to talk to it 1st. The game is unbelievably good tbh.

Yes, that reveal. It was met with overwhelmingly positive responses.




Likes and dislikes mean a great deal if what is being discussed is the reception of a video. It is far more indicative than comments because people click like or dislike more than they comment.

In vocal minority the operative word isn’t vocal, it’s minority. Anyway, you just admitted that those who didn’t like were in the minority, which was my point. How vocal they were is irrelevant.

I said Larian doesn’t have much to complain about with their reception. That has nothing to do with whether others have anything to complain about with the product.

Honestly any of the other studios could have licensed D&D (or pathfinder) at any time for any project. There's still IWD out there to continue as well so if a studio really wanted one of the properties I don't know what would have stopped them. I believe that the only competition Larian had for the BG3 property was probably Beamdog. Not sure Beamdog would have made a great BG3 but it is thanks to them that the infinity engine games remained in the public conscious.

Well lets say that 15% dislike is a lot.
For the comparison, AC Valhalla (mediocre yearly release) had a better ratio.

This argument about how many people liked the reveal seems completely useless to me and impossible to prove. I thought the general comments were very positive actually, but what do I (or any of you) know.

About people who dislike the direction Larian took - we've been over this on the forum several times with no clear winner in the argument. I'll just say that the fact that most people here want some solasta with better story doesn't mean it's what most people in general do, nor that most people would be happy about it.

About this discussion in general - seems completely pointless. It's over. Larian are the ones making the game and it isn't going to change. We can discuss what ifs all day long and perhaps you might find it fun, but it seems to me like just a new excuse to generally shit on Larian. If you have something specific Larian does in bg3 that you want to discuss, I'm pretty sure there is a topic about it somewhere and if not you can always create one and then we can discuss it concretely. Otherwise I don't see any other point for this topic but hey you do you

This.

Well said Abits

"should have given to Obsidian"

Not just no, but HELLS no.

OK so the first POE was pretty damn good... the second was a raging fiasco with the devs actively mocking the paying customers.. It was a nightmare of a game that STILL doesn't run as well in its post release state as BG3 does in EA.

As much as I truly *wanted* to like POE2, if BG3 had been done by them I wouldn't have even bothered looking at it until well after final release. This game is barely out of the starting area and I've happily spent over 100hrs on it. POE3? I've tried 6 new games and never finished a single one. Ended up uninstalling in disgust after about 30hrs play time.

YES!! Absolutely. Which is not to say I didn't love the other games, but this absolutely feels more like D&D.

DOS 2 was a mediocre game.

Larian has the potential to make BG3 a great game, but so far has only showed to be a one-trick pony. Would love to see this project on CDPR's hands.

I am curious to see the final game and how much they will change based on feedback.

Agreed.

Should have licensed it to Square Enix. At least we’d get the sexy armor we were promised.

I wished Larian had named BG3 anything else just to avoid these nonsensical discussions. It could have been the amazing Galdur's Bate 3!

Anyway, people complaining about BG3 not being really BG because of turn based combat are the same who complained BG1 was not really D&D because it was RTwP? Instead of, you know, TB?

Because I can very clearly imagine someone from the XX century, foaming from his mouth out of pure obnoxious rage and anger, hitting that keyboard about how "DUHH, how DARE the developers of this Baldur's Gate SAY this is D&D, D&D is NOT RTwP ROFTLOLOLOL! This game is TRASH and will be quickly forgotten and I lost all respect to developers, should have been made by those cool guys from, i don't know, Electronic Arts! Or John Romero"

Galdur's Bait. I like it


Deserve squirrel in the face, Larian style. Anything but turn based is mediocre in the RPG world. Unless you are trying to pass an action game with rpg elements as an "RPG".

Pillars II didn't raise money, which is why next obsidian project was an action game... Think about why games in this genre SHOULD CHANGE.

Games are not only fun, but also business. And games should be changed for a new audience. A big plus of Larian is that they make game as they want, without relying on" traditions " that are no longer useful. With their approach, they can return games of this genre to Golden category, give them a new life. Yes, in a new format, but it's time to change something. Some people here say that BG3 has nothing to do with original BG. And you know what? This is good.

Sorry I laughed at your first sentence. It sold so well it must really mediocre for sure. It's considered one of the best CRPGs of all time, just to let you know.

Well, it sold well .... for an indian game. It is considered one of the best cRPGs of ... modern years, because there is really nothing for the past 10 years.

And those 2 arguments are too fallacious. I am yet to understand all the buzz about DOS2, except it came out from a very sterile era.

Then you must ask yourself why it was 'sterile era'.

This! Totally agree.

It was the top selling release of 2017 on Steam and that was well before console release. The game didn’t sell well for an independent title, it sold phenomenally well for an independent title.

Arguing that it only performed well because there weren’t any other CRPGs to compete with doesn’t explain why POE2 bombed hard on release.

you can love somthing and never grasp it's core features that made it successful

Eh, good things can come from pointless threads. We've already hijacked some for quality discussion, some of which might be of use for Larian.



My first instinct was to say "no way, CDPR has no experience whatsoever with cRPGs, and have only published one IP (CP not out yet)"... but maybe it wouldn't be a terrible idea? BG was/is massively popular in Poland and if The Witcher is anything to go by, they have a good track record of respectfully adapting IPs. Seems it might also be the case for Cyberpunk.

Obsidian can't make a game about NOT killing God to save their lives.
PoE is an overrated, awful, boring game. Combat sucked, the story also sucked, and frankly it's hard to find a game that screws up in both departments but now we have a first.
The only positive thing that PoE accomplished is that it admits that the universe it takes place in is completely and utterly meaningless and has no purpose nor any morality, and you can basically ask Eothas to just end it all.

Obsidian should stick to secular themes, they simply can't handle spiritual themes in a way that's interesting. They basically copy Nietzsche and Hegel and imagine themselves to be original.
Tyranny was superior to PoE in both combat and storytelling, despite it being like a 12 hour game, showcasing that Obsidian can do good stuff, they just seem to loose their mind whenever god and other spiritual themes are featured in a story. Fallout: New Vegas is another gem, but that's an entirely different kind of game.

Perhaps, but I don't think it's the case here. But you're right that it's not only about shitting on Larian. We shit on Obsidian here as well! Fun times indeed

TBH I wasn't really following the story in PoE1, all the stuff about "souls" was so intangible and difficult to grasp I stopped paying attention.
But I liked the old-school 2d format a lot more and customizing a full party with unique portraits and I vastly prefer real-time-with-pause. I don't pay attention to in-game companions with the endless dialogues, I don't care about their personal stories, I make a party of my own unique characters and forge my own path. Unfortunately most RPGs have mediocre writing that doesn't hold my attention for long but I focus on the gameplay instead. In fact in the Pillars game I killed all the pre-designed companions as soon as I met them and sold their loot to a vendor, then went to the inn and created my own companions, effectively writing my own story in a way.
Pillars II refined the original Baldur's Gate formula to its most satisfying and modern version. Larian meanwhile is on a different planet.
I go way back, I played Divine Divinity when it came out. I like that game better than Original Sin. There's a lot of nice flowery stuff about the Original Sin games but there's elements that suck out all my enjoyment: the turn-based combat that drags on with painfully slow casting animations, as well as very very flawed mechanics that are too open-ended it ends up being a lot of distracting, frivolous time-wasting nonsense.
Combat takes WAY too long and WAY longer than it should. They couldn't even give us an option to speed up the enemy turns, at least. That's why I think Larian is kind of in their own world, doing whatever they want, taking a completely whimsical and frivolous approach to designing their own brand of RPG

Well no offense, but the combar in BG3 is already superior to whatever PoE managed to put on the table, and I'm sure the story will be better too, because PoE had an abysmally bad story.... and lots of it.

I quite enjoyed The Outer Worlds and preferred it to some of Obsidian's other games; but as much as some of BG3's mechanics might not be entirely to my taste, I'd rather that than first-person which seems to be their current "thing". It was the only bit of TOW I wasn't so keen on.

It wasn't that bad, the world-building was good and the game was truthful to Baldur's Gate. PoE2 had excellent combat

I don't worship everything about Obsidian, I tried Outer Worlds and gave up after 10 minutes that game is frankly a triple-A piece of s**t.
Before trying out Pillars I was skeptical from all the bad reviews, but I started and couldn't stop, played through both Pillars games and had a grand time.
I can't even finish the Original Sin games because the slow turn-based combat is so maddening and unfun.

I beg to differ

My main dislike of the Outer Worlds was that it clearly tried to be... I can't remember the name of that game right now. But you know with the Hammerlocks and the psychic chicks and the handsome jacks -- except without any of the humour. Well, it sure tried to be humorous, but it sure wasn't.

So it was basically just a very shitty shooter. And I'm pretty certain it was made with the awful Bethesda gamebryo engine, so that's a major minus just there.

I honestly feel Obsidian has their days behind them. They haven't made a game that hooked me since New Vegas (which itself was heavily based on ideas from even longer ago!). I think they've lost their edge.

I think the team that created Pillars II should do Baldur's Gate III, they were really onto something and nailed the gameplay... idk if Obsidian has been bought and are now being forced to make shitty console games, generally when designers are forced to do things they don't want within a time limit they churn out mediocre games but the marketing and IGN reviews are more important... and they pander to consoles because there's too much piracy with PC games, but that's why we love Kickstarter

Saints Row, maybe? Anyway, I liked it, I found the humour a lot less dry than they can tend to be; I guess my counterpoint being that I really didn't enjoy- actually, no, that's nonsense, I did enjoy New Vegas, but I didn't see it as being head and shoulders above everything else and pretty much put it and FO3 on a level footing, with a slight preference for the latter.

Mixed feelings about Bethsoft's version of Gamebryo. It had a lot of problems with stability and ugliness (in the latter regard I'd view Skyrim as a bit of a retrograde step over its predecessors) but it's very modder-friendly so I like it from that point of view. They seem to have ironed out both those problems with FO4 IMHO. It may not be as "shiny" as Frostbite (literally: I'm now convinced the main reason it seems to look better is because its shaders are turned up to 11) but is much easier to work with. But that's by the by, TOW doesn't use it, it's based on Unreal 4. I must admit I did a lol slightly at the claims that the only reason NV played like a Bethsoft game was due to it being an imposition, and then they went on to do the same thing completely independently of them.

I looked it up after posting and I meant the... shit I've already forgotten again. Let me just Google... There -- I meant the Borderlands series.

To be honest i rather don't Obsidian now is focussing more on action rpgs and pillars of eternity was plagued by many bad design decision just after the release that took some time to get corrected.

A) When the first pillars released Sawyer did not wanted immunity in creatures as result you could do silly stuff like blind Oozes or cause them to go prone. It was insanely hilarious and bad everyone complained about it but in the end it took months to Sawyer to admit it was absolutely trash.

B) The experience of pillars of eternity is taken by filling the bestiary and do quest. If you filled the bestiary there was not progression even if the creature encountered was a difficoult one to face no exp. That and quest experience only. This alone was problematic because in large scale it killed the exploration and the wonder.

C)The first pillars of eternity even if it had a good world building has no wonder no mistery. Everything was perfectly explained to you rather than allowing you to figure out things. The whole divinity thing was so bad that when i finished the game i felt like empty inside. It has no substance it want to be fantasy? It wants to be a science fiction? Is like a setting that felt very undecided on what it wanted to be.

No i don't think the modern obsidian would be capable to do this game. And in the market despite all the development problematic i see only Larian capable to pull off a BG3. The only reason of concern i have toward Larian is that maybe they are too much intimidated from implementing the core rules as they should be and this is a thing the D&D community that is very big is way looking forward.

This is why Solasta get mentioned a lot. It has loyal to the source material rules and it get appreciated for that. Despite being rather dull and generic and having a bad artstyle. I do believe if larian start to implement the core rules way better and is not intimidated by them they could create not only a worthy successor but even the best D&D around.

I think people are so attached to the idea of Obsidian as this amazing studio, and the made up version of "the perfect Baldur's Gate game" they've got in their head, that they forget how mediocre Obsidian really is. People got so wound up with the whole "Obsidian got screwed by Bethesda" narrative (which is mostly true tbf) they now put rose tinted glasses on with every single Obsidian release, because hey, remember New Vegas?

Like, PoE is one of the most over written, bloated with information and shoddy worldbuilding RPGs I've ever played, and gameplay wise it wasn't that amazing either. This is of course just my opinion, but I do think Obsidian is a heavily overrated studio. I get tired of seeing everyone and their uncle shout them out whenever the question of "Who should make an RPG of this IP?" comes up.

Also, considering what I've heard about CP2077, I'm not so sure handing over Baldur's Gate to CDPR would've been a good idea either.

PoE's main world building issue was, to me, that they made every other part of the world sound much more interesting to play in than the one we got (including the one we played in if we only got to play in it during a different, more interesting time).

Well, maybe because they are an amazing studio that makes great games with little money.
They have in my opinion the best track record of the decade, only rivaled by Fromsoft: New Vegas, PoE1, PoE2, Stick of Truth and Tyranny. Even Outer Worlds has great reception even though it sucks.
Larian has one great game in the decade with DOS2 (DOS1 sucked).

