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

Well, you sure as hell can't.

I valued Larian very highly after DOS2 because i felt it was a good game. It was a simple, easy to understand cRPG which got the genre out of it's niche. After playing DOS1, it was refreshing to see most issues resolved and the game being actually fun.

But Baldur's Gate 3 deserved so much more than being an enhanced version of DOS. I don't think the feel of the game is ever gonnna change up until release. There's too much core features of BG1 & 2 that are simply not there. There's too much of DOS in this game, and while it will be a good game, a great one even, it is just not Baldur's Gate 3 to me. The fact that Larian either failed to understand that or knew it and didn't care cause they have sales to make is really disappointing.

And yes, Pillars of Eternity experience is way closer to BG1 & 2 than BG3 ever will.

Just why did you have to name this game Baldur's Gate 3 ? It makes no sense other than disappointing people. People that didn't play BG1 & 2 won't care that it's a baldur's gate game, they will get the game because its Larian and they liked DOS2. DOS2 sold extremely well so it's not like Larian needed the branding to sell the game. It just disappointing for BG1 & 2 fans because most of them will feel the franchise they love got hijacked and turned into something else for no reason.

I will put my gaming record against yours any day.

Don't do the interforum drama thing, please.

I had DOS 1 as my personal GOTY, despise having its own share of flaws.
I loved DOS 2 as well, to an extent, despise the vague annoyance in seeing Larian doubling down on things I didn't like about DOS1 (like the horrendous randomized itemization and the exceedingly steep power curve) instead of addressing them. Not to mention adding other questionable design choices on top (armor system and necrofire everyfuckingwhere come to mind).

I cheered when BG3 was announced and I joked with my friends it would be a match made in Heaven, because it would give us a game with Larian's strong points while tying their hands on what they were terrible with (again, the itemization and their ruleset).
I'm also a big fan of the transition to turn-based combat, since RTWP blows and it was always the weakest part of the original games. BG2's combat was good in spite of being real-time (and mostly thanks to an incredibly diversified encounter design) and not surely because of it.
This, just to stress that I'm not against any change for the sake of it, I value each one on the basis of its own merits.

While I still don't think this game will be "BAD", I'm growing increasingly baffled at the sight of Larian purposefully and defiantly going against most people's expectations and wishes, with a constant series of moves that basically tell us "We never even tried to not make this anything else that the closest thing to DOS we could make on a different license".

Hopefully they're good at listening feeback of those who care about the game.

Players : "Eating during combats shouldn't be allowed"
Larian : "Mushrooms for free"

I agree with everything except RTWP.

Turn-based combat is too sluggish and slow for me.
I liked RTWP because of the chaotic mess it provides. Feels way closer to an actual battle than a character doing X amount of action then standing still until it's his turn to act again.
I liked that with RTWP i had to try and predict where the enemies would be for my AOE spells to hit them.
I liked that the moment i pressed "unpause", a bunch of spells and arrows from both sides would come flying around at the same time. Really immersed me in the battle.
I also liked that for lesser encounters, I could just let my melee characters attack enemies to death. It would shorten the fights I didn't really care about.

With turn based, everything is slower, and it slowly drains my will to play. The only time I got to the end of DOS2 was when I was doing a solo run cause fights went quicker (and also the added difficulty was exciting).
Combat feels unrealistic and breaks my immersion in turn based. It becomes very predictable. This guy moves, attacks, stands stlil. This guy casts, moves, stands still. Oh, now it's my turn. I will move, attack this. Pass turn. Just feels robotic to play.

Anyways, I get that it's personal preference, but, Baldurs Gate was historically RTWP. Why not atleast the option to play both like in Pillars of Eternity ?

I get the same feeling as you, they don't really care. That, or they're a one trick poney and / or scared of exeperimenting things they never did.

I still don't know where these "most" people are outside of a few members. It's not intended to be a shade remake but every part I've been to, it's mostly been positive from Discord, Reddit, and even on this forum. There are the same few people who disagree, but I don't see most. There has to be a reason why games like old Baldur's Gate not popular anymore with the mainstream audience? Studios don't hate money, they go where the money is. When games like Pillar of Eternity 2 failed so badly, the studio stops making them and has to reconsider their strategy if they ever touch it again, and you think Obsidian could have done something better with just a different title? At the end of the day, these kinds of games are not what most people want, because there's no reason not to make it like old baldur's Gate if that's what most people.

It's not that they don't care; it's more like there's no reason to care about it. If they did go real time, it would be more or less in the vein of somewhere between Dragon Age Origin and Dragon Age Inquisition, but it's too late at this stage to really change the entire game's gameplay anyway.

Sure: they stopped making.
Anyone was after the console market because making games for PC was considered a dead end, even if both BG1 and 2 were solid commercial successes for their time.

Then came Steam and and one step at the time the market started to reconsider that choice.

I honestly don't see where you found this positivity. Even on Steam 86-87% is disappointing for a AAA EA game. Many successful EAs (Phasmophobia, Hades, Valheim and even Solasta) reach > 95% easily. Mainstream media gave 6, 7s.

And if you see the negative reviews many people complain about CORE mechanics that are not likely to change given Larian is not moving a finger.

Pillars figures were decent. Pillars 2 kinda bombed but would've sold so much more if it had multiplayer and better marketing. Like really, how many people bought and played DOS2 because they saw big twitch streamers playing with their friends and thought "oh thats cool, we can play actual dnd together !". I myself played with friends that didn't care too much about the game mechanics and such, they just had a blast playing DND with friends, just like when we were 12. They never played the game for a solo run either.

I believe a darker, truer, more "Baldurs Gate"esque game can be successful if done right, and brought to the public right. But you are right, Larian has no reason to take that risk. They will make a copy of DOS2, improve it, polish it, call that BG3, and sell millions of copies. Big streamers will play it (they already did with EA), game will get lots of exposure, and i believe it will be a good game. Hell, i'll probably play it a ton too.

But, the fact is the timeless BG saga will get transformed into something that it never was because, that sells. Such is the truth of the world we live in I guess, money is always right.

/rant off

Real Time isn't the issue.
Make it more BG1 or BG2 isn't the issue.

People could have their solo dating sim AND gameplay that reflects better gameplay and a class based rules set.

Instead of a total conversion mod of their own game.

Great points, but honestly wasted. No matter what you say, some people just refuse to see any point but their own, and will continue their echo chamber of malcontent. Larian will launch BG3 it will be a success, probably have great reviews etc, and you will still have people trying to talk it down how it is a betrayal to the players etc. We might as well debate what is better, Coke or Pepsi.

Eww... Both suck ass. Dr Pepper is better and everyone knows that.

Dr Pepper is better than Coke? Thems fighten words!

Jesus Christ the irony of this coming from you

This thread is quickly going downhill.

For those involved; make your points in a civil manner. You don't need to agree with one another but neither do you need to become confrontational and insulting. This is a discussion about a computer game and not some competition to establish dominance.

Lol i find this very accurate comparison......

If Baldurs gate 1+2 was Coke then BG 3 is Dr. Pepper. So simple.... and yet it Nails it somehow.
On Topic..... is wish license would have gone to any company that actualy loved BG1 + 2 and wanted to make a sequel that honors their Predecessors and improved upon then instead of throwing ervery thing they did well over board.

Wonder if in an alternate Universe BG3 was given to Obsidian and someone wrote in their forums "Should have given this to Larian".

This universe ain't so bad but i'd like peeking in the one where it was given to Owlcat.