Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Building a BG franchise on non-D&D game systems?

Bring on BG3 and bring on vegan food!

I take it you are talking out of own experience ...

But you know what? Lets say i am, just for that fun!
I am "an primitive ape" that is capable of understand advertising of product ... that is capable to read and understand more complex text, than just title ... and who is interested in what he is actually going to exchange his savings for. :-/
And even as such ape ... i still feel way abowe ignorants like yourself. :-/

Did they tho?

I honestly have to ask the same thing you did in this post. They claim they made everything just like 5e and scrapped what didn't work, but did they though? I call BS on that.

The fact modders have been able to make the game 5e means Larian could have as well. They never gave it a chance and had us the players actually try it in 5e and see if it was working or not. They just said "screw it" our way is better. I haven't looked at the modders work for over a year now, but even back then someone even had a work around for casting through familiars. Most of the complaints on these forums about parts of the game that are NOT

Edit: accidentally hit wrong button and posted...work in progress...another edit incoming...

Most of the complaints on these forums about parts of the game that are NOT 5e are things that are completely unaffected by the fact this is a video game. Many/most are not issues of translating from TT.
Scroll use for all...wizards casting/inscribing divine spells...bonus action shove...weapon dipping...elevation bonuses/debuffs...surfaces where there shouldn't be...weapon specific attacks...etc
Those aren't translation issues. Larian decided themselves to make those changes and not cause they couldn't implement it the other way.

Hitting people because of their thoughts is subhuman behavior. It is hard to take anyone seriously that thinks that way. Very ape-like.

I would really like to see that quote ...

Bcs as far as i know they claimed they scrapped what didn't work WELL ... and that is quite important word.
At least the way i understand it, but im no native speaker ... but neither are Larian as far as i know (judging by that English is not official language in Belgium and Swen sometimes have this pauses when he does "eeeeeeeeeeeh" like if he is trying to find best word).

Exactly right ... and exactly as they said. :-/

You see that is the difference i see there (maybe this is once again translation problem).
I never seen, or hear Swen claiming that something has ben impossible for them to implement to the game ... he usualy said that those things didnt "translate well" ...
Meaning both, they either didnt find the way to implement it ... or they did find the way, but they were not satisfied with the outcome.

I dont see how is such approach bad ... this is their game after all, and they keep saying from the start (as showed in those quotes abowe) that they DO want to give it their own identity.
(And they will, no matter how much you dislike it.)

At least half of those you can easily ignore ...

Could have ... yes.
Wanted to ... i dont think so either.
Promised ... certainly not.

I dunno, it seems allright to me ... mods are here so players can adjust the game any way they want to, so if there are mods for you ... you should be happy.

I cant quite understand this modern "but studio should make the game the way i want so i dont have to mod it" attitude ... no, this is not how its working, and its never ben that way ... studio create the game the way they wanted, like it or not ... and then we are allowed to tune it.

I even remember times where mods were something studios didnt like ... so they actively tryed to discourage people from using it, by implementing defensive systems against manipulating with the game.

I am a simple Dwarf.
Everytime Rag tries to defend this mess of a game,
I just ROFL.

I am making a npc MOD for BG2 called, Rag the Nag. Look for him at the Waukeen's Promenade circus near the moose and squirrel.
I'll keep you all posted on how it goes.

Prototyping. You put together quick builds, proofs on concept to see what works or what doesn’t.

The idea that there was a fully functional 5e build is just community’s misinterpretation of quotes from devs. Not that I agree with many of Larian decisions.

Full agree on every point! +1

Oh, id try this.


Its called vegi lasagna

Larian knows the massive increase in sales they will get from having the D&D brand on their product, regardless of how honest that advertising is. Customers do not spend hours researching it. There is a reason brands are worth billions of dollars.

Hehe. If BG3 is the equivalent of vegan food, then that makes my decionmaking about playing the game very easy: hard pass.

Ragnorak seems to have some serious mental problems. He has not written anything worth reading so far, and is completely wrong about several points. A very primitive and angry type of animal in any case.

I think Larian should consider the long-term consequences of turning its back on the PHB if they expect to return to the sword coast in the future. If they go straight to DOS4, maybe it doesn't matter. But, after Swen's quest to get the license, I don't think he will get tired of the setting after only one game. It would be in their best interest to have more respect for 5E.

Keep it civil and free of insults please. Insulting someone regardless of righteousness or dislike is never the right way.

Misinterpretation or misrepresentation? I'd call it the latter, personally. I feel that the quote strongly implies that they legitimately tried a system that was pure 5e, and the worked outward from there - not making any comments about what were game builds or not - that, I feel is the very strong represented implication of that quote. It's also patently not true, and a misrepresentation of what actually occurred - which is that, at best, they read over the 5e manual and set it down on paper in a bullet point form as short hand, and then went to their game engine and started seeing what they could build into it from that list. The initial days of the game made it clear that the engine was almost entirely lifted one to one from D:OS2, and then modified From There to have more 5e bits and pieces, and that process is still on-going. It does not support their assertion that 5e doesn't work in a video game format, and there is ample proof that, in fact, it does work very well in a video game format.

I would definitely call it misrepresentation - which is a failing on behalf of the company - and not misinterpretation, which would be a failing on behalf of consumers.

When taking individual quotes out of the context then perhaps - it is of course difficult for me to get into the shoes of other people, and how much exposure to the title they had before they bought it. That said considering that the game's prerelease marketing came packaged with multiple lengthy gameplay presentations showing precisely what kind of a game BG3 is aiming to be, I find it difficult to blame Larian for the misrepresentation of their game. This interview already discussed significant changes, like reactions, that sparked flames of discontent on these very forums months before EA's release.