I'm not sure Larian was not the good studio but it's a shame they just never talked about the old BG during their interviews.
Oh yeah "they said that everyone in the company played the old games before they start working on BG3" -> seriously ? Anyone believe this ?

Now we can understad why : If we don't consider D&D (which is only a part of BG), nothing feels like BG in BG3 except the beautifull worldmap^^
Whatever we're talking about combats, party size, control, ambiant, day/night, rest, (fast) travel, random encounter, world design, user interface, ...

Larian has done NOTHING for BG3 to taste a bit like a "new gen BG"... The only things are probably a far far link with the story and a companion to ""please"" the fans (like Han solo in SW7^^).

Baldur's Gate 3 taste D&D and maybe the FR even if we could disagree on many things about this one... but it has nothing to do with the old BG.
(every games using D&D and the FR aren't named BG).

I hoped they have done something for this game to have a feeling of BG, but they don't.

It seems like all game creators go through the same phases. When they are a bunch of gamers and artists trying to get a business going, they sometimes make ground-breaking products. But when they are a business who is trying to make games, the spirit is just not the same.

The music industry is similar, except for AC/DC! It's a long way to the top ...

That is very unfair to say. Larian were the first ones bold enough to bring back turn based classic style isometric RPGS in a era where everyone else were saying that it was just a thing of the past OBSIDIAN included even sawyer admitted himself that he would rather make an historical game or an action oriented rpg instead of a classic isometric rpg. The first divinity original sin despite the flaws it had managed to have a discreet degree of success so much that it saved the company.

The DOS2 came along and it was a nice success. Now they are working in baldurs gate 3 with the blessing of WOTC. The only great rpgs of obsidian were New Vegas. And Pillars of eternity ((despite being very mediocre it went out in a time that isometric rpgs were needed)) Outer World is another mediocre title that gained a degree of success because of the failing of bethesda in the Fallout franchise with Fallout 76.

THe only great game Obsidian made was in the end new vegas. That game is the best fallout since the departing of the isometric fallout style.

Criticism is fair and good. But instead of being distructive why don't put some faith on them and provide them with good criticism? that would help Larian to figure out things about this game

did DOS1 suck because you did not like it or you are talking in general?
because it was never receive badly and got a really good score overall (from the critics and from the users)

Metacritic:
The outer World: 85
Tyranny: 80
POE1: 89
POE2: 88
DOS1: 87

Steam(All):
The outer World: 86
Tyranny: 86
POE1: 86
POE2: 86
DOS1: 89

No, it just sucks. The flaws are so in your face that the scores the game received still baffle me. Maybe because of the CRPG revival?
A game with randomized loot where enemies don't respawn and almost never drop such loot, not even the gear they are using; ugly characters, bad soundtrack, stupidly difficult combat (for real, every fight has you outnumbered 2x1 at least, with enemies higher level than you), overreliance on surface effects, no respec in a game where you can hit a wall very early and might have to restart.

Also sorry but i can't help but laught when i read: CDPR should had done that.

CDPR is what turned one of my favourite pen and paper franchise in a First Person Shooter. So no. I am glad CDPR did stay far away from D&D and BG

Never forgive. Never Forget.

They couldn't have gone in a better direction.
Systems like Vampire and Cyberpunk are not traditional party-based RPGs, they work very well in first person, as Bloodlines already shown. For a game in this setting an immersive FPS is much more interesting than a top down isometric game.

All of those observations are subjective IMHO. Some are deliberate design decisions which I may or may not personally care for; Larian have always been a bit full-on in terms of combat biting you until you figure it out the hard way; the "bad soundtrack" mystifies me the most as Pokrovsky's work is pretty well renowned. I'm not arguing that everyone should respeck the game's awesome, there are things I dislike about it myself, but to say "it just sucks" as the indisputable and unalienable truth is... well, it's a bold claim.

Yeah sure.
Insert Shooter guy song tropes here.
[video:youtube]https://youtu.be/ALd0ILisKvI[/video]

And yes both Cyberpunk and Vampire are party based rpgs.

I showed why it sucks. The only subjectiviness there is the soundtrack, which improves massively in DOS2.
The rest is just there: the nonsensical randomized loot, ugly character models, exaggerate difficulty, need to use surface effects in every (like really, EVERY) fight in the game, no respec until 2/3 of the game.
You know the main issue? The lack of choice, which is what defines an RPG. In DOS1 you can't create the character that you want, or play how you want, because the "puzzles" usually have only one solution that involves surface effects.
Still, most of this was addressed in DOS2, which deserves its reputation as a masterpiece. Obsidian is more consistent in quality though.

I put NON-TRADITIONAL in there.

First of all, I am happy that Larian does it.
I really enjoyed BG3 so far.
I wish they would stay closer to the PnP rules and less DOS stuff.
But I like the changes of the last patch, such as bringing cantrips back to PnP.
So things are going in the right direction.


At the moment I would say Owlcatgames are the best.
Kingmaker is the best successor to BG2 at the moment and WotR looks also great.
Kingmaker release was a buggy mess, but they fixed it and WotR alpha is already better than kingmaker at release.

Obsidian made good games (Kotor2, NWN2, PoE1+2, Tyranny, FONV) but none of them is as close to BG2 as kingmaker.

Regarding CDP, I love the witcher games and cyberpunk looks great, but those are action games, not classic RPGs.
I would say TW3 is the best western action RPG ever, but gameplay is very different from what I expect from a Baldurs gate.

Obsidian didn't make NWN2, they only made MoTB, which is admittedly one of the better things they did.
New Vegas is definitely their masterpiece, hands down, it's my favorite non-fantasy game ever.
Tyranny is also great, it's leagues above PoE, it has a better leveling system, and better combat with an intriguing story with branching outcomes, it's exactly what they should be making a sequel to instead of whatever the hell they are doing now.
Kotor 2 is interesting, but I think it's a touch overrated, and PoE is just straight up garbage. Why do people like it? The combat is the worst I've seen in any game so far, and the story is incredibly dull.

I've played both Poe's and both original sin's and personally I didn't like any of them overall.

Poe 1 had an amazing first section right up to the first town. Then it felt flat and I spent the rest of the game bored. By the time I got to the famous "good part" I couldn't be bothered. The characters were meh for me as well. I did like the Grieving Mother exclusive stuff while playing as the psychic class though.

Poe 2 had problems with combat that I didn't notice in the first. It felt like 4e homebrew. It had potential but never went anywhere. I hated all the companions and most of the ncps. I did like the islander feel though, but as an islander myself it just did not click well enough. Funny enough I really liked some of the sidekicks. The pirate girl was amazing and the cipher girl was entertaining and kind of adorable. I also liked the mage from the shop. This game convinced me to never buy a game where companions can romance each other ever again. Its not banter, its annoying. It almost convinced me to drop romances all together. Almost.

Dos 1 was fun actually at first. I liked being a cop in a fantasy setting. It was novel ish at the time. Then the plot went sideways and teleported away. I didn't find the main plot that interesting from then on. Not bad but not interesting either.

Dos 2 was nice for the first two acts but I absolutely loathe the last two. I did like Loshe and Beast. Liked Ifan at first till his allegiance came into question. I didn't like the rest. The combat was not great either. Everything devolves into "the map is on fire". At least melee actually got abilities instead of copy paste auto attacks with different names.

So yeah out of these two devs teams I'd choose Larian. Only reason I'm here is because dnd lore is amazing.

I liked Tyranny a lot. The only real downside for me is that it did that "yeah whatevs, I want to finish now" in about the last quarter, but it's hardly the only video game to do the same thing.

I also like TOW, though. So there.

The main problem is simply that Larian reuses Divinity 2 for BG3. Maybe because its cheaper or because they think the DOS system is better, but the end result is the same, you do not get a D&D Baldurs Gate 3, but a hybrid.
Compare that for example with Kingmaker from Owlcat. Sure, it might be because they had no previous RPG platform available, but when they made Kingmaker they made it with Pathfinder rules in mind. Are they exactly as in the PnP? No, but it is very clear that the game is intended to be a Pathfinder game while in the current state BG3 is at best only inspired by D&D.

Hard to disagree. I'm not even a BG purist, i'm trying right now to finish my first trilogy run, which probably won't happen because Cyberpunk, but even just the main menus give a different vibe.

I would say, though, that capturing the feel of a game is pretty hard to begin with, especially so when what you're trying to capture is the feel of 20 year old isometric rpgs and import it into a Dragon Age style game.

Of course they did. Base game and expansions.

As to OP and thread subject. Eh. Maybe - for a singular reason that RPGs Obsidian creates are direct continuations of what BG2 did. Larian’s design and approach to an RPG is rather different - but that’s not necessarily bad. I might not like it in the end, but at least BG3 can be something that will stand on its own.

I would rather have Obsidian stick to their own stuff. I would love to see proper Pillars of Eternity3 one day, as those series didn’t reach their full potential just yet.

There were tons of good CRPGs that came out in this new renaissance era of CRPGs.

Wasteland 2
Torment Tides of Numenera
Shadowrun Returns
Shadowrun Dragonfall
Shadowrun Hong Kong
Pillars of Eternity
Pillars of Eternity 2
Tyranny
Masquerada
Pathfinder Kingmaker
Divinity Original Sin
Divinity Original Sin 2


To the best of my knowledge, DOS2 sold the best out of all of those. By a wide margin, even.

I find this nitpicking over the small stuff ridiculous I'm myself a big veteran from BG1 + BG2 and I never had issues with how BG3 looked I just missed the day/night cycle which was present in Baldur gate 1 + 2 but otherwise, I liked it. 1 and 2 real-time combat sucked for me and I loved more Xcom turns based combat making you have to plan your moves than just being a god at micro and cheese AI "I think Obsidian should have made that's a completely subjective opinion which won't add anything to the overall debates here on the forum I personally would give Larian chance and criticize them after they reach 1.0 version this game is like 25% finished and people are already making verdicts which I find absurd, because how you can judge game when that said game isn't finished yet? People are complaining about how it's not dark but DnD isn't only about exploring edgy and grimdark dungeons, there are also beautiful parts of Faerun.

I also liked how now dices made more impact on your choices and how everyone now can lockpick and disarm traps so you don't need to spam 100 rogue companions, it's so close to DnD it makes me proud of course I would prefer something like Solasta with better graphics and story but Larian also improved some rules from the original 5e which were not clear or made little sense. There are always going to be a small minority of people with nostalgia glasses who will be upset about Baldur gate 3 not being the same game just with better graphics but that's how it is If the community directs them the right way we will get a good DnD game which everyone can enjoy, making rant topics about why Larian sucks and why CD project or Obsidian would have been better choices won't help them improve our game.

Real time or turn based is a matter of taste. Some players like this more and some like something else.
DnD is turn based per definition and 5E is harder to put in real time than 2E or 3E, at least I have not seen a real time 5E game so far.

So far I have not seen any change of rules that is a clear improvement.
In 5E you do not need a specific class as long as you have most skills covered, for example via backgrounds, and you can use some useful spells.

side note that i haven't seen shadowrun mentioned at all in context of BG3 here - always liked those ones and the turn based worked well.

No. Claiming your points were objective doesnt make them less subjective.
For example the exaggerate difficulty is perfectly to my taste. In an turn based RPG with so many options i want to be challenged and have to use the aviable options to have success.
Im not saying DOS was perfect but its a matter of taste and the overall success speaks for itself.
The randomised loot however was tedious, but there are great games with much bigger issues

Yes! I love those Shadowrun games!

Everybody always says that New Vegas is Obsidian's best game, or only good game, whatever. It seems to be the prevailing opinion. But I didn't even like New Vegas much, and I love a bunch of Obsidian's other games, so I guess I'm a weirdo.


Here's my favorite Obsidian games in descending order:

1. Alpha Protocol
2. Tyranny
3. Neverwinter Nights 2 (and expansions, especially Mask of the Betrayer)
4. The Outer Worlds
5. Pillars of Eternity 2
6. Pillars of Eternity
7. New Vegas, I guess


The first two, especially, are among my favorite games of all time.

Fairly similar to how I would rank them I guess. I am not really a fan of anything science fiction or futuristic however, so in my case I would exclude Alpha Protocol, The Outer Worlds and New Vegas from the list, because I blanket dislike the genre they fall into regardless (it would also make me a really poor judge of them anyhow). Tyranny I think is the best out of the remaining ones on that list, it was criminally short however and felt like a lost opportunity for something truly great. After that, NWN 2, then between Pillars 1 and 2 I am not really sure where I would rank them. I did not enjoy the story in either game, although I liked the story in the 2nd pillars even less than the first. The combat felt a bit better in the first game, however the character building in the 2nd had a higher degree of depth. I am not sure what it was about the 2nd game, but something about the combat made everything feel super spongy. There were quite a few fights where I started becoming bored during the fight, because they dragged on and on and were just a case of repeating the same button presses over and over again.

I love how for all you D:OS fans, everything you love about D:OS is "objective" but everything others hate about D:OS is "subjective."

