Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Explicit decapitations and Disney squirrels

That kind of attitude from a developer can also backfire in a big way.

I'm sure there are other players like me who don't care for the Divinity series but consider BG1&2 to be the best cRPG still in 2022. Or D&D players who want a mature and immersive world and story instead of a tongue-in-cheek shovefest of a video game with cutesy talking animals. Players who are not happy with how BG3 is shaping up.

When Swen says "what the game can do for us" I hope it just came out wrong. That sentence is completely backwards and hints a very business first approach to game development. Games are made for players, not studios. The second you start calculating what a game can do for a studio, your priorities are wrong. "What the game can do for the studio" can also be a massive backlash if they turn a beloved IP into something else.

I'd like to bring this up as well because THIS is what Larian needs to pay close attention to.

The game does not feel like Forgotten Realms. It's all over the place. The direction isn't clear.

To add to the list above:

In Forgotten Realms, death is not a trivial inconvenience. When someone is (repeatedly) pushed into a river of lava, they actually get incinerated beyond resurrection rather than get teleported to camp for a cheap res. If you don't want to deal with permanent death situations, why place rivers of lava and bottomless pits everywhere and buff Shove with insane range and basically every other aspect of it? Other games have the PC's just get knocked out in combat and avoid permanent death scenarios for this reason, suspension of disbelief. Larian don't give a rats ass about suspension of disbelief, they are openly shouting at every turn how BG3 is just a video game instead of an immersive fantasy world.

Speak with Animals lets you communicate with animals. But it doesn't turn them into intelligent eloquent speakers or Forgotten Realms into a Disney cartoon.

Yes, it's a game and it needs good gameplay elements too. But Larian are taking everything too far to the point where it doesn't feel like Forgotten Realms anymore. And I haven't had this problem with any previous Forgotten Realms titles. BG1, BG2, IWD, IWD2, NWN, NWN2.. all of those other games feel like Forgotten Realms.

It's more the lack of optimisation, rather then game's hugeness. Hopefully it will get more efficient with 1.0.

People now-days care more for conveniences, silly comedy, cartoony graphics and <quality of life> rather than being immersed in a complex, dark , mature and atmospheric RPG world. Bunch of softy whining pokemon gamers who wants their cringy <<sex>> scene in games is what we have now.

Its so incredibly ironic because the gen that made these amazing Crpgs three decades ago are now retired and their childrens, US, who played these now have to deal with this modern easy to buy and swallow junk WE CREATED for the current young generation of gamers to get hooked on.

I wouldn't be that cynical yet.

Game of Thrones became a massive mainstream hit because it was dark, gritty and is set in a realistic and believable fantasy world. There certainly is a demand for such. D&D sort of fulfills that same demand while being more magical fantasy. But it doesn't have to be as silly and tongue-in-cheek as Larian is making it.

I don't want D&D/FR to ape Game of Thrones.

But D&D always had silly stuff like that. Essentially the prequal to BG3, Descent into Avernus has scenes where you talk to a brain damaged Bearded Devil and his pet hellchicken or a Night Hag named Mad Maggie who can sell you cars to have mad max fights in against a talking pigman with a big hammer, or a cute talking flying elephant who shoots sparkles out of her trunk.
Sorry but D&D is kinda silly and it has been like that most of its existence, Baldurs Gate 3 is true to what the Forgotten Realms actually is. The interpretation of FR being dark and gritty was made up for the story of the first 2 games. and its also why alot of NWN is far less serious by comparison.

can you in all honestly say that if the classic games had full animal speaking that they wouldn't have animals properly talk? Why do people keep warping the perception fo BG1 and 2 as super serious gritty games when they had tones of funny moments and down right campy stuff and that was one of the many things that made it great. It had a sense of humor and was silly at times. Is BG3's tone different from the past games? ABSOLUTELY but thats because they aren't the same people who made those games and Larian was smart and made sure to distance its story from the originals.

If you played any recent module from 5E then you'll know for sure that BG3 is as in line with Forgotten Realms tone as you can get.

Can't argue with that. I said something similar a few months back. Look at recent FR lore. Second Sundering. Gods and goddesses and their Chosen. Devils and demons, hags, Shar and Selune, all Drow cities becoming nothing except Menzo... Shoot, the Cults of the Three play a prevalent role in Descent which is like a prelude to BG3.

You may not like it, but Larian is staying pretty true to more recent FR lore. And it's true, Minsc and Boo, Jaheira's comments, they'd even break the fourth wall a lot with things like, "What is your command," and "oh omnipresent authority figure.". Pretty silly stuff.

Of course D&D can have silly stuff. Real life has silly stuff. Forgotten Realms has silly stuff without a doubt. No need to argue that.

Lets separate two things here. Silly stuff in character is different from silly stuff as gameplay mechanics. D&D combat is not about constantly Shoving your enemies into lava or pits. You can do it, but in BG3 it has been exaggerated to a silly level. It's not about plopping down explosive barrels from Magic Pockets and blowing up entire encounters. D&D combat is not about everyone and everything spamming poison and acid surfaces everywhere and jumping all over the map like teleport is a basic skill. Solasta plays like D&D while BG3 plays like some silly aberration between Divinity and Super Mario.

The only in character silly that bothers me are the ridiculous backgrounds like Gale's and Karlach's. I can't begin to understand why new level 1 characters must be portrayed as legendary and amazing when honest inexperienced aspiring heroes would make more sense in the context, be more believable and thus resonate better with the player.

20 year old games with pixelated graphics make a poor comparison to BG3 in terms of breaking the fourth wall and such. Much is forgiven when the game has such limited visuals. But BG3 is close to photorealism. When the characters look like in real life, they also need to act more like in real life. It becomes more of a cinema comparison, than a 20 year old game comparison.

