Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Feb 2020
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
Joined: Feb 2020
I don't think players who have known and loved previous Baldur's Gate games want to find a BG3 designed in exactly the same way. In any case, it is not my case and I do not think it would make much sense in 2020.

On the other hand, I am convinced that many of these players are afraid to realize that the name Baldur's Gate 3 was only used to profit commercially from the fame of the previous games of the franchise without real will to create the continuation of this saga or to start a new one that would be worthy of the previous one.

Everyone was able to realize that the gameplay we saw was much more like what a D: OS3 could be than what some players expected from a BG3.
Even if it was an alpha version, Larian showed with this gameplay that it was based on what he knew how to do and had already done.
It seems to me that this is a very bad first signal.

This means that Larian:
- or is unable to do anything other than D: OS
- or that he does not have the will to do so.

The story ? Can't comment now.
Of course, the history of Bhaalspawns is over. That said, absolutely nothing prevents us from making a sequel that could really be part of the Baldur's Gate saga.
However, it seems to me that Swen Vincke indicated in an interview that there would be no connection between the previous stories and BG3.
Second bad signal.

D&D rules?
Bioware and TSR had endeavored to reproduce the AD&D rules as faithfully as possible (and not the 2nd edition as I read it here) so that the experience of this game is as close as possible to the game experience around a table.
Successful bet!
At the time, Baldur's Gate was simply the most incredible visual experience we had ever imagined in the world of AD&D. We were really there!
Again, it is difficult to objectively comment on compliance with D&D5 rules with this BG3. Still, the management of fights and their visual rendering, the movement of characters and interactions with objects are there, in my opinion, far too close to a D: OS.
Even if Larian has made real efforts on the adaptation of the D & D5 rules (I have no doubt about it), personally, I never had the impression during all the gameplay of being really in a D&D game. I just felt like I was in a D: OS game, of which we would have changed a few rules to create the illusion of a D&D game.
Conversely, it suffices to look at a few minutes Solasta: Crown of the magister to feel very quickly in a D&D game. It's just obvious.

These are, I believe, all of these ingredients that contribute to some players' fears about using the Baldur's Gate franchise.
I also think it would have been better to leave the legend Baldur's Gate for what it is and what it still represents in the minds of players and create a D&D game with a completely different name.

Let there be no mistake. There is no question of saying that BG3 will be a bad game because some of us believe that it does not deserve its name and / or because it is too close to D: OS.
It is simply a question of saying that seeing the direction taken by Larian with this BG3, we are really entitled to wonder why it is called Baldur's Gate 3.

Why borrow the name of such a video game monument and want to make a sequel (BG ... 3!) if Larian absolutely does not seem to want (or be able to) do anything other than a semblance of D&D game with D: OS gameplay?
And I must admit that I see no other reason than for marketing and commercial interests. But I only ask to be wrong ...

I understand the position of a company in relation to this but in this case that we really put a name to all these worries and tensions: hypocrisy and opportunism.

Joined: May 2010
Location: Oxford
Duchess of Gorgombert
Online Sleepy
Duchess of Gorgombert
Joined: May 2010
Location: Oxford
We already have several BG3/OS3 topics. Perhaps I should merge them.


J'aime le fromage.
Joined: Mar 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Mar 2020
Commercial reasons. Of Larian and Wizard Of The Coast. Thats all.

Joined: Mar 2019
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Mar 2019
Originally Posted by Melkyor95
I never had the impression during all the gameplay of being really in a D&D game. I just felt like I was in a D: OS game


Being in a DOS game gave me, and I am sure many many others, of being in a D&D game (even with it not being based on the D&D rules). So, taking what was already a strong D&D type game and adding actual D&D rules certainly gave me a strong impression of really being in a D&D game.

Joined: Mar 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Mar 2020
Edit: moved to existing thread