The D:OS games were deplorable in every aspect. Yes, I only played the first game, but everything I hated about that game is also to be found in the second game, so I see zero reason to try it.

As for BG3, it also has horrible combat. The only reason I continue to stick around is in the hope that DESPITE its horrible combat its other aspects will prove to be good.

And to say BG3 is more D&D than the original BG games is just plain silly.

But, as @Abits says, this entire discussion is pointless. WotC decided to go with Larian, and that's that. Obsidian and CDPR are, indeed, my current two most favored RPG studios, and who make the best RPGs out there as far as I am concerned. But the decision was not up to me. Oh well.

The second Original Sin is a big improvement over the first in every single respect. It's much less silly.

Well, gotta go now. I need to go find the forums for a company whose games I absolutely hate and post 1000 times there.

Thanks for pointing out this list of of very unimpressive games. It was a terrible decade indeed.

CDPR is currently the only studio that understands how immersion is central to a RPG. They really mastered the technique.

And don't understand the hate for Obsidian. New Vegas is close to a masterpiece. PoE was designed as a throwback to IE games, not exactly an original game. Now that they have budget and ?time I want to see their full potential. Curious how Avowed will turn to be.

Well I like all those games. A few of them, I even love. I don't see why they're unimpressive.

imo its because so many people now seem to define themselves by the particular bits of trashy popular culture they consume (including video games) and so then when someone likes what they dislike or dislikes what they like it becomes a personal attack, an attack on their very selves. This is pretty funny because its all about video games which are just fancy toys.

That's a weird thing to define yourself by. Honestly, some of these "fandoms" kind of creep me out with how extreme they get. The games I'm into (or books, shows, whatever) is like, the least interesting thing about me.

Maybe I'll come back to DoS II later but if nothing else, Larian needs to give us an option to speed up enemy combat animations. I can't say enough how aggravating it is to wait for every last slug to slowly cast a spell, especially when they start crawling over from the far edges of the map and I didn't know they were there.
With DoS you can get endless resurrect scrolls and beat every encounter. You can have one of your characters leap out of combat, take a waypoint to a merchant, buy potions and scrolls, and teleport back to your team that's been paused "in-combat" all along.That's game-breaking.

Some of us like to debate, I often have an opinion that goes against the grain and I usually get banned from every forum after one post, I'm suprised this thread went so far.
Maybe I have a vivid imagination but I like games with a lot of customization, and making a full custom party in Pillars was why I enjoyed it so much. DoS is a lot more confining and limiting, even though it has pointless mechanics like letting you carry around boxes and barrels and random objects that do nothing for no reason. And quests where you're escorting a chicken

You know what game also had a side quest were you escort a chicken?

Baldur’s Gate.

And you can make full custom parties in BG3. Right now it isn’t fully implemented yet so you can only do so by creating LAN games with yourself, but BG3 full release will have it as an option you can select from the get-go.

DOS2 also had full custom parties added in one update.

Was gonna say that New Vegas in the bottom is weird, then I saw Alpha Protocol on top.

And yet the combat in their Witcher games is horrendous.
CP2077 seems to step up the game though.

We were having a good discussion. Was it really necessary to be asinine?

I only started posting here when Larian announced a game titled BALDUR'S GATE. As a diehard fan of the original BG games, a pretty reasonable thing to do.

Well the only respectable thing about this list is putting Tyranny high.

I disagree. It would have become forced first person since that is what they seem to be making nowadays and I can't play those. I haven't played any other Larian games yet but so far they have held my interest with BG3 and that is hard to do because I tend to find isometric TB boring and unimmersive. Can't even finish the first BG because of this.


Agreed. Often there is a disconnect between what the corporate types who see only the money making want to see, and what the developers want to create as well.


Would have loved to play these but FPS makes me puke. I agree that TPS/FPS is more immersive though.



I would love to see 5E done as a TPS, unfortunately I don't think it would be possible.

Lol. Funny how people draw psychological profiles through internet. It tells more about you than others.



I think it is fun. People vastly differ in what they consider a good combat in these days.

I think people are just conservative about what they like. Everyone is like this. If they love something they will defend it and try to preserve and protect it so that it can continue to exist into the future.
I don't think it's about defining one's self, it's about becoming attached to something valuable.

If this game was called anything BUT BG3 I think Larian is doing an incredible job.
Marketing it as a BG game is definitely getting setting some expectations that are not met, tied to the old games.

But in 2020, who actually played the old games? less than 10% of the community??? Most impressions are now NEGATIVE towards these brilliant games.
So basically IGNORE the title, and enjoy the game. Its sad but thats to be expected with this Dragon age/ Witcher type game generation.

I am sure that Larian employees understand that and actually do still play and enjoy the old games

I played the old games, all of them, and I'd hate to see an exact remake. I see what Larian is coming with as superior in most aspects. It is a bit rough on edges and requires some balancing, that's what EA is for.

Hard to disagree too...
It's not only about "a feeling", it's about real mechanics or visual

- Fast travel could work on the worldmap => like in BG
- A few menu/popup could have some kind of parchment as background and a better font than times new roman => like in BG
- Party of 6 is possible => like in BG
- Day/Night cycle is something that was a kickstarter goal for DoS si it's possible in their engine => like in BG
- Random encounter is also possible when you fast travel or rest => like in BG
- The first act map could have been divided in a few maps to give more consistency to the world and the story => like in BG
- Going back to a town, to a village or an inn is also something in BG. The burning inn could have been a place to rest, to buy/sell and to meet characters => like in BG
- Dice rolls at the character creation is something in BG, they could have implemented both point buy and dices roll.

I'm not saying everything here is fine, that's not a list of suggestions but there are many other exemples of things that was a part of the old BG and that could have been a part of BG3.

I guess no one asked them to copy/paste anything from the 20 yo BG games... But they did nothing for BG3 to looks like BG. That's a fact and according to me, even if I like BG3... it's a shame and I really understand those that are strongly dissapointed.

Yup, this 100%. And the complete arrogance of ignoring all feedback about the dangers for migraineurs, epileptics, and people with other photosensitivity or motion conditions was stunning in all the worst ways. They didn't just make it in a way people who don't like FPS "don't like it"... they made it actively harmful!

There was no need to turn it FPS, there have been many many successful and well done 3rd person scifi RPG's to back that up. Hell there have been other CYBERPUNK games that prove it was purely a dev choice/opinion, not a 'necessary' way to present the game. Between that fiasco, the way they treated their staff for the last 2 years, and the fat jokes shoehorned throughout Witcher 3, I'm completely done with CDPR. Couldn't be happier that Larian got the gig.

That's exactly the problem. I'm A-okay with BG3 being a game that makes use of all the modern tools and it's more than appropriate for a Baldur's Gate main entry to set a new standard for cRPGs and push the genre forward. However, more than anything, it should still be BG in more than name and a couple of story connections. But people are quick to dismiss such concernes with "you just want a copy-paste of 20 year old game". No. That's not it. Please stop using this "argument".

Let's be honest - it's impossible to please everyone.
Every time someone is trying to do something with "legends", just like Baldurs Gate, there always be 3 or more groups of people:
The one who loves it, hates it, neutrals, and everyone between. It is a normal flow.

I was a huge fan of Fallout 1 and 2, when there was an announcement for Fallout 3 i was super excited - but then it turns out that this is 3rd person, no isometric view etc. It was not my pair of shoes. I didn't play any of this game to this day - not because I'm super mad about them - It's just not something I enjoy.

For me, Larian was a very good choice for BG3 - and I really enjoy it so far. Is it perfect? No. Is there a huge potential that this will be the game that I will play for the next couple of years? Yup.

It's really surprising for me that some of the people - who don't quite enjoy the game, generally don't enjoy it because of the title, and how much it's different than the imaginary BG3 - it's nothing wrong with it - I'm just surprised.

Back in the days, when I was a kid, I owned a collection edition of Baldurs Gate 2, and I was hoping for so many years for BG3, for me they nailed it - but for others, it could be a story like me vs fallouts series.

Opinions are like assholes...everyone's got them. As for POE2 vs DOS2 there is simply no contest if you move past subjective preferences and *your* obvious fanboyism. Despite Larian being a relative newcomer on the scene, DOS2 outsold POE2, who was a big flop, by a factor of ten or more. DOS2 likewise outperformed POE2 in metacritic scores both from critics and users. When it comes to moral integrity/business model, Larian is a shining beacon compared to Obsidian which pretty much washed their hands of a still buggy game with performance issues, while Larian polished and released an enhanced edition free for game owners.

That said, I too agree with some of the criticisms against Larian; they have failed to this far deliver on their promise of faithfully implementing DnD and instead gone with what worked well in DOS2 but works less well within the DnD framework. BG3 have convinced me that is has the makings of a truly great RPG when it comes to actual roleplaying and story narration, the characters are interesting and the voice-acting superior to just about anything I know. This is still early, early access, so pushing the panic/entitlement button is way too premature.

I did play bg1,2 and been playing Ad&d since a kid. my biggest joy of bg3 is the emphasis on dialog, and feeling like a real role playing game.

the hardest part for me honestly is the camera.

I saw that it was to be 'based on D&D' and '5E rule set' specifically. yet that doesn't hold them to strict guidelines. based is just based. and even bg1 , 2 have core rules options and a handful of other diffuculty modifiers which in its time were the best they could do to customize it.

I feel like this deviates in some ways from the rule set. yet at least in 2e from my day. The DMG itself said these rules are simply guidelines. they were not intended to be strict. Many groups had house rules.

So it being strict to D&D at its core is minor to me IF it really emphasizes role playing. and it does. very well actually. i feel aware of my npcs, and the townsfolk, and consequences for my actions. plus i can just engage, find new info, have meaningless dialog and banter at camp.

In that way, this is MORE D&D than many games with the title, according to the forward in D&D's own manuals.

i dont have a problem with turn-based combat. i thought larian this time would move out of their comfort zone and maybe do something different. but no sadly. it's basically a DOS2 clone. completed EA and i would say i'm terribly disappointed. They basically make a DOS2 game using the DND5e and it turns out worst. Lost the flexibility like in DOS2 and you just keep.. miss.. miss.. miss. Out of the biggest offender would be 4 party character. From earlier Baldur's Gate of 6 reduced down to 4. Game is not fun and often most of the battles are pre-scripted and pre-placed where there are high grounds for you to shove and battles are outrageously unfair and resorting you to abuse barrelmancy.

In all honesty.. Larian is a wrong choice for Baldur's Gate 3. It doesn't have the Baldur's Gate feeling at all. I would have be much happier if they were to be making DOS3 instead and leave BG3 to Obsidian. Sure it seems to look very succesful as Larian is banging on hype and nostalgia. It won't work long term and they can only keep repeating doing the same DOS formula till one day their review will get a low 4/10.

HAHAHA. Talk about fanboyism. Living in glass houses and all that.

+1

a yes and no from me. on one hand while watching this i truly was curious and eager to see how this related to the bhaalspawn story. on the other hand 1/2 E is the time period where the story of the war where bhaal died, and the bhaalspawn story take place. 5e is much later in the D&D history timeline. It would be somewhat obtuse to a lot of people if they in 5e rehashed old faerun history. All that considered I would much rather it be a new name, yet i also understand that baldurs gate is a city. so in theory anything relating to that city could share the title. It will absolutely rub people the wrong way over its development. I never played the DOS games, so i have no way to compare this in that regard. Yet it is a fun story, its engaging, and has a lot of roleplay mechanics.

I will add that the video game culture has changed dramatically since bg1/2. we were a lil more lowkey back then, to be fair. we could have ripped it apart for not being strict to 2e ( it wasn't ) we could have complained that it was similar to icewind dale etc. ( order of release irrelevant ) so companies do what works for them for mechanics. this is no way perfect its still EA there is time to read the feedback and make changes.

I will give them credit because to take up the name Baldur's Gate ... well its a huge endevor in itself. because we know we cannot please everyone, we know how easily that opens up for criticism. its a big choice for a company.

Edited to exclude the stuff I haven't played, but yeah, that, pretty much. I liked New Vegas, but less than the other two Obsidian games shown there and less than the other two modern Fallout games (not including that MMO thing). It's okay, but in the same way that Gothic 3 is okay.

Based on my previous comments about objectivity and stuff I'm not claiming that this is anything but an opinion; just an opinion from someone who remains mystified about why FNV gets so many accolades from self-styled hardcore gamers.

Guys, quit calling each other fanboys.

Are we talking about Obsidian from times of yore? If so, partial agree - despite the poorly handled tone.

I definitely think the best Obsidian had to offer would quite easily outshine Larian in terms of storytelling and companion writing. Larian's writing hovers around the line of mediocrity, with an unfortunate tendency towards the whimsical, even when they try to explore darker and more serious angles.

They are quite good at making the game part of a videogame, though. Their turn-based combat design in particular has been a favorite of mine in the genre. I really enjoy the use of the environment (barrelmancy memes aside) and verticality. I also think their quest design is pretty good.