As for the animal speaking, Speak with Animals communication should be limited by their intelligence level, as per the spell description. They wouldn't suddenly speak in perfect eloquent sentences and act cutesy like Bambi or Chip and Dale. They would be animals conveying meanings in a more primitive fashion. Which frankly would be much more interesting gameplaywise when you would still have to interpret them.

As I said earlier ->



Humor isn't universal in tone; while, yes, there is slapstick-style humor, there is also dry/subtle humor, dark humor, situational humor, et cetera. Thus far, the majority of "humor" in the BG3 releases has been overt and crass.


In the long run, it will bite them in the ass; they should have taken a page from late 2e-era writing.

I didn't play any recent module from 5E, because, oh surprise, I am a Baldur's Gate fan, not D&D 5E fan.

And as it was mentioned many times before if Larian wanted to distance themselves from BG1&2 they shouldn't have called Baldur's Gate3 a Baldur's Gate3. You can't have a cake and eat it too.

Baldur's Gate: Dark Allience wasn't called Baldur's Gate3
God of War (2018) isn't called God of War4
Tomb Raider: Legend and Tomb Raider (2016) both don't pretend to be direct sequels to previous titles.
Upcoming Avowed from Obsidian is called Avowed, not Pillars of Eternity3
Gears Tactics isn't called Gears of War 6.
DMC: Devil May Cry wasn't called Devil May Cry5

WotC and Larian willingly branded the D&D 5E project as a direct sequel to BG1&2. As much as I hate gaming convention of naming reboot like the first game, at least it helps to diffirenciate series. Lets say someone in the future will make BG4. What universe will that game take place? BG1&2? BG3? It is just unnecessarily messy and IMO bad branding. Baldur's Gate3 means little to people who don't care about BG1&2 and will annoy people who adore the IP.

As a side note, a claim that devs are incapable to do different tones is absurd. If they only do what comes naturally to them then they are poor craftsman. Just as Alien: Isolation was praised for how well it adapted Alien IP, one can judge Larian on how well they adapt Baldur's Gate IP. If their intention was not to adapt BG IP, then from my perspective as a fan, they should have left it alone. I even doubt if they are interested in adapting D&D 5E, considering how they insist to change many aspects of it.

I’ve read through this thread and found it really thought-provoking, thanks folks.

There do seem to be quite a few original BG fans who don’t see BG3 as a (worthy) successor, though, and while it’s entirely possible the thread is representative in that way, I do want to throw in a bit of counterpoint as someone who played BG1 & BG2 (and IWD, NWN, Planscape: Torment) when they first came out, and numerous times since. And who finally struggled through DOS after three attempts and probably as many years, and whose DOS2 playthrough petered out in act 2.

My own take is that:

- BG3 gameplay is clearly different from the old games, and while I agree with many of the niggles people have highlighted and hope they get ironed out, on the whole I reckon the changes are for the better.
- Okay, yeah, I don’t like the way most animals speak either.
- But while it of course comes across differently when voiced by realistic-looking characters, the dark and absurd humour (plus dashes of pure silliness) thrown into a more serious story is absolutely something I feel I can recognise and appreciate from BG1&2.
- It’s superficial, but I’m liking the scattered references to the original games, eg in the books with Candlekeep interviews, about the Bhaalspawn crisis and Faldorn’s manifesto, and I’m sure that as the game goes on we’ll get more that ties back that I’ll have fun smugly recognising.
- And in terms of events in the game, even in these first few areas in EA I’m enjoying the echoes of the first game (druids v shadow druids, lots of the Underdark, disturbing dreams, and so on) and there’s not much that actually happens that I couldn’t see happening in the first two games even if the feel is somewhat different due to BG3 being made by different people.

So, in short, and acknowledging this is very much a personal opinion, this particular old BG fan is very happy with the direction of the game, and is finding Larian’s new and different take on BG intruiging and fun, but with enough commonality to see it as a genuine successor to the games I’ve loved for 20+ years.

You know what? One can agree or not with your statements (I do for the most) but this is undeniably one of the most pleasant posts I have seen in a long time. Polite and sensitive.
Kudos to you!

I like the dungeons and dragons lore because alot of it reminds me of books and stories from what is most likely my favourite author of all time: Jack Vance.

Which is entirely unsurprising because the original D&D borrowed a whole lot of ideas from him. Like the Vancian magic system in previous editions.

Now if you know Vance, his books weren't serious, nor ridiculous. I would describe them as whimsical and sarcastic, and so far that's exactly what this game is being for me. So love it personally.

Summing up everything, when we first saw that BG3 demo nearly 2 years ago everyone were...<hmm, this is more DOS3 than a BG game....>

But most were, ...<well in a year or two of work on the game, we will definitely get a Forgotten Realms D&D Baldurs gate experience and atmosphere!...>

lol.

Still hoping...Cause this still looks and plays like a DOS3 game. D&D and Forgotten Realm stuff is still incredibly superficial and lacking. Im tired of staying positive, looking how the game is <<<evolving>>> Ive pretty much lost hope for a great Baldurs gate atmosphere D&D tactical game.

So im now just completely ignoring the title, game system and setting now...and wow. Its actual a GREAT FUN GAME with corny PG13 cinematics!

The rationalizations come like clockwork every time.

I am thinking of BG3 as Descent into Avernus 2, not BG3. It helps.

Personally I feel the game plays more like a Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance sequel than it does a straight up Baldur's Gate sequel. I can't compare to the DOS games since I didn't play them, but BG3 as it is is more like an action/adventure/quasi hack & slash title.

Personally I think it could be a bit more PG13. "Adult content" doesn't make title more grounded or mature. More "Dune". "Lord of the Rings" and less "Deadpool" would be my request.

AMEN to that!!!