I agree that they shouldn't have called it Baldur's Gate 3 because it's sets up certain expectations, and saying well it's set in Baldur's Gate only justifies have the name Baldur's Gate in the title, not making it out to be a sequel that it is not.
Now that is out of the way time to move on, I have no interest in nursing a grudge over it (but others are free to do so if they want).
In fact I think this game is going to be way, way better then BG 1 & 2, don't get me wrong, I loved BG 1 & 2 and Throne of Bhaal. But 5e is a much better rule system then 2e, by a massive margin, this game will have far more character creation options by the sounds of it, even with just the PHB races and classes that is Humans, Variant Humans, High Elves, Wild Elves, Drow, Hill Dwarves, Mountain dwarves, Lightfoot Halflings, Stout Halflings, Rock Gnomes, Forest Gnomes, Tieflings, Dragonborn, Half Elves, Half Orcs, Wizards, Warlocks, Sorcerers, Clerics, Fighters, Rogues, Rangers, Paladins, Druids, Bards, Barbarians, Monks, with dozens of subraces and backgrounds.
If it adds stuff from the SCAG that is 3 extra subraces and Half Elf and Tiefling variant, if they add stuff from MTOF that is 1 race (Gith) 13 subraces (3 elf, 8 Tiefling, 2 Gith), if they add VGTM that 13 new races (Goliaths, Aasimar, Firbolgs who are really renamed wood giants, Kenku, Tabaxi, Tritons, Lizardfolk, Hobgoblins, Goblins, Bugbears, Orcs, Yuan Ti Purebloods, Kobolds, with 3 Aasimar subraces, if they add XGTE that around 40 subclasses, if they add EEPG that 3 races (Genasai, Goliaths, Aakcrokaa) and 4 subraces of Genasi, if they add the Tortle Package that is 1 race Tortles, if they add Aquistions Incorporated book's race, Verdants that is 1 more race.
Larian is ambitious. They self publish so they don't have a publisher rushing them or making demands that undermine their vision. I doubt all of that will be in BG3 but a lot will be.
This is going to be way better then BG 1 & 2 it's going to set a new standard.
And before anyone accuses me of being a Larian fan boy, I've never played any of their games. I just read all the interviews carefully.
It's going to have the environmental interactions that Larian is fameous for, but with the depth and tactical complexity that D&D 5e possesses, it's going to benifit from Larian's experience, they have talked about things they want to do better, like parties and multi-player, it's going to take advantage of all of Stadia's capiblities, which means it's going to be playable on mobile devices, smart TVs PCs, and more right out the door (I think consoles will come later, BG3 will already be compatible with controllers thanks to Stadia), and so much more. Its got a team of 27 writers alone! Its internal staff is over 200 people, between 4 studios, with other 100 external staff which doesn't count support from WotC on things like lore, plot, writing and so on. It's going to be epic.
Don't get me wrong, I am sympathetic to the BG purists, the heart wants what the heart wants, but I'm excited in a sense because despite the name, it's not really BG3, I'm excited because its the first proper Forgotten Realms (and somewhat Spelljammer) 5e game, and that is something the market place was crying out for. The original BG story line ended with Murder in Baldur's Gate, with the official protagonist dead.
Arcanis, i will not awnser everything, but if this """RPG's""" that are more gear playing game aka barbie dressing game where everyone is a clone wearing different clothing that determines the character IQ/muscle mass and that an archer can't hit an target at 15m and can't fire in the same way to times in the roll(cooldown), why not make an continuation of this modern games?????? Is like "ArmA 2/3 are the best shooters, but lets put a lot of cod mechanics, lootbox, weapons without recoil, remove realistic balistic penetration because i don't like to die behind armored cover/vehicle to GM6 Lynx, put paintball like small maps, remove the modding capabilities, etc" , if you game will not play like ArmA, not feel like ArmA, not have the same deph and feature as ArmA, why call it ArmA? If is more similar to CoD? Same with BG. If BG3 will be more similar to SCL2(sword coast legends), why call it BG3??? Why not call it Sword Coast Legends 2???