I will say that BG3 feels perfectly DnD to me, as the system encompasses a wide variety of possible tones and styles. It does *not* however scratch the same itch for me that the older games did. And I would lie if I claimed I wasn't disappointed by that realization.

When it comes to spiritual successors, I hope Owlcat can eventually fill those shoes. They have their own problems, but have demonstrated tremendous willingness to learn and improve. I think Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous has a good shot at recreating the feel of older DnD titles.

Well, Obsidian would have been an excellent choice and afaik they were willing to develop BG3 10-12 years ago.
However I think POE is not a good model for a BG3 game.
I am a POE hardcore fan and I know where it comes from. A very small budget game made thanks to the fans, for the fans. POE(1) is a true jewel in the gaming industry but it is clearly not appealing to the masses.
For that, imho, you need 1) a more epic ambiance, not so refined, not so finely honed 2) a less intellectual narrative 3) and it greatly pains me to say it, a not so elitist combat system.

Pay attention to Obsidian's plans, let them develop Avowed which may well combine the best of many genres. OP rejoice! Its lore comes from POE.

100% this.

Yeah I definitely see the combat as one of the main issues with PoE, it just makes it unplayable for me. I could put up with the atrociously bad setting if at least killing things was fun.

Absolutely, I love PoE and yet fully agree it would not be a good model for BG3. The whole point of the new mechanics Sawyer developed for PoE was to have it be something very different from D&D/D20 mechanics, which Sawyer has openly stated.

And yes, I am super stocked for Avowed.

Ultimately, with BG3, it is the name that it all comes down to for me. If everything else about this game were exactly the same except for it having some other name than BG3, my reactions would be completely different. My curiosity for a new D&D game and my love of cRPGs would've caused me to come take a look. Once I got that look I would've said "Nah, this doesn't look like a good game to me at all," and walked away. But the moment it was named Baldur's Gate 3, that changes everything.

am i not alone in feeling that the name gripped me, yet equally i felt like it was so unexpected what i received?

i actually like the bg3 game in its current experience, yet i definitely hit a point where i wondered if the name choice was simply to acquire a userbase, where a new D&D title may not have achieved the same

Obsidian hmm... I have never played Starwars but Neverwinter Nights 1 (Bioware &Obsidian) vs Neverwinternights 2 (Obsidian created)? Neverwinter Nights 1 was better. The tool to create stuff in Neverwinter Nights 1 took more time true but amazing persistent online worlds community created and lots of modules.

Neverwinter Nights 2 was not bad, (though lots of bugs at release), but never gave me jaw drapping experiences like Neverwinter Nights 1 did with 3D and community created content.

Of course it's about acquiring a consumerbase, why do you think people keep watching newver and newer starwars movies? Because they love the brand!
BG is a cult classic and it's a time-tested game that is still great to play to this day, people love it and want more of it.
Using this franchise is only bad if they give us a product that caters to the masses instead of delivering high quality. Sadly catering to the masses is definitely happening, because under our current economic incentives bigger numbers mean more income, and profit is why people make video games. BUT I think that Larian has some people on top who are actually passionate about gaming, which may actually make this game decent. I don't see any reason to expect the worse so far.
I will begin whining when they reveal the edgy female tiefling paladin companion who is more of a snowflake then the damn vampire in our party ( whom I dearly love ).

a paladin with cripplingly low fire resistance does sound like a bad move.

and yea i am aware of marketing tactics/ reasons. it does not discredit that i am cynical, untrusting, and move through life trying to keep expectations to a minimum least i be disappointed. its still nice to hear echos of ' did you do this for the hype ' in regards to the name.

again, i like this game, i tend to be more passive and roll with i will like a game or not, i didnt make it, i dont have to like it. if i buy something that isnt good, well learn, and buyer beware. however agree that this game has great roleplay potential. i also think with a name this big. this long after... we know a million ideas of what 'should be' come to the table. all that aside, ill repeat its a bold move to pick up this name by any company, and i hope it works our for larian. It draws so much attention, it have consequences good/bad.

--fixed quote mistake

Because some of us do not compare to DOS2. The community created content for BG3 while a start is yet almost NOTHING compared to the stuff Online persistent player driven worlds and thousands of modules adventures the Neverwinter Nights community created.

Finally Baldurs Gate 1 and Baldurs Gate 2 are classics.

All players do not want to win with pushing a barrel and taking high ground advantage. There is nothing wrong doing that (even more so when challenge otherwise would be very hard), but then they should that enemy AI does that at least rarely. That would be the day a player group get ambushed by wandering monsters.

im unable to relate you comment to the snippet you quoted? ive never played dos2, and as such the barrel memes tend to go over my head, i actually find they make it harder... probably because they get used, i also havent been conditioned by another game to like or dislike this approach, its very new to me.

perhaps i am misunderstanding your quote, or vice versa. however could you clarify for me please and thank you?

back to the OP topic, my concern wit the obsidian name is that unless im mistaken microsoft just bought them, and that means we do not yet know how this affects the company. even beyond end result there could be all sorts of changes to creative process/development and it feels early to speculate or name them specificly as who should have, and i loved pillars/tyranny

Ok you are not ex DOS2 player my misstake sorry.

I am talking of what can be created by community:
https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=707867#Post707867
That is what they have done.

In Neverwinter Nights they could create adventures totally own adventures and player driven persistent multiplayer Online worlds.

No barrel pushing game? Baldurs Gate 1 example:
https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=742528#Post742528

I think some refer while this game is good (I am not saying it is bad) some player would it be more like Baldurs Gate 1 and 2 or Neverwinter Nights 1&2.

This game is still good. I want to play whole this game. However there are some people that want it more different likely more oldschool regarding from the subject of this thread.

i was a big fan of bg1/2 and still play them. nwn is a gem super amazing roleplay experience though the controls were not my fav, and graphics aged not entirely well. they keep wonder with content emerging and in story games the graphics are minimal value imho.

as for old vs new: i try to keep my desires of how it should be out of it to an extent considering i didnt take the initiive to make it. yet thats just me, and im not speaking for anyone besides me. i can empathize with wishing it was more adjacent to what i knew, yet i also am open to a new experience and not holding the past up on a mantle

Baldur's Gate 2 is commonly ranked one of the greatest computer games of all time, I think rpgs are a cult genre if anything

I disagree with this and it really gets at why the "5th ed purist" line annoys me so much. The thing about the IE games is that they had so many D&D fans in house -- and the NPCs were actually based on the devs own characters -- that they knew what sort of house rules to implement. In BG,. The prices for services for churches is off -- and that's a good thing. The constitution score reduction for being raised from the dead was never implemented. The level cap on demi humans was not implemented. The need to find pearls to identify items was never implemented. No one was upset that Jaheria could cast raise dead instead of reincarnation. A number of the spells were not correctly implemented -- horrid wilting should take out your party just like fireball does. And these house rules were the very same house rules I and every other group I knew were running with.

In fact, I remember people getting upset when IWD implemented a number of the spells correctly. Before Sawyer was a critic of the DnD ruleset he was the by-the-book kinda guy.

The Larian house rules are not like those. Or rather some are and some aren't. No one wants players to find diamonds to raise the dead. No one is asking that revivify be implemented correctly by only allowing it be used on corpses that died less than a minute ago. (Somewhat surprisingly) no one is asking that the "only three magic items" or "magic item attunement" rules be implemented properly. People are just used to video game levels of loot and games are more combat intensive than pen and paper. I see more combat in one hour of BG3 than tabletop group sees in a year of play.

But rules like dip, surfaces on cantrips, height giving advantage, barrelmancy and the like are different. I doubt there is a tabletop group that has implemented these features into the game.

TL;DR. The Larian house rules are not like the Bioware house rules and I've not seen a real 5th ed purist on these forums.

Oh and to keep this being declared OT -- you take the good with the bad, what I like about Larian is that they understand that fun > balance and I think Obsidian often sacrifices at the altar of balance. I'm happy that Larian got it but I do want to see a DnD game made with the PoE2 engine.

i can take in what you are saying though i actually come from and enjoy AD&D 2nd Edition. im used to height playing in, as well as surface ( though cantrips didnt exist, and im not certain yet that i fully grasp how the community uses the term surface x where x is many different things. so that aside... bg1/2 being 2e games there were countless rules left out of the core. the culture change i spoke to was more of a societal change, how we use the internet, our expectations of content, etc. back in bg1/2 you were hardcore if you wrote your own html for your homepage especially if your dog had a link ( exageration obv ) we downloaded guides in giant text files and sifted through them. etc its a very different internet, and it has an effect on gaming culture.

RPGs haven’t been a cult genre for a long time.

Turn based tactics and RtwP RPGs aren’t super popular, but RPGs in general are a major mainstream genre.

if memory serves me correctly it was the ps1 and specificly square's final fantasy vii that shifted that balance. previously and during the time bg oldschool was being born it very much was a cult genre. i recall quite clearly how my parents judged heavily the parents whose children played AD&D as it was satanic ... not a global oppinion, yet time really has a footprint in this rpg genre

I am a Christian and I do not think it is wrong play roleplaying games. Well not that I turn my other cheek and I have done mandatory military service in Finland since Russia is our neighbour. Well though I have nothing against Russian people their women can be beautiful and I like to see example sports event Russia team in icehockey vs Finland. Finland is current world champion in Icehockey men that was played year 2019. Year 2020 not played due to COVID 19.

I believe that hatred in beginning was mistrust for a new odd thing in their opinion after all Dungeons Dragons came out year 1974 and during that time already it had stuff like Demons. That year 1974 was long time before I started playing, but I checked from Wikpedia when it came out.

On the other hand I hate the fact that Dungeons Dragons 5 can have domains without choosing a God or Deity.
That is completely wrong. You can not have any divine power without a deity as Cleric or Paladin well though in Dungeons lore this can be either you choose the deity and/or deity chooses you. In Dungeons Dragons you can also worship more then one God.

agreed 100% terminator, on all of that. my reference to faith and how this genre was viewed in my youth was simply to contrast how much of a shift and how mutable this genre is.

as for clerics in 5e.... i struggle with editions newer than 2e because a lot of what felt right has changed, yet i still can play 2e so let times change

Dear Larian forum moderators,
Not sure whether advertising is allowed but I just want to pass the information. I don't think I am violating any forum rules.

Pertaining to some of the games listed in this thread.
Both POE#1 and Tyranny are supposed to be free starting tomorrow. https://www.epicgames.com/store/en-US/free-games
I don't know if there are any specific conditions.

regardless its a poor choice of thread to stuff an add

It's true everything now incorporates RPG elements, I'm not so sure about how mainstream RPGs are though. It certainly is much more mainstream than when BG:2 came out, make no mistake.

Skyrim and Fallout, The Witcher and Cyberpunk 2077, Dragon Age and Mass Effect, various MMORPGs but especially WoW, Final Fantasy and Kingdom Hearts, Assassin’s Creed (which has apparently gone full RPG), Pokémon (the single highest grossing media franchise in history).

RPGs have become as mainstream as superheroes, Star Wars, epic fantasy, and all of the other bits of what was once nerd culture and is now just pop-culture.

videogames themselves were one nerd culture. i think you are spot on that its shifted to popculture now... all of this.

okay nerds lets pick up a new concept to be laughed at for till they realize we are awesome and it starts trending again

Here's something we have agreement on. You are absolutely correct. Ultimately, it doesn't matter whether the game is TB or RTwP or isometric or whatever. cRPGs are a very small niche in video games these days even while RPGs (and especially action/first-person RPGs) have become much more mainstream and popular.

This is why I don't accept the D:OS2 sales numbers point that D:OS fans like to throw around. Being the #1 seller in a very small niche is not particularly impressive to me. If the niche is small, then even the #1 seller within that niche is small, and being "bigger" than another small competitor means nothing. Within the overall RPG genre, the sales numbers for games like TW3, Skyrim, and now CP2077 are staggering. So the question for me with BG3's anticipated sales goal is whether it is meant to be in the cRPG league or the RPG league?

Avant garde interpretive dance. The next frontier of nerd culture.

While I am not fan of DOS2 I did buy that and it got super excellent reviews even better then TW3 or Skyrim reviews.

I never bought TW3. I bought Skyrim because they have been milking it to kingdom come and you can get Skyrim for less then 10 euro easily.

Oh and I am not fan of Elder Scrolls games have never had the patience to play through them.

Cyberpunk 2077 is I find a bit different niche it is to begin with SCIFI and does not have Magic. Cyberpunk 2077 have ground breaking technology ray tracing graphics etc. and it is a bit unfair to compare to that. Well not to mention Cyberpunk 2077 has been hyped to kingdom come. In addition last I checked there are not many games like Cyberpunk 2077 in that particular niche.

There are lots of games out there that are not turn based that dont sell way so long list I dont want to mention them.

What do I care? I care to buy those games I want and I am sure as hell ready to pay for this game much more then Skyrim that I paid for less then 10 euro.

Fortnite had at some point 125 million players, but does not make me love that game.
Baldurs Gate 3 does not need to be the biggest sales out there. It has popularity through DOS2 fans and then Dungeons Dragons fans like me and other potential players.

