... so, the chance to do that, and to bring what basically is our RPG identity to Baldur's Gate as a franchise was an opportunity too good to resist. And so, what it will do for us... uh, what we think it will do for us is it's going to show a larger segment of people, because I think Baldur's Gate 3 will reach more people than Divinity will have done... it will show a larger segment of the population what our RPGs feel like and hopefully bring them to play our other games also.
I am really not interested in a new(er) studio trying to push their identity through a beloved established series. Sadly, this only confirms my initial suspicions of BG3. The game could still be decent on its own merits, sure, but it won't be Baldur's Gate.
Ugh, what an arrogant remark by Sven. Essentially he seems to admit they're piggybacking the BG brand with little intention of trying to do the legacy of their predecessors justice at all, it's purely for their own ends, quite megalomaniacal really. While I totally comprehend why they have have done so (after all, who would turn down such an opportunity?), it still rankles with me.
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.