About "running in circles while an archer shot the animal", this is because the IA is bad made, not because the system is bad. Same with exploits that allow you to have powerful equipment on earlier game
About political correctness, i mean the guys "Witcher needs more afropolish and is a misogynistic game", note that W1 and W2 din't received the same complains. Or in VtMB, the game would be extremely controversy nowdays. Your female ghoul kidnaps an guy to be your blood doll. He threatens to call the police. You can argue saying that your ghoul would accuse him of trying to rape her to get away with this situation. This is just one example that would lead to a big controversy today.
About fly and climb, is an rule that no D&D based game implemented. Even Pathfinder Kingmaker, the best modern cRPG, wings only allow you to ignore difficulty terrain. When 3D started on 90s, the first thing that Might & Magic devs did on M&M VI was to add flying spell/mechanics. DOS era games like Daggerfall offers way more vertiicality than modern games.
About homebrew rules, there are an HUGE different in a group and in a cRPG. For eg, the Dragon Disciple on BG:EE and Sword Coast Legends.
Swordcoast Legends was a HUGE failure because it deviated so far from 5e rules as to not resemble them at all. And WotC and Larian know this. They will not be making Swordcoast Legends, no one wants to double down on failure and Nathan Stewart VP of D&D Franchise of WotC made it clear that this game had to be 5e rules (or as close as the tech/medium allows). Larian is adapting almost everything 5e that it can, especially from the PHB.
And I am positive that there will be no loot boxes, or MMO style garabage in this game.
And has Larian said or done anything to make you think it will be overly PC?
I mean Ceramorphisis (turning some some into a mindflayer) is argueably an act of brutal rape in of itself, it's Mindflayers forcefully impregnating you with a Mindflayer Tadpole none consentually, until you functionally give birth to it, by the new Mindflayer jacking your body and killing you. It's a violation and death of such horror that if it were real, it would he worst then most regular rapes by several orders of magnitude, which are horrifying enough. There is no lust or sexual pleasure behind the act, but it's still forcing someone to particape unwillingly in a lethal act of reproduction. So no it's not that PC honestly. The trailer made some people sick.
I heard second hand that one of OS 2 characters has a past of sexual abuse.
The one thing that some may view as "PC" thing that I actual hope is in the game is Blessed Of Corellon Larethian, which is a trait that any Elf character can have that allows them to change their biological sex during a Long Rest. The Drow do not like this, it undermines their female dominated society, so Drow like this are prosecuted, but unlike most Drow they can seek sanctuary in a Temple of Corellon Larethian (the Priests see this trait as a gift, which trumps normal surface elf antidrow prejudices). Given the lore of Corellon Larethian all the way back to Elaine Cunninghams novel Evermeet, this actually makes a lot of sense, as his/her gender and form is very fluid, except during his marriage to Lolth.
@sarevok57 Sorry about the language in this thread, we'll deal with it. In the future, please, flag the comment you find offensive using the Flag feature.
Re/all: while every fan and sceptic are entitled to their opinion, emotions shouldn't lead to breaking the Site Rules. Those who support BGIII, and those who criticize it, should both feel welcome on this forum, not targeted.
Swordcoast Legends was a HUGE failure because it deviated so far from 5e rules as to not resemble them at all. And WotC and Larian know this. They will not be making Swordcoast Legends, no one wants to double down on failure and Nathan Stewart VP of D&D Franchise of WotC made it clear that this game had to be 5e rules (or as close as the tech/medium allows). Larian is adapting almost everything 5e that it can, especially from the PHB.
And I am positive that there will be no loot boxes, or MMO style garabage in this game.
When i mean MMO garbage, i mean things that are present on Larian's games but luckily aren't present on Pillars of Eternity, on Pathfinder Kingmaker and other cRPG's :
Cooldowns - I an fine with any other way to balance skills. Casts/rest like DkS, very long casting time on Dragon's Dogma, require high resources like most games, but in general mmo's tends to have a lot of cooldowns. Kotor 1 and 2 has not cooldown but swtor has. Same happens to neverwinter nights. NWN1 and 2 has no cooldowns. neverwinter online has.
Stats linked on gear. On a RPG stats should measure your character capabilities, i can't fell immersed in a world where everyone is the same without the gear but can easily change everything about then by changing the cloths. On older fallout games, if you try play with very low int, you barely can talk. Requirements are good for very action focused games. For example, on demon souls to use Long Bow you need 15 STR. Fully draw an longbow requires a lot of strength, that makes sense. Some type of small bonus to not defense coming for armor is fine. But most of stats should be chooses by the player and heavily impact what the player can and cannot do.