If it gets into 125 million players, it will inevitably suck. That number of people just can't enjoy a good turn based D&D RPG.

You are missing my point, which is that if one makes a claim that game A is popular, therefore it is a great game, then that argument has to also apply to games B, C, and D. And trying to separate out games into separate genres is just a fake way of ensuring a game one favors does not suffer an unfavorable comparison.

All RPGs are one genre. Within that one genre there is one sub-genre, namely cRPGs. The RPG genre is very big, very diverse, and nowadays very much mainstream and popular. The cRPG sub-genre is very tiny, very niche, and decidedly not mainstream. That's it. All other ways of separating these games are false, imo. And in this context, I am simply asking if BG3 is in the (very big) RPG box or in the (very tiny) cRPG box? That's it. A very simple question.

I don’t think it’s a matter of a game being either in the big RPG box or the CRPG box. While almost no games reside in both (I suppose an argument can be made for Dragon Age), they aren’t inherently mutually exclusive. BG3 is certainly trying to be a CRPG in the big RPG box. Whether Larian will succeed or not remains to be seen, but the high sales in Early Access is quite promising.

Less intellectual narrative? Refinement is bad? Baldur's Gate III should appeal to the masses? DoS doesn't appeal to the masses. If anything it's more clunky and arcane than PoE. The average console kid will take one look at the inventory management, laugh it off and play the dumbed-down "skyrim" instead which IMO is extremely overrated like all the other TES games except Daggerfall but I digress...

I'm tired of talking about CD Projekt but they stand out as a company that achieved massive success without selling out to companies like EA. And even though TW3 was compromised by an easy console-ized combat system, the storytelling was very adult and its the only RPG with a story that I like -- the Hearts of Stone expansion with Olgierd's story was especially poignant.
Many other RPGs including even Pillars the dialogue and voice-acting is so hokey, characters that I simply don't like and I always just turn the voices off.
If you want to see a "less intellectual narrative", look at how the Netflix series butchered The Witcher. Is that what you think is required to be successful? I beg to differ.

I stand by my point that when they made PoE2 they created a fantastic engine for BG-type games that would have served a BG3 better than Larian's fruity "cast teleport on your enemy for the lulz" whimsical design.

Always give games a chance even if they get some low scores and nerdraging reviews, clearly we all have different tastes. And NEVER support dumbing-down and pandering just to appeal to the masses, this is the single worst thing happening with gaming right now, everyone knows this and they're clinging desperately to the hope the Cyberpunk will come along and save us... we'll see how it does...

This is it exactly. But where you see promise, I don't.

I don't see BG3 putting up numbers anywhere near TW3 or Skyrim or CP2077. Even matching DA:I numbers (about 10 million), which are on the low end of RPG sales, will be tough. I only see BG3 being the big (biggest?) fish in the small cRPG pond, and not a big (like TW3/Skyrim/CP2077) fish in the big RPG pond.

Being even the biggest fish in the small cRPG pond does not at all impress me the way being a big fish in the big RPG pond impresses me. Even an RPG like Skyrim, which I personally do not like, still impresses the heck out of me as video games go. And CP2077? The projections are for 21 million in sales in just its first month!! Now *that* is impressive (if it pans out). I used to be an exclusively small cRPG pond fan myself for a long time. But then, a couple of years ago, in the face of a dearth of good small cRPG pond games to play, I very reluctantly decided to give TW3 a try. Best gaming decision I ever made. TW3 is a fantastic RPG. So now I find myself firmly in the big RPG pond because I do not in the future want to miss out on a fantastic game like TW3 by limiting myself to the small cRPG pond anymore.

D&D though, is it serious? or whimsical? its a toss up and really deepends on group and dm. jeez we have had super serious dwarven warriors, and we have had drug addicted clerics stumbling drunk through town buying unknown substances from the thief. so its not inheriently wrong to make this whimsical. thats our DM. however if majority of players want something else, then our DM will consider it and adjust. they already clearly hear these things, they are hiring a writer and opened that up to the community. if you dont like the whimsical you could apply, if you don't have the time to, then you are in a tough spot of writing out dislikes on a forum. ya?

I think where Assassin's Creed is concerned, and games like it, there's a interesting debate to be made on when a game stops merely having RPG elements (i.e. stats) and starts becoming an RPG, I don't know the answer myself but I'm disinclined to include Assassin's Creed in there yet.

As for what is and isn't mainstream, I consider something mainstream when even third-parties have a frame of reference where it's involved. Everyone can recognize a reference to Star Wars, or when it's tropes are being used or parodied, whether or not they've seen the movies but when THAC0 or Armor Class is used in a joke in a show like Futurama, at the time it was a inside joke to nerd-culture, now I'm not so sure, I think it's still borderline. But who am I?

Yeah, there is virtually no way that BG3 moves anywhere close to Skyrim of Witcher 3 numbers. But, most CRPGs measure their sales in the hundreds of thousands, so if BG3 sells a few million copies, which is quite probably, especially with PS5/XboxSX releases somewhere down the lime, I would say that they have stepped at least one foot out of the small CRPG pond.

Anyway, I’ve lost track of what the point of this conversation was. 😂



It’s also interesting because RPGs are to video games sort of what like metal is to music, in so far as that you have these singular origin points which spawned countless idiosyncratic sub-genres that are each so diverse that they seem to have nothing to do with each other, despite being interactions of a common theme. And then just like you can say AC/DC is not a metal band, but a hard rock band with some metal sensibilities, Assassin’s Creed is an action adventure with some RPG elements.

Anyway, I just included that one on the list because it’s a great example of how mainstream RPGs have become that Ubisoft decided to include a lot of RPG elements in their flagship series.

AC are not RPGs because they lack both elements that constitute one:
1. Character customization
2. Story customization (choices that bear consequences)

Every western RPG can be classified as such using both these features. AC lacks both, as you don't customize your character, just use different weapons and apply higher damage modifiers, story is also linear.

This also implicates that JRPGs are not RPGs since they usually don't have any type of customization.

Yeah I can't include AC in the RPG genre myself. But many people do. So it is tough to objectively define the borders of the genre. As for what is mainstream, for me I just look at sales for that. If something (i.e. Star Wars) sells a heck of a lot, such that non-hardcore people are now "fans" of it, then it is mainstream.

I'm a bit tired of the same ol' discussions again and again. So when some (to me) interesting sidebar comes up in a thread I like to engage in it as it is more intellectually stimulating. That's all there is to it.

It's not strictly advertising as it's about free games and it is (just about) relevant, but I'd sooner people didn't make a habit of it.


I think it probably varied a lot by area. Here in the UK in the early '80s when I was at school, video games were popular with everyone, pretty much, but I've heard of very different experiences elsewhere.

I used to get irritated by people calling AssCrees a stealth game, with its shallow, and broken stealth systems. I am glad it move to RPGs now.

With modern ACs (which I didn't touch, so 🤷‍♂️) I would question whenever RPGs system are actual gameplay systems (developing character, distinct playstyles with unique weapons, matching character choices) or if they serve openworld grind and game monatization. I have heard a lot about how grindy ACs are, but not how cool the loot system/choices are. But I suppose I could be just a bad RPG game.

And that always bring the elephant in the room. Witcher3, which is universally beloved and mostly accepted as an RPG, in spite of it being an open world action game with unnecessary and pretty weak RPG systems on top, which only break balance rather then enhance the game. Still, one can forgive many things with excellent writing and good quest design.

Thats why there are different categories of rpgs.
Crpgs, Jrpgs, action rpgs, ...

It's Epic, the cost of your soul is very not much free!

Well why dont go then play your The Witcher 3 then complaining here that you want to change this game to same?

Here is my side of things.
I played the Witcher 2 bought it. Story was good, fighting good, but I could not stand the Sandbox elements they were a huge turn off for me.

I bought Skyrim for less then 10 euro and the only good thing with that game was for me community made content mod that made nude women.

I have tried other Elder Scrolls and it always end the same way I hate them for being this Sandbox with no fucking clue what you should do and then it all begin to feel generic go here and there.

Oh and for seeing in first person view instead of controlling outside. Besides World of Warcraft MMO that I played for roughly 3 years (it has very clear quests not a sandbox game) I played Neverwinter Nights MMO that is Dungeons Dragons (you can also control it in many camera modes and it has clear quests and not sandbox game) for more then 2 years until I got bored on it and to much TIME SINK.


MMO:s can be great I think but my main problem with them is that they often turn out to be TIME SINK.

We have waited so long for a game like Baldurs Gate 3 finally a Dungeons Dragons rules game with more or less same way that Baldurs Gate...

Now while not fan I am not hater of DOS2. I gladly take the engine and DOS2 graphics to Baldurs Gate 3.
Yes I have been listening to you want to turn this game to game like Witcher 3, but I am telling you that would turn it of for me and many others. No I am not saying Witcher 3 has bad story, but at the end of day it is a Sandbox game which is huge turn off for me. Finally I am Dungeons Dragons fan. This game is Dungeons Dragons 5 more or less.

I have much higher expectations for this game then Witcher 3. Lol maybe I play witcher 3 when I get it for free or less then 5 euro.

At this moment yes Early Access is not perfect. Main things is that they fix the bugs add more content and more classes and the rest of Cleric Domains in Players Handbook for me.

Neverwinter MMO and WOW MMO both are not sandbox games.

There are 3 main reasons I do not buy Cyberpunk 2077 right now.
A. System requirements are skyhigh if you want full graphics with ray tracing and very high resolution. I mean it like graphic card Nvidia 3080 or better.
TOM'S HARDWARE "DON'T TRUST PROJEKT RED SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS"
System requirement are so high that Playstation 5 and Xbox Series X they have decided to lock at max 30fps at release. It may perhaps later get a patch that fixes it better for consoles. Oh and consoles do not get ray tracing or super graphics in your Cyberpunk 2077.
Cyberpunk 2077 Recommended PC: 4K Ultra Ray Tracing
Core i7-4790 or Ryzen 3 3200G
Nvidia RTX 3080 (or RTX 3090)
16GB RAM
10GB VRAM
70GB SSD storage
Windows 10 64-bit
Target: 4K Ultra

B. Right now expensive to buy that game and I am not so much fan of it.
I am not saying it is bad game but I prefer to try it when I have much faster computer and when I can buy it cheaply.

C. Cyberpunk 2077 I strongly suspect it feels to much sandbox for me and I heard its questing system is a confusing mess the interface and you have no idea how difficult quests, what rewards or how long time they will take.

Finally Baldurs Gate 3 interest me more then any other game out there including Cyberpunk 2077.

Just to clarify: by saying I want more BG in BG3 I don't mean direct continuation of Bhaalspawn Saga. That story is finished, that chapter is closed. That's good. I actually think the thematic and story connections may be sufficient as they are (perhaps introduced earlier, but that could be just a matter of not putting too many spoilers in EA). My main gripe is with the "feel" of the game, which is a matter of a number of elements, not just one big thing. A is different than in the old games, B is different, C is different... Not saying everything should be the same of course, but it adds up and you end up with a game that would not be recognizable as one in the series if not for the title (and some obvious connections, like the titular city).





Yup. I used to fiercely defend the name... I just wish they were more willing to do this name justice. I would be far less critical if it was a new IP. I'd just like it, dislike, call it "not a masterpiece, but quite enjoyable" and not fuss over it. But a new instalment in a beloved series is a promise. Unfulfilled in this case.

I really don't understand how people can be crying Broken Promises about BG context for BG3;

A) It's literally set a day or two from BG with a group of people literally making their way TO that place

B) We've only seen the very beginning of the game. Not even the whole opening chapter, we have no idea what connections to the other two BG games we'll see once these *completely new* characters reach BG proper

C) The datamining to date has shown that several key previous BG characters will be not only coming back, but making 'lead cast' impacts on the game world

D) Larian Q&A and updates have explicitly stated that once we reach the start of the next chapter more and more connections to the first BG games will become very apparent and integral to the story of this game

I think people are really forgetting that we are in Early Access, and have NOT been given access to the full game... hell we haven't even been given full access to the FIRST CHAPTER!! We don't have the classes, spells, companions, or story. We don't even know if the companion progression and pacing will remain the same once the full game is live (I'm tempted to say they have allowed us to 'rush through' the companion story so far, so we can get a proper 'teaser' for the 'evil' companions). The pacing of camp instalments feels very sporadic and rushed to me, so I wouldn't be at ALL surprised if the pacing is different and the bugs involving clashing triggers are vastly altered or removed on full release.

I just think we're jumping the gun here, and we should maybe put the game away for a few months if we've burned enough played hours to start picking plot holes in a game that we've barely seen a rough draft for the first chapter of.

Or as hubs told me once when I got on a truly righteous rant about how much I despise ME3:
"I know you adore the series, but if you can't find ANYTHING to comment positively on... maybe you just shouldn't play THIS game in the series".

It's a game guys, it's supposed to be fun. If you hate it, it's not fun.. It's not going to magically be exactly the game you want at this point, it's already been brought and paid for... and seriously the FIRST dev interview with the D&D creators straight up told us what style and mechanics they were aiming for. And we got exactly that, like it or not, it's 5e built on a DOS2 template.