I don't think we will ever know how early in the development Larian decided to deviate from written rules - but I am willing to agree with you here. I do think it's likely that Larian planned to make some sweeping changes from the get go, and keep some signiture mechanics from D:OS2. As to the engine - it IS significantly different then D:OS2. Sure there are similarities, but ruleset wise it is a different game from D:OS2 and could be even more different if Larian wished for it to be so. Games don't need to switch engines to be different. And again: same interview I mentioned before openly discussed Larian's philosophy on adapting 5e:
Then he goes on to explain the reasoning behind the change. I think we both agree that this change (and some others) aren't for the better and don't properly substitute tabletop ruleset. But misrepresentation? Nah.

Source, please?

The same quote that is always quoted on this topic, Rag. You can interpret it the way you want and call it the 'correct' interpretation if you want to; that's your opinion, you're welcome to it, and I don't agree with it. I interpret it the way it came across to me, accounting for language dissonance and advertising intention and tone, compared against reality. I believe that my interpretation is the most accurately descriptive of what they intended to say and what they hoped to advertise to people at the time, and I have not yet encountered any explanation from you or anyone else that reasonably shows their words to mean what you've said in the past they ought to be taken to mean - it always comes across as a stretch, to me. That your explanations of what they are supposedly intended to mean is an acrobatic act of bending over backwards to tie up what was said with the currently delivered reality in order to justify them - a manoeuvre that should not ever be necessary if active misrepresentation has not taken place.

It's really that simple, and unless you have something new to say that you feel is legitimate and convincing, repeating the things you've said in the past aren't going to be any more convincing to me now than they were then - which is, to be clear, that they are not, at all.

==

There is no 'out of context' here, Wormerine - this is what was said, and it is at worst directly false and at best deliberately misleading. What context are you supposing that changes this? If you are asking that we functionally disregard the words that were actually said, in favour of making assumptions about what they theoretically mean to communicate instead, based on pre-marketing footage, that's not good enough... what was said matters, and what was said was both clear in its intention, and also inaccurate to what was then presented.

The game engine is somewhat different from D:OS2, Now... however it is still incredibly clear and obvious that what we have right now started AS the D:OS2 engine, was build out of it, and remains, to this day, built upon the scaffolding of it - i.e. that this game that we have now was built in an existing engine that was not at all suited for the type of game system it is supposed to be running. It did not, at any point where game implementation is concerned, ever start out as a meticulous setting out of 5e, was not, ever, tested as such to determine what did and did not work in a video game format - and to claim otherwise, or to word your language in a way that insinuates otherwise deliberately, as they did, is misleading and dishonest.

So yes. Misrepresentation.

EDIT: I am very tired, and I apologise if this sounds aggressive. It's not my intention to be argumentative or disagreeable... but I do feel quite sure in my rationality and reasoning here, based on the evidence we have, and I'm prepared to talk firmly about it. Again, not my intention to come across harshly.

Am I the only one here that still hope for big changes during the next year ?

Day/Night and other things that will make the world more alive, big changes in the resting/camping system, reactions, more "DnD balanced" mechanics, features and/or items, ...?

As a non TT player, I may not really understand why some of you feel misled by what was said... But I think that there is still time to improve the game a lot towards what some TT players are usually asking here.

Ofc I cannot deny that my expectations have been revised...

That didnt help me at all ...

I dont claim that i have seen them all, but i have seen MANY interviews with Swen, and quite honestly i dont remember him even once say: "5e doesn't work in a video game format" ...
Usualy when this topic shoved up, he said "There are things from Tabletop that dont translate well in video game" ...

Yes, i know the only difference is the word "well".

But please, let me point you to one woman, who ... in her own a little harsh, but honest and certainly illustrative way ...tryed to help me understand that if you want to understand sentence properly, you must take it whole: https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=804590#Post804590
Maybe you have heared about her.

And since that woman was right back then ... i would really love to see source of that sentence.

We all usualy do.

If that would be the case, it should not be too hard to simply show that misrepresentation ... would it?

I mean, if you look at my quote of Composer, who quoted Swen (with sources, so you can check they are not made up) ... there is explicitly said in every single one that those changes, will be there. :-/
If i would see at least single interview, or advertising from Larian claiming otherwise, i would understand why are you mad ... but they litteraly said, that there WILL be changes, that there WILL be deviations, that this game WILL be different ...

Sure you people have seen/heared it ... you just "presumed" it would "not be so different as it is" ... how is that mispresentation? That was you interpreting his words, not him saying them. :-/

If quoting only part of the whole sentence isnt "out of context" ... i dont relly know what is. :-/

In this thread? Yeah, I suppose you are the only one.

I'm also a non-TT player, however Solasta has shown me that 5e ruleset is pretty balanced and quite fun to play, so normally it would make sense to invest into its implementation. And what Larian invests into? It starts with "cinema", ends with "tics" and has 10 letters in total (in English).

I believe Larian has designated pretty clear, and rather early on, what is the actual goal they are trying to achieve with this game: cash grab. There are many ways to describe this concept, but at the end of the day it's just that.

And they will probably get away with it, because:

• Most people will buy the game on Steam, which has a pretty much non-existent refund policy
• Plenty of players will be happy with cinematics alone, and will think "This is a real DnD!" when they'll see rolling dice