Very long repetitive fights. Like 40 people spamming the same rotation for many minutes to kill an mob. The challenge should be by putting heavy hitting enemies, punishing traps, etc. I don't mind get some one hit killed, if i can ohk certain enemies.
No choices and consequences. For example, if you decide to become an vampire, it should give a lot of power, but make you much more weaker to fire and take sun damage. I can understand why an mmo will not allow this, it will make the player OP in certain situations and useless in another, but IMO the immersion and choices/consequences are far more important than the game balance. If you decided to heavily specialize on fire skills, then you should have an very hard time against fire resistant/immune mobs.On my pyromancer Dark Souls 2 run, Iron Keep is being very hard by it. If you decided to be an paladin, you should ve very powerful against undead but should have some weakness to compensate it.
As for "adapting almost everything 5e that it can", i strongly disagree.
He :
Criticized "missing" and said that D20 that worked on tons of games, including non D&D related games like KOTOR "doesn't work on video games"
In the game of our human expectations and how well they match up with reality... or not... with regard to this game...
I genuinely respect each individual subjective experience here. I truly do. But all I can really do here is express my own thoughts about it.
1) In terms of overall gameplay--especially the combat system--I accept and even look forward to the game being something relatively fresh compared with the past 2 games. BG3 is NOT going to be closely modeled after BG1 and 2's Infinity engine with 2nd Edition AD&D rules. There is no good reason to expect that it ever would have been. This is just not a realistic expectation imho.
2) Continuing the story as a Bhaalspawn is untenable, really. Or there's no good reason to expect that would happen either. Again, not a realistic expectation.
3) The question then becomes how can this new tale meaningfully connect to the story of the previous two games?
Graphically speaking we'll have a 3D engine for this game--or at least that is the most reasonable expectation. BG3 will be based on 5th Edition rules with some changes made for things that the developer feels don't translate well to a CRPG. It's set one hundred years in the future in Faerun ten years after the devastating cataclysm of the Spellplague and Second Sundering. It may (probably will) have some lore changes (minor? major? we don't know yet) that serve to explain it's story, or some key elements of the story.
So in my mind, in order to legitimately call this game BG 3, I return to point 3 above. I believe that I myself could write a very satisfying story within the parameters defined thus far. I therefore have high confidence that WotC/ Larian can write a better story better than me, as I'm just a fan and not a professional fantasy writer.
It's understandable that folks are anxious about how well combat will work out in BG3 for their own personal tastes. And that many fans are dubious about how well the story writers will meaningfully tie this new tale into the previous two, given that the Bhaalspawn saga will use Abdel Adrian as Gorion's Ward and takes place a century later, post-Spellplague/Second Sundering.
But I remain very much glass half full with this. Because I can see in my own mind a way of doing this that I know I would love. And maybe I'm naive about it, I do get a sense from Sven Vinke and Mike Mearles thus far that they understand what is at stake with this property. Yes, there are many younger players that have never played the BG games. But I would wager that the majority of people interested in this title have played BG and are fond of it. My expectation is that WotC/Larian realizes how critically important it is that they make this game 100% relevant to the two previous installments of the game 20 years ago.
Another factor to how important this is to WotC is that FR is now it's premiere setting and they want to make it synonymous with D&D. They are in pre-production now for the next D&D blockbuster film, which I do believe they will finally get right. It will without a doubt be set in and strongly emphasize the Forgotten Realms settting itself. They want for FR to be on par in the public imagination with Middel-Earth, GoT's Westeros, and Harry Potter's universe. Lore is and has always been an important part of that sort of imaginal world-building. The BG story is extremely important to the appeal of this franchise imo. For now, I do have faith that Larian and WotC get that.
I think the game will most likely be good, generally well-received and successfull. But from the bits of information we get so far I get some signs that it might not suit my tastes. That is perfect for keeping my expectations down, I can only be positively surprised or not surprised at all.
BG3 is NOT going to be closely modeled after BG1 and 2's Infinity engine with 2nd Edition AD&D rules. There is no good reason to expect that it ever would have been. This is just not a realistic expectation imho.
I felt the need to respond to this part, as it hits close to my concerns with BG3.