The CITY of Baldur's Gate is not what defines the original BG games. So having that eponymous city in this game doesn't serve to justify the title of BG3. That's like saying every movie set in NYC is part of the same series/franchise of movies.

Did... you read the rest of my comment?

Or did you just see that first line and knee jerk it?

I have to give a confession at this point. I have not yet bought this Baldurs Gate 3 but reasons for it I wanted it slightly more content and more bugs fixed before I buy. I fully intend to buy it. Therefore I can not judge your verdict not enough Baldurs Gate style.

Here are my analysis guesses at least how they can add more BG feeling a bit:
1. First of Elves can live thousands of years. An elf could live to this Baldurs Gate 3 time. As for none elven races we might meet their relatives next generation. We might find journals and history of old Baldurs Gate events.

2. I am not expert but I suspect BG3 has lots of use environment but more then that. BG 1 if we compare to that had quite a lot of Drama and Action and possible even mild Horror elements (at least the expansion with Werewolf Island was Horror theme and fairly smart shapeshifters they did not all rush the tank no they went for your weak melee characters like smart predators). Baldurs Gate 3 has perhaps a bit more focus on "fun" things and use the environment.

3. A slighty nastier AI... let the players be ambushed by enemies. Players could though try to flee as solution to that.

Well though BG1 had some fun moments example the Paladin and his hamster pet comments…

It really isn't a very good idea to take stuff without paying for it and then admit it on the company's official forums.

+1

Wait what you are not allowed to discuss on these forums before buying Baldurs Gate 3? Can you read? That is a dude that probably has seen Baldurs Gate 3 on youtube videos and read stuff on the forums. He admitted he has not yet bought Baldurs Gate 3 but will do it. Can you clarify it is not allowed to talk about a game before you have bought it??? He has not admitted taking any stuff at all.

Hey dont forget Owlcat for their Pathfinder.

Obisidian will make this game a laggy mess with uninteresting characters.

Owlcat will make this game a buggy mess while the gameplay is as painful as possible with timers.

Recent ones got both, certainly to a higher extent than Witcher. And I think nobody argues that Witcher is an RPG. The story is not as good, but they are certainly trying to copy Wither success.

*Everything* is an RPG these days. Even if it's just the next cinematic action-adventure with superficially RPG elements. Obsidian, whilst we're at them, rightfully mocked all that when they first announced The Outer Worlds. "An exciting new RPG with RPG elements" it was to be according to their press release.

That pretty fun and apt joke seemed to have not gotten the attention it deserved.

I skimmed through his posting history (it’s very short) and unless I’m missing something he never claimed to have played the game, illegally or otherwise. I only see mentions of him having watched gameplay videos on YouTube.

I would argue that the Witcher 3 is not an RPG but an action game with rpg elements.

I think the game is freaking awesome so far in EA. I've only ever teased the idea of playing DnD. But thru BG3 I've looked into the game mechanics so much and found it so rewarding. And honestly replaying the game now, with so much more information and actually strategizing my skills and team builds to work for me, its such a joy.

I've not played Outer worlds, but from my other experiences (fallout, TES, all the Witcher, and more) i think Larian is doing a fantastic job so far with BG3. I say that keeping in mind that much more content is coming but what we got so far just shows there's so much more good to come.

I do not have a definition of RPG but here are some thoughts:

My best idea is based on an article I read about character skill vs player skill.
- Action game: The result depends only on how and when the player presses buttons. You shoot at the enemy and when the cross hair is on the enemy when you press the shoot button you will hit. The enemy attacks and only when you press dodge or move at the right moment you avoid the hit. Your char might have stats (usually every game has a health bar), but if you do not push the right button in the right moment you have no chance.
- RPG: You give your char the command to attack the enemy. If you hit or not depends only on your equipment, stats and positioning. Your abilities to push buttons with the right timing is meaningless as long as you somehow manage to give your char commands at all.
- Action RPG: You have to press buttons to move, attack and dodge, but you also have stats, equipment and levels. So pressing the right button in the right moment is importent, but you still have no chance to beat a boss when you are a lv1 char with a wooden stick and hard fights become easier when you gain some new levels, equipment or abilities.

Usually RPGs have also:
- A complex story with many different characters
- There are many different NPC, some of them give you quests and you get rewards for doing them.
- You grow stronger over time by gaining levels, equipment or abilities.

So BG3 is definitely a RPG, as well as almost everything else that is besed on PnP and also most JRPGs are also RPGs.

I also think that genres get more and more blurred. It all started with simple arcade games ( I think pong was the first popular electronic game, then came stuff like space invaders ) and when games became more complex it condensed into several destinct genres. While there were always games that mixed things up, now its more normal than ever before that some games do not clearly fit into one genre but instead they have many different elements from many different genres and often they add something completely new.

final words:
- BG3 is definitely an RPG by any possible definition I can think of.
- I do not care about the definition of RPG. I care about that I enjoy playing a game.
I like both westen and eastern RPGs (BG1+2, Kingmaker / Trails of cold Steel ) and action RPG ( TW3, Fallout NV / Nier Automata ) and I definitely love totally weired stuff ( Undertale, Disco Elysium )
I also value a good story more than the game mechanics. I love PST but I never finished IWD, not because it was too hard but because I got bored when I had forgotten why I was here after killing tons of monsters.
There is only one dungeon crawler I have ever finished ( a JRPG with crazy characters and lots of text for a dungeon crawler ) and I never played a rogue like because I prefer playing hand crafted content once over playing random stuff repeatedly.

Well thank you moderators and Warlocke. It all got sorted out happily in the end. Lets forget this and move on.

Anyway I did buy yesterday late evening Baldurs Gate 3 from gog.com
Perhaps due to Cyberpunk 2077 release or otherwise it is extremely slow to download but lets see if I can play this during weekend.

I have a gaming laptop with these specs
decent I5 Intel CPU
8 GB RAM
Nvidia 1060 6GB DDR5
and
desktop
decent AMD Ryzen CPU
16 GB RAM
Nvidia 1070 8GB DDR5
The reason I have 2 computers? Work reasons and I have had to travel a lot due to my work.

Cyperpunk 2077 by the way since some say it is RPG?
There does not exist a computer that can run it well on max settings. The vast majority of player believe max settings are ULTRA in Ray Tracing. Completely wrong max settings have name PSYCHO.

In addtion do not have some DLLS on automatic because that means it is on PERFORMANCE and certainly not best quality.

Finally I am not saying it is wrong to play with Ray Tracing ULTRA setting it looks good enough.
I have a 3 year warrantry on my computers bought end of 2018... will not buy any new PC hardware before that warrantry is out.

I already have said I dont care what your computer is you can not get 60+ fps on average in Cyberpunk 2077
with Ray Tracing set to PSYCHO and everyting else max and 4k resolution.

I think I was a bit dismissive about its RPGishness at first. I really got off to a bad start as it seems to throw players in the deep end IMHO; same with settings: it had set mine to ultra or whatever it called it which I think was beyond the ability of my ageing R9 390 to deal with. That and the default mouse settings make it feel like it has really bad mouse lag. A bit of tweaking makes it run well enough. I mean speaking as someone who gets bad motion-sickness if it doesn't.

It makes me think a lot of Saints Row (mainly 3). I'm not sure if that's what they were aiming for, but it's keeping me entertained for the time being.


Sometimes you just need to have separate physical computers: some things don't like to share (e.g. Windows, which is essential for PC games but which I don't use for anything else). My server and desktop systems are also a lot more frugal with power consumption...

It means I didn't have any issues to raise with the rest of your post and only had an issue to raise with this part of your post.

And I would vigorously disagree. But ultimately what matters is that none of us has copyrights over the term RPG, and, as @Madscientist says very well, the definitions don't matter so much as whether we enjoy a particular game or not. I love the "RPG" genre almost exclusively for my video gaming preferences. Hard to argue Ps:T is not an RPG. And yet, I don't care much for Ps:T and personally view it as an overrated game. We all have our weirdnesses and our peculiarities.

Sorry, but this is the internet and therefore I cannot abide your personal opinion on PS:T being considered anything less than a masterpiece. You have offended my good sensibilities and the general standards of public decency. I demand satisfaction. Pistols at dawn.

Anyway, I find the debate over what games are considered to be RPGs generally pretty tedious. Some people say The Witcher 3 isn’t an RPG because it doesn’t have deep mechanics and customization, some say Diablo 2 isn’t an RPG because it doesn’t have an interactive story, and some say Final Fantasy games aren’t RPGs because they have neither of these features. While I wouldn’t say it is always the case, what I generally observe is that what people are really saying is that “the games that others call RPGs and that I don’t like are not RPGs.” I personally don’t like The Witcher games, don’t generally like top-down Diablo style ARPGs and can count the number of JRPGs I like on the fingers of one hand, but I’m very comfortable saying these are all different flavors of a single, incredibly diverse genre, as long as we can all agree that The Legend of Zelda is not an RPG.

I'd say that Witcher 3 is an RPG because you do have customization over Geralt's gameplay and dialogue, albeit less than in a CRPG. Diablo 2 is not an RPG because there are no choices in the story and JRPGs are not RPGs in any sense. Maybe FF1 was, because you could create the party and therefore customize them.

Pistols?! Shouldn't it be rapiers? En garde!!


Right on.

Planescape Torment?? I am a bit fairly good to it. First of all disclaimer I have never played the Planescape Torment computer game.

Reasons I did not buy it?
A. Praised for you can play good, neutral or evil. For me this is whatever I can take Baldurs Gate or Neverwinter over this.
B. Well not much variety in monsters... Demons, Devils, Rats, Celestial creatures. Undead that oddly often are more friendly then humans? Whats up with this? For me undead are like in the Walking Dead TV series or more intelligent but as general Evil.

Well I do have some experience of playing with Dungeons Dragons rules Planescape Torment?
Yes in Paper and Pen session that took days and many hours please see the link and read the explanation:
ROPECON FINLAND greatest Fantasy event held in Northern Europe usually once per year see the link or read the explanation

ROPECON WIKIPEDIA LINK

Ropecon (Finnish pronunciation: [ropekon]) is a role-playing convention held annually in Finland. The convention is one of the largest non-commercial annual events of its kind, having reached a record of "over 4900" attendees in 2019.[1] The current venue is the Messukeskus Helsinki convention centre in Helsinki, the capital city of Finland.

Ropecon hosts a wide variety of different types of games, including role-playing games, live action role-playing games, collectible card games, miniature wargames and strategy games. The event also has a range of lectures, panel discussions and other presentations covering different aspects of gaming. Past guests of honor have included several prominent game designers, such as Steve Jackson.

Ropecon is organised by the Ropecon Society, a joint venture of several Finnish role-playing associations. The practical arrangements are made by the unpaid members of an organising committee and hundreds of voluntary workers at the convention. Any profits are used to support various other role-playing activities.

The name "Ropecon" comes from the Finnish language word "roolipeli", meaning role-playing game, but is also a nod to the English language word "rope", a vital piece of equipment in classic dungeon crawl role-playing games.

The Finnish culture ministry supported Ropecon in 2013 with funding.[2]

The 2020 convention was moved into an online event because of the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic


Anyway in that event roughly a decade ago a GM who said that he will have an D&D Pen and Paper play session taking days in Planescape Torment inspired by the computer game. I said immediately I have not played the computer game but I do have played Dungeons Dragons before and GM was very satisfied with that. We created characters that were not level 1, but neither any high level characters. Anyway what was my experience of this? It felt fairly good and slightly different, but I have had both better and worse roleplaying sessions then this in Pen and Paper.

roppikonni

As a fan of Obsidian and Pillars of Eternity 1 and 2 which I thought was really good, they should have given this to them. Obsidian would have done wonders with this.

I think Larian were the perfect choice, and I love turn based combat way more than real time with pause. There are also many others out there who prefer turn based, so I don't think it's fair to say that Larian don't care what we think. They have made a decision based on what the playerbase as a whole wants, not just what you or any other single individual wants.

RT/TB has its very own topic as it's such a reliably contentious subject. Please take further discussion there.

+1 and very much this.

OK, I'm legitimately confused... what *exactly* is it that you want then? Because the points that have been raised have also been answered, which basically leaves 'they must want to play an expansion to BG1&2 then'. It's set in the same world, it's a continuation of the BG2 story, it has characters coming in further chapters from the last two games, it's based on D&D 5E, etc etc etc. It's got many of the same raw gameplay mechanics, and the story telling style is a modernised version of BG2.

I seriously can't figure out what you guys want if not a copy pasted version of the last games. I'm trying to get it, but I just don't understand what you actually want?

Short answer: the "feel" of the game. And yes, this is extremely subjective and hard to capture. But BG3 could be any other IP if you hid the obvious things like the title and so on. If I didn't know this is supposed to be a BG game, I'd guess it's some new IP set in Faerun that's a cross between D:OS2 and DA:I with 5e rules. I don't think it would ever cross my mind "hey, this really feels as if BG was made today". Just "a nice if flawed modern RPG".