Last edited by Mikun; 03/03/20 09:01 PM.
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Germany/France
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Germany/France
As you have mentioned, it was a somewhat unfortunate decision to call this game "Baldur's Gate III". The only common ground to the predecessors (as we know today) is the setting in the Forgotten Realms in and around the city of Baldur´s Gate. Unfortunaly nothing from the predecessors will be continued (as we know today) but what the title "III" implies.
Since the outcry was predictable, I wonder why it was done anyway. Maybe Swen/Larian Studios had no choice. It is no accident that WotC released a new campaign for the Dungeons & Dragons tabletop game: Baldur's Gate: Descent in Avernus last year when Baldur´s Gate III was announced. It tells what's happened since Baldur's Gate II and plays 100 years after Baldur´s Gate II. It could be that the title "Baldurs Gate 3" was certainly a mandatory requirement for the game from Wizards of the Coast. No Baldur´s Gate 3 game, no D&D licence. In this case Swen had no chance to name the game "Baldur´s Gate: NamedItWhateverYouLike" and was forced to use the Baldur´s Gate 3-name. But maybe it was a strategic sales decision just to bring the D:OS identity to Baldur's Gate as a franchise because Swen think Baldur's Gate 3 will reach more people than Divinity will have done. Like he mentioned here at 3:30

However this was not the first time we heared about Baldur´s Gate 3. Already in 2002 "Baldur’s Gate III: The Black Hound" by Black Isle Studios was announced. As is well known, it was canceled. The Designer Josh Sawyer just tweeted:

it's been a long time since i worked on The Black Hound, but i want to make clear (again) that i never had any intention of that game being called Baldur's Gate III or Baldur's Gate (whatever).
IPLY put that title on it after well over a year and a half of dev had been done.
they did it for contractual issues they had (they were only allowed to publish D&D games with baldur's gate or icewind dale in the title). i, and many others on the team, expressed concern over tacking the name onto a game that was made to be its own thing, not an IE/BG game.
the only connection it had was with IWD (maralie fiddlebender was a companion). it had no connection to BG at all.
in the end it didn't really matter, but i think it's important to note that the team's intention was never to use the BG name.


But to be honest, we know almost nothing about the story except the outer frame. How often the story has changed in BG1, SoD or BG2 and pushed us in another direction. How many times have we been surprised? Swen is definitely not going to reveal what the whole story looks like. All information is currently based on a few interviews, a demo and a bit of gameplay. The information available is also interpreted differently. Could Larian Studios even build on Baldur's Gate II even though the story of Bhaalspawn is over? Of course there are many easy ways. At the end of BG2 it is mentioned that this adventure is over but others will follow. So it would have been possible to continue this serie somehow, e.g. the Maincharacter is having a romance (or did it like Bhaal did back then), a child is born, as an adult he is kidnapped, INTRO BG3. The story could have been continued considering Baldur's Gate: Descent in Avernus. I mean that´s what everybody loved in the old days, to transfer your group/character from one game to the next part. Back then that was also a key feature for me of the good old SSI gold box games. To the different endings in BG2 it make sense to go further with the hero's descendant and so you having the directly connection to BG 2. Because you can’t directly import your old save file you could do it like in the Witcher games and choose your decisions before starting the game or something similar like Dragon Age, to transfer it to the DA Keep.


I´m an old school gamer (and i am not hard to please @David Walgrave) and i don´t have a problem to see another gameplay than in the original games. I don´t have a problem with a turn-based game. No, i think i will LOVE it because it reminds me of the old "Das Schwarze Auge" games by Attic. They were released outside of Germany as Realms of Arkania / Northlands Trilogy. The Lady, the Mage and the Knight should be a successor. I am open to a new gaming experience and it´s okay to transfer proven properties from D:OS to BG3.
But I personally hope that Baldur´s Gate III will be not only a D:OS clone with a D&D Skin and that a lot of the presentation were just placeholders, borrowed by D:OS. I really hope we will see and hear a completely different and independent Baldurs Gate UI, spells and sounds. The spirit of Baldur´s Gate, not the old gameplay.

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

We know almost nothing at all and therefore nobody can not really judge at this point whether Baldur's Gate 3 deserves the name or not.

We have to wait and watch the development of the game. Therefore i am still looking forward to this game and his early access.

Last edited by Wiborg Sturmfels; 03/03/20 11:00 PM.
Joined: Aug 2019
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Aug 2019
Fabulously optimistic, my friend! Here's hoping your predictions will come true.

Joined: Jul 2014
D
member
Offline
member
D
Joined: Jul 2014
Unless a story is a direct continuation of the previous entry in the series, it can't alone make a game a sequel to that series. And Larian have already made it clear that their "BG3" is not a continuation of the BG1 and BG2 story and that BG1 and BG2 are closed chapters in Forgotten Realms. That's not a bad thing, but it means that Larian's justification for calling their game "BG3" would have to come from elsewhere.

