Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 4 of 61 1 2 3 4 5 6 60 61
Joined: Feb 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Feb 2020
Originally Posted by MrBardoth
I would imagine the UI elements that we saw in the demos that came from DOS2 will be changed, I mean, it pre-alpha, there is so much to be hopeful for.


Exactly. What do people expect after such a short time. Obviously a lot of resources got poured into the awesome cinematics. smile

Joined: Mar 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by Sordak
the intellectdevourers have obviously been nerfed.

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

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


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

Well...the ''young'' ''weak'' name makes more sense. BG 1 had the Diseased Gibberling,and maybe Young wyrms iirc?

Last edited by Adgaroth; 01/03/20 07:06 AM.
Joined: Mar 2013
S
veteran
Offline
veteran
S
Joined: Mar 2013
my kneejerk reaction in DnD is that the DM does waht the DM does.
Mostly because i see the alternative as rules lawyering by hte players.

but i do agree that such a thing would probably be a good idea for consistencys sake

Joined: Mar 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Mar 2020
I agree the DM word is rule,but it's weird to fight a downscaled enemy and then fight the real deal and they have the same name whith the later being stronger,but I guess they'll do something to prevent that,it wouldn't make much sense otherwise.

And feedback is metagame-y in nature I think xD

Last edited by Adgaroth; 01/03/20 07:27 AM.
Joined: Mar 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Mar 2020
Until we see what rules they actually implemented or not this decision cant be made. And it's not whether this is a bg game. The question is whether it's a dnd game. When baldurs gate came out people were pissed that it was turn based then they go to love the real time pause. Personally I always wanted baldurs gate to use toe system.


Joined: Jun 2019
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Jun 2019

Originally Posted by Adgaroth

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


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

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

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

Joined: Mar 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by 00zim00

Originally Posted by Adgaroth

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


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

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

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


That sound to me that he does not give 2 fucks about his game being part of a franchise so...bad news for me I guess...I understand people is asking for a lot of crazy thing but if this is how they're going to manage feedback...aaarg I don't like it one bit xD

Joined: May 2017
Location: Europe (GMT+1)
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: May 2017
Location: Europe (GMT+1)
If it's DnD and the campaign takes place in or around Balder's Gate, and it's called BG3, then it's BG3.
Everything else is totally trivial to the game being BG3 or not.
There's really nothing else to be said about it.


My GM Add-ons on Steam.
Joined: Jun 2019
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Jun 2019
Originally Posted by wpmaura
Until we see what rules they actually implemented or not this decision cant be made. And it's not whether this is a bg game. The question is whether it's a dnd game. When baldurs gate came out people were pissed that it was turn based then they go to love the real time pause. Personally I always wanted baldurs gate to use toe system.



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

at least, based on this tweet from swen

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


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

Joined: Nov 2019
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Nov 2019
Originally Posted by Redunzgofasta
If it's DnD and the campaign takes place in or around Balder's Gate, and it's called BG3, then it's BG3.
Everything else is totally trivial to the game being BG3 or not.
There's really nothing else to be said about it.


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

Joined: Mar 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by Redunzgofasta
If it's DnD and the campaign takes place in or around Balder's Gate, and it's called BG3, then it's BG3.
Everything else is totally trivial to the game being BG3 or not.
There's really nothing else to be said about it.


Like I told you on the steam forums,then Baldur's Gate:Dark Alliance 1 should have been BG3 but it's not for a reason,it's a diferent game with a diferent story with a diferent genre as any other game taking place ''in or around'' Baldur's Gate so I don't agree in the slightest.

Joined: Feb 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Feb 2020
What's most important when it comes to what this game is called is that WotC calls it Baldur's Gate III and specifically advised Larian to make a Baldur's Gate III.

Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
The community is only divided because of the name of this game.

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

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

It tend to appears that nearly 35% of players interrested in Baldur's Gate 3 on vcertain community are angry... and it's only about the name.

Last edited by Maximuuus; 01/03/20 08:15 AM.
Joined: Mar 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by Boeroer
What's most important when it comes to what this game is called is that WotC calls it Baldur's Gate III and specifically advised Larian to make a Baldur's Gate III.


Of course,WoTC can make a hello kitty game with a sarevok helmet and call it BG4 but that is a dishonest cashgrab and not a proper ''next installment of the franchise'' (Even if for all term and purposes i canon BG4)

Joined: Mar 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
The community is only divided because of the name of this game.

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

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

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

Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Originally Posted by Adgaroth
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
The community is only divided because of the name of this game.

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

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

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



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

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

Last edited by Maximuuus; 01/03/20 08:23 AM.
Joined: Mar 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by Adgaroth
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
The community is only divided because of the name of this game.

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

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

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



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

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


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

Last edited by Adgaroth; 01/03/20 08:34 AM.
Joined: Aug 2016
K
stranger
Offline
stranger
K
Joined: Aug 2016
Do remember that the ship crashed 200 miles East of Baldur's Gate...also I fully expect them to take the first Act/Chapter as an introduction for people new to the Baldur's Gate series and gradually introduce them to things and make them care about the world and then fully expect a mindflayer or possibly even gith invasion come Act 2 or so which will change things more to what BG fans are thinking they want.

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

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

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

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

You don't have to like what you've seen so far or even what's eventually in early access but don't be blind to the possibility it could still be an excellent Baldur's Gate game with a little time. If you are only a RtwP fan sorry for your loss perhaps a mod will be made?

Joined: Jul 2014
D
member
Offline
member
D
Joined: Jul 2014
Originally Posted by Adgaroth

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


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



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

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

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

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

Joined: Feb 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Feb 2020
Originally Posted by Boeroer
I am an old BG player and I'm not mad. Reading other sources of feedback I come to the conclusion that "old BG players who are mad" is a loud but quite small minority.

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

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

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


this is the biggest naritive i have a problem with. There are a lot of people no true scottmaning the fandom. If you like it you are a Larian/DOS2 fan, If not you are a real BG fan. Ive even seen claims on other forums that if you are a real D&D fan you would hate this. i really would enjoy more constructive criticism regarding this not just people trying to foster an us vs them

Page 4 of 61 1 2 3 4 5 6 60 61

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5