From the things you listed, only the story and characters matter for making this a BG-feeling game, and this is a point I have no major issues with, except maybe... one character and its place in BG3. But the same world? A game just being set in some place doesn't really automatically make it feel a part of the series. See Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance games - set in BG, have story connections(?), but VERY much spin-offs and not parts of the main series. Of course, it will be nice to have a BG game that actually has a big chunk of it set in the titular city... Being based on 5e doesn't matter at all, it could be said for any D&D game and they can come in a wide variety of flavours. (BG3 and Solasta are also the ONLY 5e games, I believe, so it's just another difference if you judge by edition rather than D&D in general.)

Speaking of which: let's take a look at the Infinity Engine games, since people like to say "you want Infinity Engine, admit it". But here's the thing: Infinity Engine would not automatically make a Baldur's Gate game. All three IE series have their own specificity, their flavour, their "feel".

Icewind Dale is a dungeon crawler where you make your own custom party. It is very much on the combat side, and is regarded to have amazing encounter design, as well as good exploration and great atmosphere. There isn't that much focus on the story (although IWD2 has been praised in this regard) and you can't recruit NPCs to your party. (If anyone wants to correct me on this, please do, I'm going by what I've heard, not having played IWD myself yet.)

Planescape: Torment is the opposite: its focus is on the story and characters, with very strong narrative, and the combat is an afterthought. The setting is pretty non-standard. The game features lots of dialogue, includes quite a lot of philosphy and, uncharacteristically for a D&D game, you have a set protagonist with his own story, which is also pretty much the main plot.

And then you have Baldur's Gate: it sits somewhere in the middle, with all three pillars (combat, exploration, social) being quite strong. It has both a guiding narrative/structured chapters and freedom of exploration. A big part of the games are also memorable companions, as well as the ability to craft your own main character, which is also very much central to the main plot.

Still, those short descriptions don't really convey the aforementioned "feel" of the games and serve only to demonstrate that the superficially similar IE series are all their own entities and differ from one another. But I've been talking about the elusive "feel" of a BG game: what is it? Imo it's a fine mixture of many different factors. Removing one will weaken the "feel", but won't ruin it. No one of them makes BG BG; it's the sum of the parts that make a greter whole. You can make a BG game without a couple of these ingredients and it will still "feel properly BG". But remove or change too many and you end up with something that doesn't really resemble the original games; you're told it's BG, but you don't see or feel that it's BG. You know - if you have a certain dish and replace one ingredient, it's usually still that dish, just a variation. Replace most of the ingredients and you end up with an entirely different dish. It can still be good, but you'll be calling a pancake an omelette.

And this is also why, imo, it's so subjective: for different people, different ingredients have different "weights". One may say "yeah, the combat is not the most important aspect" and for another it's going to be crucial. And so if you keep most of the aspects the same, most people will recognize the game as "BG-like". If you change most aspects, most people will not feel the familiarity. Depends on what a person deems the "important" ingredients, and therefore... YMMV.

So what are some of those ingredients? In no particular order:

Possibly the biggest one: turn-based combat. BG1&2 had enough of a combat focus for the combat system to matter. Be in the TB or the RTwP camp - this change is huge for the gameplay. It's more of a change than anything in the DA series, for example, and those games suffered from game style shifts across the series. Still, as much as I hate TB, I think you can make a proper BG game that's also TB. Won't elaborate on this, since, as vometia reminded us, there is the dedicated thread for such discussion.

4 vs 6 party members. Another big one, though less dramatic. Also a matter of heated debate.

Also a huge one and perhaps the most obvious: shift to (non-top-view/isometric) 3D, more than that, with cinematics.

The UI/2D art style is completely different. Not just a matter of modern UI/prettier graphics, it's the art direction.

Time. BG3 is timeless. BG1&2 had day/night cycle with the world changing dynamically, as well a weather system.

The music is different. Good, but different.

The origin system: it results in two "alterations" in comparison to the classic games. One is the dramatically reduced companion count. Part of the companion appeal in BG1&2 is their variety and ability to choose just the right party. Another thing is that if you have companions-as-protagonists, you can't have plot focused on your custom character, like in BG1&2.

Those are just some high-profile examples off the top of my head. Again: it's not that you can't make a BG game without changing any aspect of it or that it's ruined when you introduce one of the above. It's not that those things are inherently bad, either. I've actually praised some of those, some I'd love to see built upon in another game. But every change you make shifts the game further away from resembling the original games, diminishes the "BG feel", subjective as it may be.

Most of the things that the old games and BG3 have in common are generic: a party-based D&D cRPG with recruitable companions. You could make pretty much any D&D game out of it. Again, title, location and some story connections can't carry the series' identity on their own.

Thanks for taking the time to write this up. 100% agree.

I would also add: world structure. Using singular large open levels simply have different effect then smaller ones connected via world map. BG1&2 were journeys spanning across multiple locations. D:OD/BG3 approach with no time mechanic, makes the world feel small and static. There are of course, many advantages to Larian single map per chapter approach, especially for COOP, but it is a different design, goal and effect then the old games. And it’s not about being archaic - one could do some innovative and next gen things with a travel system as well.

My 2 cents:
- DnD is turn based per definition. In so far the bigger question is why did BG1 chose rtwp?
So far I have not seen a real time game thats based on 5E. I think this is harder to put in real time with the action/bonus action/reaction mechanic.
Congratulations to kingmaker for a rtwp game that is very close to PnP rules and also has a TB mode, though Pathfinder is DnD 3.75E, not 5E.

- I think PnP DnD was designed for 4 players plus DM. I have no idea why BG1 chose 6. Because of the success of the IE games many players somehow consider this standart. There are many different RPGs with different party size.But I admit its part of the BG feel.

- BG 1+2 was 2D while BG3 is 3D and very vertical. The ability to move and rotate the camera is a must have now. I admit a kind of isometric camera would be good.
The camera in BG3 definitely needs some improvement.
suggestion: just copy DA:O

- I agree that the UI could be much better and it would be nice if it looks closer to BG1+2.
I am not a huge fan of endless hotbars, by the way.
Some changes need to be done (different spell system with the ability to cast spell at higher level, all classes have active abilities now, all classes have all skills, action reaction and bonus sction stuff, . . . ) but even then it could look better and closer to Bg1+2.
About the general art style, its hard to compare a low resolution 2D game with a 3D game were verticality is very importent. In BG1+2 you had the character portraits and the rest was up to your imagination. In BG3 you can see your chars in a realistic way from all directions and you see their face often.
Another thing is DnD 2E vs 5E. As far as I can tell BG3 is quite close to the official 5E art style. I am not an expert for the differences between editions, especially if we look beyond game mechanics.

- A day/night cycle would be nice to have, but apart from encounters with vampires it had very little effect in BG2 and BG 1+2 had very few timed quests and even there the time limit was very large.

- Music: No sure who has the rights for the music of BG1+2 (wotc, the computer game company or someone else)

- You are free to ignore the origin system. If you create a custom char and consider the others as normal companions it feels similar to most other RPG

about world map design: Technically BG1 was one huge map, it was just separated into several maps because of technological limitations. With current technology it would be possible to make BG1 with one huge 3D map and only some indoor areas or dungeons are a single different map, like BG3 is now.




But its good that you could give some arguments about why BG3 has a different feel.
Apart from a better looking UI it will be very hard to get closer to the BG1+2 feeling.

Yes. I was initially against the idea of dividing the map into small pieces... but it's better than having the world be a setpiece. Everything is close together, creating a theme park impression - and as you say, the world is static without time passage. The waypoint magic travel system doesn't help.

on what dnd is designed for:

varies by edition.
ODnD and early ADnD was designed for very large parties, this doesnt mean it was neccesarily played that way, but older editions ofthen had more than one person DMing, basically they ofthen had a "handler" whose entire job was asking the players what they do sot he process wasnt so damn slow.

Naturally this might have been just a convention thing, not relay my area of expertise.

5e is designed for 4 playersplus DM, but when the infinity engine games came out, this wasnt the case and it wasnt in subsequent editions, i think 4e was balanced roughly for 5 PCs, 4 was the bare minimum required to make the combat design work as intended.

Video games have the added benefit of additional characters not slwoing the game down as much as an additional player.

my personal record was 8 players plus DM, maybe 9, i forgot. I can tell you that takes some time to manage.
Yet, theres a great utility in this number of players.
With such high numbers of characters you can truly tell stories of raiding parties, of heroic fellowships.

I dont see how DnD beeing designed for 4 players translates to "a game shoulD be designed around 5 players". so im gonna disagree there.


Of course its not like modern Obsidian understands this.
They simply default to larger party sizes because its convention, for they are surprisingly conservative for a bunch of progressive hippies.

To say that 5e is designed for 4 players + GM is to me, misleading. Unless I am mistaken, most officially published 5e adventures clearly state that they are built for 4-6 players.

It's probably based off the 'challenge rating' calculations for monsters/NPCs, which is explained as 'a party of four adventurers of X level should be able to defeat a monster of X CR without dying'. Intended or not, it's certainly the impression I got. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I've never been in a group that ran prefab adventures, though, so idk if that makes a different impression on a player. It might be fair to say 5e is balanced around a 4-person minimum party...

Yes! This exactly. You said it much better than I did.

I believe the day/night thing is being addressed isn't it? I was under the impression that's why we get tells from the companions about being "tired" at different intervals depending on the companion. It's early access, not all features are live yet.

As to the 'openness' of the world, has there been any confirmation that it will be as closed off as it is now? We're still in EA so the map boundaries we have in place are there because anything past that is still 'under construction'.

The camera angles, turn based style and Origin player characters are *completely in the hands of the player*. If you like it use it, if you don't, then don't! Options being added have not removed the ability to play 'oldschool', they have added options for those who prefer the choice.

The party size is *per 5E*. 4-6 means FOUR or more. We have 4, and there are occasional additions like Glut which ups the party size. That's accurate according to 5E rules.

We're (according to the existing story) heading for BG on leaving the current accessible area, so there will almost certainly be towns/cities with inns etc in future content. Again, we're in EA.

I'm really grateful that people have given some arguments re nostalgia and 'feel' though, it does help to explain the sentiment that something is lacking. I was very much the same when DA:2 came out. I *hated* it for months. It just didn't feel like DA, despite being in the same world, with the same history and lore, and the same general art style. It was set in a geographically different place, with a different cultural emphasis and it just didn't give the same feeling while playing.

Well said.

Baldur's Gate is its own interpretation of D&D. It was never about the ruleset, but the implementation. There were many games based on D&D, but none were as iconic. BG was not successful because it was faithful.

I think there is where Larian is failing. They are basing the game on the ruleset and their own games instead of the original games.

Eh, the guys who own the D&D franchise and write the books heavily oversaw the making of this game, and are *still* heavily involved. *They* chose this company, this platform, and this style of game. *They* saw DOS:2 and decided that this style of game would be the best to represent the BG franchise for a 3rd game.

Soooo... Maybe it's not Larian's fault that the game is the way it is?

That’s the first I am hearing of it. As far as I understand, maps have set time of day, and “camping” is night. I don’t know if there is a plan to tie time passage to camping (camp = end day).


I am 75% sure that D:OS chapter structure has been confirmed. So big maps per chapter.


How can one not use turn-based combat, in a turn based game? (I actually have no problem with TB, but argument itself is too absurd, not to point it out)

Same with Origins. It’s not just about having an extra option - it’s how making Origins limits both companions and content for the player character. As far as companions are concerned, making them playable Origins doesn’t need to necessarily hurt them when compared against Baldur’s Gate2, but then we ignore almost 20 years of progress and how well implemented companions can be in a singleplayer RPG. So far it doesn’t look too bad, but I didn’t look at BG3 too closely - I want it be able to make the best possible impression on me, once it’s finished.

As to player character - there are benefits to both a blank slate characters and pre-defined characters. Such advantages, however, can exist only in a game designed with such protagonist in mind. D:OS2 did both at once, and did both poorly - neither providing strong hook and reactivity to shape our own character, nor strong enough characterisation to create compelling pre-determined characters.

I played the hell out of BG and modified it with the help of Gate Keeper.
Played TOSC, BG2, and TOB. (modded with Shadow Keeper)

IMHO Baldur's Gate 3 has the potential to be best version Baldur's Gate I've played.
Having a blast in Early Access and looking forward to more great things to come.

Larian has done a brilliant job!

Hear hear i agree too, I'm having a blast in EA. What is it about Obsidian that is "so much" better?

They actually made games that were like BG1 and 2??? Larian knows how to make DOS. BG3 is DOS3 with a lick of 5e paint. PoE play like BG. BG3 plays like DOS. Pretty simple.

I suppose we're all just here sharing our opinions on our preferences, because I like DOS2 and BG3 gameplay and combat. While looking at BG2 and PoE, its nice, but in its own way. I feel like we're comparing pizza companies, same style of stuff, one just taste better to others for their specific flavor. So my opinion is Larian is doing a great job with BG3. Its not the flavor you like, but how does wishing they changed the game to be like another company's style help improve this game.

Does BG1 and 2 even follow dnd rules?