And we have already seen that in the gameplay and visual elements, Larian's D&D DOS formula game doesn't anything of the Baldur's Gate series, but plays like and appears like a slightly-modified clone of DOS2, with a large number of aspects of the visual elements being directly copy-and-pasted from DOS2.

So, there ultimately is not anything justifying that Larian's D&D game be called Baldur's Gate 3. And since there are any number of other titles they can give it, even while keeping the city name within the title, it is right they change the name.

The quote from Josh Sawyer about how Black Isle didn't think it was right for their Forgotten Realms game to be titled as a part of the Baldur's Gate series either drives the point home and shows that sober and honest thinking comes to the same conclusion about this:

Originally Posted by Wiborg Sturmfels

The Designer Josh Sawyer just tweeted:

it's been a long time since i worked on The Black Hound, but i want to make clear (again) that i never had any intention of that game being called Baldur's Gate III or Baldur's Gate (whatever).
IPLY put that title on it after well over a year and a half of dev had been done.
they did it for contractual issues they had (they were only allowed to publish D&D games with baldur's gate or icewind dale in the title). i, and many others on the team, expressed concern over tacking the name onto a game that was made to be its own thing, not an IE/BG game.
the only connection it had was with IWD (maralie fiddlebender was a companion). it had no connection to BG at all.
in the end it didn't really matter, but i think it's important to note that the team's intention was never to use the BG name.



And executive producer for Larian's D&D DOS formula game, David Walgrave, was unable to say a single quality that makes their game a sequel to the Baldur's Gate series:
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2020-02-27-baldurs-gate-3-interview
Quote

So, I think that in spirit it's still the successor of Baldur's Gate 1 and 2. Because there are so many things that people who did play and like Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 will still recognise in the new one. It's still about your party. It's still about big personalities clashing with each other and relationships. It's still a party-based game, you still need to do combat, you will recognise a lot of D&D rules - even if you haven't played D&D in 20 years. You will still recognise all the spells, et cetera. So, to me it's a true sequel, but we are bringing it into the 21st century by saying, "Look, it's glorious 3D."

That's the equivalent of saying that any first-person game where you play as a single character and use a variety of weapons to shoot at lots of things is a DOOM series game or a Half-Life series game. What Walgrave is saying is that there is no similarity between Larian's D&D game and the Baldur's Gate series.

There are loads of games that fit Walgrave's description that aren't called Baldur's Gate series games, and there are thousands that fit the description if not counting the D&D ruleset qualifier.


Now, regarding this:

Originally Posted by Wiborg Sturmfels
Since the outcry was predictable, I wonder why it was done anyway. Maybe Swen/Larian Studios had no choice. It is no accident that WotC released a new campaign for the Dungeons & Dragons tabletop game: Baldur's Gate: Descent in Avernus last year when Baldur´s Gate III was announced. It tells what's happened since Baldur's Gate II and plays 100 years after Baldur´s Gate II. It could be that the title "Baldurs Gate 3" was certainly a mandatory requirement for the game from Wizards of the Coast. No Baldur´s Gate 3 game, no D&D licence. In this case Swen had no chance to name the game "Baldur´s Gate: NamedItWhateverYouLike" and was forced to use the Baldur´s Gate 3-name. But maybe it was a strategic sales decision just to bring the D:OS identity to Baldur's Gate as a franchise because Swen think Baldur's Gate 3 will reach more people than Divinity will have done. Like he mentioned here at 3:30

I think it's pretty clear what happened. Larian said they approached WotC and that it took a lot of convincing to get a license to make a Baldur's Gate game. So, they went out of their way to use the Baldur's Gate title.

Larian have said that their decisions regarding their D&D DOS formula game have been made by themselves, including the type of combat it has - and that they chose to do DOS combat in their "BG3" because they don't want to take any risks (so why take on a different series?). So, they would be able to make a game that resembles the Baldur's Gate series but they have chosen by themselves to not do that.

Swen has said that they are using the Baldur's Gate name to promote their DOS formula and hopefully get more people playing their DOS games. That is a clear statement of motivation for Larian to call their D&D game "BG3".

Larian helped write Descent Into Avernus to make it a prequel to their D&D DOS formula game.

There is plenty of information from Larian confirming that Larian are not bystanders and victims in the decision to make a non Baldur's Gate series game but co-opt the series name to exploit the series' fans and promote Larian's Divinity brand. Larian have said their choices regarding "BG3" are theirs and that they want to do what they're doing for the reasons stated above.