I don't think anyone expects the new D&D game to use 2nd edition rules, it is generally understood that WotC doesn't allow that to happen. Ever. However, that doesn't mean that a new game, using 5th edition rules, cannot feature combat and gameplay that retains all of the fundamental gameplay features of the previous two games, some of which are:
Tactical combat
Real-time with pause
6-man party
Individual and multiple character controls
Top-down, fixed camera isometric view
Dice-based combat
Per rest and/or per encounter abilities (not cooldowns)
Non-level-based item system
No randomized magic loot
Challenging learning curve (e.g. no hand holding)
These are just some of the cornerstones of why playing Baldur's Gate feels like playing Baldur's Gate, and what I think a studio would do well to preserve if they're aiming to make a faithful sequel. Not a clone, not a retread, but a sequel that respects and tries to honor the essential values of its predecessors.
That's not to say that BG3 won't fit at least most of these criteria, it's still early to tell. However, some of us think that the interviews so far give us reason to worry. I'm personally concerned because not only has Swen Vincke said that Larian had changed some of these core values already, but to me he also came across flippant about it, like he didn't fully understand the implications of how such changes affect the base qualities of the game.
I also have some concern due to the apparent budget of the game, which seems too high to justify it being a smaller niche game (such as PoE), which a faithful Baldur's Gate sequel would need to be at this point in time.
I also have some concern due to the apparent budget of the game, which seems too high to justify it being a smaller niche game (such as PoE), which a faithful Baldur's Gate sequel would need to be at this point in time.
Yeah, to be honest this is the big thing that will probably decide whether I even seek to try out the game or not, because I'm just so disillusioned with the AAA games market and I frankly want to see it die (and who knows it might crash one day), and in this particular case I think it'd be chasing an audience that just isn't there unless this game plays like The Witcher 3, and at that point it'd be a bigger betrayal than Ninja Gaiden 3 *shivers*
And here lies, I guess, the core of these debates.
Don't you think this is a recipe for failure? If the game only had all of the fundamental gameplay features of the previous two games, it wouldn't become popular today, wouldn't sell well, wouldn't be highly reviewed?
As I've said a few times already we have no idea how the game will be. We don't know anything about game play, camera mode, changes from the P&P rules, etc. All we know is that the Illithids are involved in the story, they may not even be the main villain.
So I really think it's too early either for total hatred or total devotion to the game. We should wait for a few more facts before deciding if we love or hate it.
I'm completly baffled by what the discussion tends to focus on.
Aside from a couple mentions of continuity between BG2 and BG3 (a point I can see) very few people seem to demand a return to BG-style writing as opposed to BG-style combat.
Putting aside that I fail to understand the appeal (or even quality) of the combat in BG, I'm more baffled that which was usually praised as BGs strongpoint gets so little mention.
Is that because the battle is more important or because there is more faith into Larians writing style?
Those of the more pessimistic group who do mention writing seem to not really like Larians style, so I kinda doubt it is that.
But maybe I'm the odd one here, because for me combat is only a secondary concern in a game.
Well, either that or you guys talk about a different Baldurs Gate - because a lot of things I read are, for me, not realized in Baldurs Gate 2 at all.
Mhm, I remember that some people actually prefer BG1 over BG2, I wonder if there is a connection.
Don't you think this is a recipe for failure? If the game only had all of the fundamental gameplay features of the previous two games, it wouldn't become popular today, wouldn't sell well, wouldn't be highly reviewed?
Depends on your definition of failure. Would it be the largest game that year? No. Would it be a very well-loved and critically acclaimed mid-budget CRPG? If they make it good, it very well could be.
But then, that's not how big publishers work. They want to minimize risk and maximize audience. Always. Which is the phenomenon that causes the AAA market to be saturated with milktoast middle-of-the-road games, virtually all in the same genre or very close to it. Which fits my definition of failure.
I'm completly baffled by what the discussion tends to focus on.
Aside from a couple mentions of continuity between BG2 and BG3 (a point I can see) very few people seem to demand a return to BG-style writing as opposed to BG-style combat.
Putting aside that I fail to understand the appeal (or even quality) of the combat in BG, I'm more baffled that which was usually praised as BGs strongpoint gets so little mention.
Is that because the battle is more important or because there is more faith into Larians writing style?
Those of the more pessimistic group who do mention writing seem to not really like Larians style, so I kinda doubt it is that.
But maybe I'm the odd one here, because for me combat is only a secondary concern in a game.