Closely.
Those who created the game engine were very knowledgeable on the DnD subject. Their deviations are easy to understand from a gameplay perspective.

With BG3 this is different. Here the engine already exists. Larian has its own vision of what makes a good RPG and the engine was tailored to meet those objectives.
As a result, in BG3 most deviations seem inherited rather than created on purpose.

I'm not so certain that Obsidian should have been given BG3 to make but I do have some fairly strong reservations about how the game is looking at present.

Right now I feel like the soul of Baldurs Gate is missing from BG3, if that makes any sense. There are elements of EA I really loved but haven't felt at any moment that this is a game in the BG series. I am sure that come the final release there will be obvious links to the previous games but other posters in this thread have summarised very well how there currently is very little in common with the original games.

I'm a pretty big fanboy of Obsidian, but I'm not sure if they would've been the right studio for this. There are a couple of reasons for this.


1. There hasn't ever been a time in Obsidian's lifetime where they can deliver fantastic gameplay AND storytelling, which a true BG2 sequel needs.
Firstly, the modern day Obsidian that currently exists (The Outerworlds, Deadfire), is quite a different beast from the older Obsidian (SW:KOTOR2, NWN2: MotB, Fallout: NV).

The older Obsidian were story-telling and world building geniuses. However, they always fumbled with gameplay design and game polishing. The current day Obsidian have improved on mechanics (although I find they trend too much towards "safe and balanced"), but seem to be weaker writing overall. Both the Outer Worlds and Deadfire struggled to deliver a truly gripping narrative. The world building is also still there, but somehow fails to draw you in like the previous titles. This is coming from someone who's a pretty die-hard fan of Deadfre (580 hours in game).



2. Obsidian are fantastic story-tellers, but possibly not the right ones for a BG3
Secondly, despite their story-telling brilliance, Obsidian seem to thrive in niche world/settings (in particular subverting the common ones), and seem to have trouble launching the "epic fantasy adventure" that a BG3 title would require.

• Epic Fantasy Games by Obsidian: NWN2 (Base), POE 1, POE 2 - all of which suffer from major narrative and pacing issues IMO.
• Niche, "Subversion" Games by Obsidian: KOTOR 2, NWN2 (MoTB), Fallout: NV - all brilliant, but built around taking a deep, philosophical view on an existing IP/Story/Trope

Note here, I'm not using Subversion as in "surprised, bet you never saw this coming!!", but more so as a deep philosophical dive into the assumptions of core tropes, and what may happen if you ask certain questions or re-contextualize certain events differently. That is "old" Obsidian's jam. All their best stories revolve around that.

However, I'm not sure if I'd want them to be the ones writing about how a derpy level 1 adventurer sets out on a grand adventure quest. It just doesn't seem like a story template they are comfortable flexing their narrative muscles in. They somewhat tried to merge the two in POE1, and IMO they struggled.



3. Obsidian's current RPG gameplay philosophy is counter-intuitive to the "feel" of the original BGs
The 2e ADnD system used in BG1/2 does A LOT to create the feel of its world, for better or worse. There is a level of inherent harsh unbalance in the rules that adds a lot immersion (at the expense of fairness) that newer, more balanced RPG system don't have. Magic users are just straight up better than others. Some classes/combos, are just straight up non-feasible (but presented as options). In many ways, these design choices creates a strong sense of world building, at the expense of balance. It's just like you can't have a "Jedi" class be balanced with a mundane troopers in SWs without breaking some level of immersion.

How does this relate to Obsidian? Look at what they did when given the opportunity to develop their own system in their BG spiritual successor:

• Far more balanced classes and itemization
• All class combos are viable (no trap options)
• Far less RNG driven system (i.e. static skill checks)
• Abolished the Vancian magic system, and other core D&D "feel" mechanics

Josh Sawyer (from Obsidian) has gone on the record many times on his issues with the overall DnD system, and his philosophy on balance. I'm not saying Josh is right or wrong to believe what he believes, but it's clear that his/Obsidian's fundamental approach to RPG mechanics will not give you the same BG feel as before.

This point extends similarly to D&D 5E (although I feel like it's a full topic all on its own). D&D 5e also follows a similar balance philosophy, meaning you essentially need to either go back to 2e ADnD or build a custom rule-set, to capture the feel of BG1/2 again in BG3. You simply won't get the classic BG feel from 5e or an Obsidian RPG system. E.g. you'll never have to engage in the complex BG2 mage duels with layers and layers of buffs/removals where the other party members just sit there and pretend they are contributing.



Now that I've finished writing this wall of text - does that mean I believe Larian will do a better job? Frankly, I don't know. Some of their decision making drives me up the wall (i.e. chain/unchain movement system... ARGH). Whereas, they also introduce a freshness to RPGs that most other BG imitators do not. Actual innovation (i.e. the physics, interactivity, player freedom), that others fantastic CRPG makers (Obsidian, Owlcat) do not.

For now, they done a decent job at adapting the tone in the EA, although it remains to be seen if it'll be enough. We're still missing too much of the world building, core conflict (including the villain), etc, to make a true judgement call IMO. I hate that the origin system seems to overtake our custom characters, but I love how much "agency" Larian instills in their companions.

By the mechanics I wonder from you guys that are more Obsidian familiar. How do all the games (BG 1 2 3) compare to the lines of closeness, to the heart and gameplay of table top D&D

This is still one of the better articles on BG2, Ray's post mortem...

https://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/131493/baldurs_gate_ii_the_anatomy_of_a_.php

It was written in 2001, before the shadow cast from BG2 wasn't quite so long as it is now.

Page 2 is particularly interesting, especially where he describes the Chapter 2 bloat as sort of unintended goof, since I thought that was the best chapter in the game haha.

Anyhow, the Bioware of today is obviously different than the Bioware of then. And Obsidian isn't exactly the same as the Black Isle of old. Despite some of the same colorful characters showing up at the top of the foodchain. Just like in the movies, where directors steal the limelight and get all the credit, I'm sure most of the real talent and grunt work was done further down the totem pole. And who knows where all those peeps ended up? But its an interesting read.

I think if the game was given to either Bioware or Obsidian by themselves, it would have felt like another iteration of the West Coast/Alberta rivalry that went down for the better part of a decade. You know with alternating sequels in various RPG franchises. Handing the baton of resurrection to the rogue studio from Ghent was probably the right call for a new lease on life. But I agree with others that the game is still missing something in the soul. I think there were so many "spiritual successors" that we kind of lost the spirit all together.

The one thing that all the various spiritual successors didn't have, which is really obvious once its pointed out, is the Forgotten Realms setting and entire back catalogue. Dragon Age and Pillars didn't have that to go off of. ToEE was a Greyhawk module. I don't even want to mention Eberron. Clearly we weren't going to get it from Everquest or Skyrim or WoW. We're not going to get it from Owlcat or Tactical Adventures. There's no substitute for the Realms, cause half the legwork has already been done, and the scaffolding for the "world building" is already in place. Larian just needs to lean into it and go for broke. I mean they got Volo on the train, now it needs to start steaming out the station. I haven't seen enough of Faerun yet in act 1, or been given many primers to understand what's been going down in the 100 years since the last game. It doesn't feel like its quite connected up with the previous entries yet. Like the various competing factions haven't really appeared yet, and the sweeping political backdrop. BG1/2 had a nice slow build, and when you finished the game you felt like you knew pretty much everything important there was to know about the Sword Coast and Amn.

I don't know, and probably won't until I see where it goes after chapter 1, but just feels like it needs more and then some hehe

In both Larian and Bioware's, heavy adaptations were done to make the systems work with the videogame medium. Some highlights that I remember off the top of my head:

BG 1/2:

• The 2E "group initiative" system is adapted to a RTwP system. Note, this actually works quite well unlike a 5E turn base conversion to RTwP would be like.
• Changes to character creation - i.e. removed female stat restrictions from the corebook. Charisma hireling effects removed. Etc.
• Changes to Class - added classes from 3E (i.e. Sorcerer, barbarian, etc). Added tons of kits (subclasses) to almost every class. Changed Illusionist (which was its own class) into a mage kit/subclass
• Implemented the Weapons Specialization/Mastery system from the "Combat and Tactics" book. It was stronger in BG1, but nerfed to match the book in BG2
• Epic level abilities (from Throne of Bhaal) are mostly a Bioware invention
• Heavily re-balanced monsters ("hp bloat")*

Larian's BG3

• Turn-based system implemented as-is in the game.
• Changes to action/bonus action balancing - some PnP actions are now bonus actions (i.e. "disengage")
• Backstab/High-ground advantage to attacks - "technically" in PnP (the book says DM should grant advantage whenever it makes sense), but still a big change from more PnP games
• No new classes, but there have been some alteration and "rebalancing" (Rogues missing expertise, GOO Warlocks missing an ability) - could be bugs/unfinished
• Rate and availability of treasure is higher in BG3. No attunement as of right now (which limits stacking magical items)
• Larianisms like surface area damage (although that has been toned down)
• Heavily re-balanced monsters ("hp bloat")*
  
  
  * Yes, BG2 has "hp bloating" too - even more drastically than Larian considering the system they played in. It made sense though, because in these conversion, monsters are always more vulnerable positionally (i.e. no flight) - so HP is often increased to account for that. Some examples:
  • 60 avg. hp Balors had up to 155 hp (the ritual demon in the Underdark)
  • 33 avg. hp Trolls were had 80 hp.
  • 102 avg. hp Great Wyrm Red Dragon had 184 in Firkragg.

Obsidian as a studio kind of got a rep as the sequel crew, I guess mainly because of Kotor2 and NWN2. Neverwinter was supposed to be the direct successor to the Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale games, and it was obviously set in the Realms and you know, Feargus (they even had splash load screens in BG2 that suggested we'd be able to import our BG characters into Neverwinter) but the gameplay and whole thrust of the thing was so vastly different than the Infinity Engine games that you can't even compare them. NWN and NWN2 were both pretty cool, especially for DMs and persistent world builders, but it was missing the critical element of the 'god mode' full party control and it never really delivered on the idea of a modular Baldur's Gate where adventures could be released in an unending series.

I remember on the old NWN boards someone pointing out that a genuine successor to BG needed basically 3 things:

1. Dungeons and Dragons standardized rules
2. The Forgotten Realms setting
3. Tactical combat with full party control for up to 6 PCs

Everything that's come out since has been missing one or the other, and so they fall short. Either they had the ruleset and the setting, but not the tactical combat and full party control. Or, like in the case of the iso renaissance games, they had the full party tactical combat but not the rules or the setting.

I still blame Obsidian for caving on custom portraits precisely at the point in time when digital painting and fantasy concept art was really starting to take off and achieving a level on par with traditional mediums. It still depresses me. They said their modelers would be up to the task, and almost 2 decades later industry wide, we still aren't there in 3d. The best models I've ever seen still can't compete with the portraits in my 2d archives. Even the games with all the sliders and such that promise 'you can make anything you want', still haven't been able to capture the essential spirit of an ace portrait. So all the best illustrators made art for Magic the Gathering instead, which is now the gold standard, when it could just as easily have been Dungeons and Dragons if they didn't pull the rug out from under the thing. It's an old axe to grind, but still hehe

Thats my biggest take away when thinking if what this BG game should have. Deeper and more adopted DnD mechanics, and the setting of the forgotten realms. If Larian does open up the game to a party of 6, that would be pretty cool too but not something as a must in my personal list.

One thing I did notice tho, is that if you make a custom party with 4 player characters. The game will have you have Laezel track alo.g with you party of 4, making it 5. Laezel as number 5 acts like a literally companion in the party. You can access her traits, skills, and inventory too.so who knows. It seems like Larian already does have the grounds to expand party max to more than just 4.

@ topgoon and the obsidian text (somehow quote doe not work plus its a wall of text)

Thank you, this is a very good analysis.
- Look like Obsidian and DnD 5E do fit, since both care more about balance than the IE games.
Though maybe this has nothing to do with obsidian and DnD 5E in particular but its simply that now devs and players have a different understanding on how a game should be, compared to 20 years ago.
Things may look more biased in this forum because this is BG3 so people expect it to be similar to BG1+2, even though 20 years have passed and the game uses a different rule set.

- I really love the old Obsidian games, and I really love this "subversion" stuff.
I think KotoR2 is the best Star Wars game and Kreia is one of the best NPC ever.
MotB is fantastic too and NV is the best 3D Fallout game.
I am also a fan of PST, Disco Elysium and Undertale.
Stop saving the world and try something new, interesting and crazy.

I admit we also need "normal" fantasy stories and tropes, if only in order to have something that can be subverted ;-)

Your comment about the "nice slow build" really resonated with me. Granted BG2 had the prison escape which was a somewhat frenetic start but already you had a clear idea of who your adversary was. I'm all for a bit of mystery but BG3 feels like you have had the kitchen sink thrown at you from the outset and so far I have no idea what's going on other than that there is a tadpole inside my head.

Also I simply cannot get over forcing the party to camp only at night and in a fixed location. It's just so utterly daft that if you want to play a rogue, you can't sneak around at night.