Joined: Feb 2020
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
Joined: Feb 2020
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Being in a DOS game gave me, and I am sure many many others, of being in a D&D game (even with it not being based on the D&D rules).

I find this remark contradictory.
If you find that the game you are playing is not based on D&D rules, how can you feel like playing a D&D game?

The only way to get the feeling of playing a D&D game is to play a game that reproduces D&D rules as closely as possible.

Originally Posted by Wiborg Sturmfels
It is no accident that WotC released a new campaign for the Dungeons & Dragons tabletop game: Baldur's Gate: Descent in Avernus last year when Baldur´s Gate III was announced.

Absolutely!

Originally Posted by Delicieuxz
Quote

So, I think that in spirit it's still the successor of Baldur's Gate 1 and 2. Because there are so many things that people who did play and like Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 will still recognise in the new one. It's still about your party. It's still about big personalities clashing with each other and relationships. It's still a party-based game, you still need to do combat, you will recognise a lot of D&D rules - even if you haven't played D&D in 20 years. You will still recognise all the spells, et cetera. So, to me it's a true sequel, but we are bringing it into the 21st century by saying, "Look, it's glorious 3D."

This example is very eloquent. It shows how David Walgrave, executive producer at Larian, doesn't seem to understand anything about what the Baldur's Gate franchise has represented for 20 years.

Last edited by Melkyor95; 04/03/20 02:07 PM.
Joined: Mar 2019
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Mar 2019
Originally Posted by Melkyor95
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Being in a DOS game gave me, and I am sure many many others, of being in a D&D game (even with it not being based on the D&D rules).

I find this remark contradictory.
If you find that the game you are playing is not based on D&D rules, how can you feel like playing a D&D game?

The only way to get the feeling of playing a D&D game is to play a game that reproduces D&D rules as closely as possible.


Yes, and one of the central rules of it is TB. D&D was more than the lore, the items, the classes, etc. TB combat with the ability to do use your environment are crucial elements to an actual D&D game. DOS2 delivered that in a way that BG1 & 2 was and is not capable of. Hence, DOS2 plays more like D&D than a lot of D&D titles. With BG3, we'll be getting the best of both worlds.


Joined: May 2019
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: May 2019
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Originally Posted by Melkyor95
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Being in a DOS game gave me, and I am sure many many others, of being in a D&D game (even with it not being based on the D&D rules).

I find this remark contradictory.
If you find that the game you are playing is not based on D&D rules, how can you feel like playing a D&D game?

The only way to get the feeling of playing a D&D game is to play a game that reproduces D&D rules as closely as possible.


Yes, and one of the central rules of it is TB. D&D was more than the lore, the items, the classes, etc. TB combat with the ability to do use your environment are crucial elements to an actual D&D game. DOS2 delivered that in a way that BG1 & 2 was and is not capable of. Hence, DOS2 plays more like D&D than a lot of D&D titles. With BG3, we'll be getting the best of both worlds.

That's not true at all. You can play a tabletop D&D session without a single combat encounter. Combat is NOT what D&D is about. It is roleplaying. And in fact, if anything, this is a huge part of my criticism - that today's D&D has become too much about combat at the expense of roleplaying. If combat went back to being much less central in cRPGs, then the whole debate about the nature of the combat system might become moot. And extending that here, if combat was only a small part of BG3, and that is exactly how I would want the game to be, then I will not care as much that the combat system is something I don't like.

Joined: Jun 2019
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2019
I have to disagree. The Player's handbook says that the 3 pillars are as follows:

Exploration
Social Interaction
Combat

So a balance of all three are important.

Joined: Mar 2019
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Mar 2019
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Combat is NOT what D&D is about. It is roleplaying.


Ah, the old "tastes great/less filling" debate. At the very least, I would say it's 50/50 in general. Even so, what do you mean by roleplaying? Does that mean good story telling, actually trying to act/verbalize your characters, or both? If we limit roleplaying to story only, I would put it 70/30 combat to roleplay (if I really want a story, I read a novel). If by roleplay you mean acting and such ... man, I will try to be nice. 100/0

edit. And yes, exploration is vital (perhaps a sub category of story, if it's done well)

Last edited by Emrikol; 04/03/20 04:06 PM.
Joined: Mar 2013
A
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
A
Joined: Mar 2013
This means that Larian:
- or is unable to do anything other than D: OS

I would probably say this seems to be it. Larian is so accustomed and comfortable in doing DOS games. They have been working both previous DOS1 & DOS2 with nothing new. As mentioned, Solasta was also turn-based and also based on D&D and in no way that it resembles or reminded anyone as a DOS clone.