Well, either that or you guys talk about a different Baldurs Gate - because a lot of things I read are, for me, not realized in Baldurs Gate 2 at all.
Mhm, I remember that some people actually prefer BG1 over BG2, I wonder if there is a connection.
Yeah, different people have different preferences. Some of us like more about Baldur's Gate than the (admittedly excellent) characters and storytelling. And yes, some of us even prefer BG1 over BG2. Go figure.
(1) Don't you think this is a recipe for failure? If the game only had all of the fundamental gameplay features of the previous two games, it wouldn't become popular today, wouldn't sell well, wouldn't be highly reviewed?
(...)
(2) PoE is all of that. And see how PoE 2 suffered. I feel strongly BG3 shouldn't look at BG 1&2. Maybe it should feel inspired by that, but nothing more.
1 - As i've said, MORE gameplay features is fine. Fly and Climb would be amazing, but less features or mmoish mechanics is not fine. About if BG2 was launched today, see pathfinder kingmaker "too many dungeons" - IGN, "i can't use my polexe aginst an swarm of insects" ~ Most critiques
See how IGN "criticized" an game that is very similar to BG2
They complain that there are too much dungeon, that need to manage supplies, and other problems that he could be solved simple by not playing in a difficulty intend to pathfinder veterans.
2 - PoE 2 had in a very limited way. You still can do more on BG than on PoE1/2. There are more spells on BG2:EE than on PoE2 and if you consider that the same spell can produce different effects depending the caster level, there are an total of 275 spells and 298 with Throne of Bhaal on BG2:EE ( Source - fandom wiki )
So I really think it's too early either for total hatred or total devotion to the game. We should wait for a few more facts before deciding if we love or hate it.
His statements are everything that i need to know that will be SCL2.
On google store, is complicated to judge since many games got removed from google store and google "most solds" are country based, but while visited Bariloche some time ago, i remember to see by curiosity the google store and BG2 was the 5th most sold game on "payed apps". In a ultra casual market, Baldur's Gate sold better than a lor of modernized "watching timers dressing games" that should't be considered RPG's.
That's interesting, I thought PoE 2 was very popular. I've only heard good things about it, and although I haven't played it yet, it's very high on my backlog.
That said, every time you hear that a game under-performed in sales, another way to phrase it is that they went way over what a realistic budget would have been for their niche.
And since PoE 1 performed well, it's also likely that it's failed to draw the more casual crowd back in for a second time, the reasons for which could be myriad. Apparently the more hardcore fans flocked back, because their fundraiser was a huge success.
Oh, and BG3 doesn't have a publisher. Larian will be self-publishing.
I didn't say they did. However, if BG3 has an AAA budget, the same concerns still apply. Investors want their money back, and small niche games don't make a return on large-niche-sized investments.
On google store, is complicated to judge since many games got removed from google store and google "most solds" are country based, but while visited Bariloche some time ago, i remember to see by curiosity the google store and BG2 was the 5th most sold game on "payed apps". In a ultra casual market, Baldur's Gate sold better than a lor of modernized "watching timers dressing games" that should't be considered RPG's.
Yes, and the big sales of PoE 1 are kinda explained by those articles, and the approach of gamers towards PoE 2: apparently PoE 1 sold well mostly due to nostalgia. But after trying PoE (or reading about it) and learning about PoE 2, much fewer people bought PoE 2.
But that is becoming off-topic. My main idea is that there's evidence BGIII should have its own personality and not look at BG 1&2 as a game model, because that game model, tried by PoE & PoE 2, showed it's not that good nowadays - listen to Josh in that video, he has a lot of insights about PoE 2 and today's gaming.
I'm completly baffled by what the discussion tends to focus on.
Aside from a couple mentions of continuity between BG2 and BG3 (a point I can see) very few people seem to demand a return to BG-style writing as opposed to BG-style combat.
Putting aside that I fail to understand the appeal (or even quality) of the combat in BG, I'm more baffled that which was usually praised as BGs strongpoint gets so little mention.
Is that because the battle is more important or because there is more faith into Larians writing style?
Those of the more pessimistic group who do mention writing seem to not really like Larians style, so I kinda doubt it is that.
But maybe I'm the odd one here, because for me combat is only a secondary concern in a game.
