Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Should have given this to Obsidian

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?