I have said it before and i will say it again. Turn-based isn't a problem but the art direction, the UI, the aesthetics, the cursor, the pointers, the movements, the animations, the mechanics, the effects.. the character design.. the clothings.. all are very DOS like. they should have put more effort to make it less DOS feels. it's either they are really incompetent in the art direction or basically they REALLY just want a DOS3 with a baldur's gate name. basically it's the first time in my life this is causing me so much anger on what larian is doing. i'm pretty sure i'm not the only one.

they really need to put alot of effort in making it a unique and new baldur's gate experience. at the moment they don't seem to care or show that they are listening to feedbacks or working in improving things. this is really saddening. they can remain on high ego and continue their stubborness but it will only doing them more harm than good in the long run. at the moment i'm already going to vote with my wallet. previously the hype was pre-order.. now will be wait and see if it really goes into deaf ears.

Joined: Mar 2019
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Mar 2019
Originally Posted by Archaven

I have said it before and i will say it again. Turn-based isn't a problem but the art direction, the UI, the aesthetics, the cursor, the pointers, the movements, the animations, the mechanics, the effects.. the character design.. the clothings.. all are very DOS like. they should have put more effort to make it less DOS feels.


So, hypothetically, if DOS had never seen the light of day and everything we saw in the BG3 demo was fresh and new, would that have been okay?

Joined: Mar 2013
S
veteran
Offline
veteran
S
Joined: Mar 2013
>combat is not what DnD is about
well thats blatantly not true, the game started with chainmail which was a literal wargame and funly enaugh the rules for non combat and dungeon crawling in dnd are barebones as fuck

Joined: Nov 2010
B
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
B
Joined: Nov 2010
Saying that Larian can't make anything except D:OS like games is just idiotic. If you did the bare minimum research into games Larian has made, you'd see large variation of different styles of gameplay they've put out.

Last edited by Bercon; 04/03/20 04:55 PM.
Joined: Mar 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
There are many topics like this in here. Seems like as good a place as any to hop in.

Firstly I think the general claim that this game is too much DOS2 and not enough BG3 is very vague and not clear enough. I get how this game is similar to DOS2, I don't get how it is so much different from BG (aside from how it looks), and if it is so much different then this imaginary BG3 everyone seems to picture in their mind, how so (a preposterous claim, I'm 100% sure every fan has a very different vision of BG3, which is, I think, the root of the real problem).
Planescape: Torment, Icewind Dale, and Fallout were all made in the same engine and are similar in many ways. But if there is a good engine that the developers know and can suit their needs, I don't see a good reason to make radical changes....

You could claim you hate the turn system, and this is a legitimate claim, but other than that, I think it makes a lot of sense that Larian will use a crpg engine to create a crpg... other than go back and design some anachronistic game I don't see how can it be closer to BG design wise

About Larian incapable to make different game - absurd... this is perhaps the most experimental game company I know

Last edited by Abits; 04/03/20 04:59 PM.

Larian's Biggest Oversight, what to do about it, and My personal review of BG3 EA
"74.85% of you stood with the Tieflings, and 25.15% of you sided with Minthara. Good outweighs evil, it seems."
Joined: Mar 2019
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Mar 2019
Originally Posted by Abits
Firstly I think the general claim that this game is too much DOS2 and not enough BG3 is very vague and not clear enough. I get how this game is similar to DOS2, I don't get how it is so much different from BG (aside from how it looks), and if it is so much different then this imaginary BG3 everyone seems to picture in their mind, how so


I have been striving to get a clear answer to this as well. Here are a couple of threads that attempt to elaborate.

http://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=660349&nt=4&page=1

http://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=660393#Post660393

This might be as close as you will get to a clear answer, if it can be deemed so. Another possible answer might be the music style.

Last edited by Emrikol; 04/03/20 05:09 PM.
Joined: Mar 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
I really think people feel it's not BG3 much more than they think it's not BG3, and I can't argue with that.

I do want to point out this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4X8SS5cysHI&t=1357s
I'ts very interesting to me, how much like DOS1 this looked at that stage


Larian's Biggest Oversight, what to do about it, and My personal review of BG3 EA
"74.85% of you stood with the Tieflings, and 25.15% of you sided with Minthara. Good outweighs evil, it seems."
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3

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