Well, either that or you guys talk about a different Baldurs Gate - because a lot of things I read are, for me, not realized in Baldurs Gate 2 at all.
Mhm, I remember that some people actually prefer BG1 over BG2, I wonder if there is a connection.
Speaking for myself, yes for me the story, character development, party dynamics, lore, choice and consequence, these things are what really matter in an RPG. Combat is something I tolerate because I have no other choice, but combat is my least liked part of an RPG. But this also is why the nature of the combat system matters. If the game features very little combat, then I don't care if the combat system sucks because I don't have to deal with it that much and I can enjoy the game despite its shitty combat system (ex. T:ToN). On the other hand, if combat makes up a lot of the game and is central to the game, but the combat system is garbage, then it's a HUGE issue (ex. D:OS).
@Adul I'm just a bit curious how many of those who prefer BG1 over BG2 are pessimistic towards BG3 and how many of those who are pessimistic prefer BG1. Not sure if there is really a connection, but I'm still curious.
@kanisatha That is similiar to my own opinion. Though now I have to ask if D:OS will get combat heavier once I finish the first questline (The murder one, stil lcan't really play -_-). Because so far, there where surprisingly few battles.
Now I have a question for those who have played D:OS:
How many battles and how important was fighting in those game?
About skills & cooldowns:
I'm relatively sure cooldowns are not invented by mmos and are in fact older.
Also, it is rather unlikely that they will add many cooldowns, because resource management works different in D&D.
The only thing I can think of that could get a cooldown would be sleep. But that is actually based on the rules, because you can not gain the benefits of a long rest more than once a day..
Though I think some skills & spells also have a cooldown in the rules, but most is limited through LR.
@Adul I'm just a bit curious how many of those who prefer BG1 over BG2 are pessimistic towards BG3 and how many of those who are pessimistic prefer BG1. Not sure if there is really a connection, but I'm still curious.
Well, if you're doing a study, you can count me in the "prefers BG1" camp.
I wouldn't say I'm "pessimistic" about BG3 though. At this point I'm more "concerned and skeptical".
because that game model, tried by PoE & PoE 2, showed it's not that good nowadays
Yeah, I despise today's gaming. I look down on it. I think its shallow, superficial and inferior to much of what came before. I think videogame design has devolved in the last two decades. I think most people simply want to be wowed by cinematics and visuals and don't genuinely care one bit about things that mean anything like genuinely rewarding game design and genuinely well written stories. And I do think game critics today are completely unworthy of talking about games. Josh Sawyer's video is ultimately more about why the game didn't sell well, not on its failings as a game (although in terms of that game in particular it doesn't seem as strong as the first game due to having different goals that didn't follow on that well from the first game)
And that's the bitter truth. The Baldur's Gate that would sell well today, is not a game with the soul of the prior games, it would trade that entirely away and become something entirely different, not something I would want, simply to please an audience I think is incapable of appreciating real quality. That's what sucks about being the kind of person who really cares about the quality of things, since this applies to all mediums, not just videogames. Most people don't care, they just want entertained. I get that, but its kind of soul crushing for someone who really looks for artistic satisfaction.
That's mainly why indy games tend to be the only ones I consider anymore, because at that level game developers in terms of their goals are a bit more balanced, they do want to make money but as they're not pouring millions into something to try and make billions back, they are more free to try their own things. Its possible to make a living and worry about the quality of the product but its a lot easier to do with lower budget projects.
And this position I have isn't based on rationality. Being rational is just doing the minimum you have to do for maximum output. I get why things work the way they do. I don't need it explained for me, and if you want to call me whatever term you want to ridicule or undermine me, whatever. I'm not winning this debate, because I fully expect to hate Baldur's Gate 3, because I know realistically it's going to be a game I hate. Its fine, I'll go play Realms Beyond or ATOM RPG. Those are projects more likely to be what I want. I'm just disappointed its "Baldur's Gate 3" we're talking about because of how much I loved the prior games.
@hybridial I can not argue with much you say, since it is subjective and personal.
But I have to say, they are well done games out there. Maybe some aspects are worse, but others are better - and I'm not talking about the graphic.
But there are good and thought out stories out there (i. e. Persona 5 has a good story, even if it did not click with me), there are games with good gameplay (need your preferences to give a name here..). For every bad, uncreative game there is a good and creative one out there.
Maybe there are some that are not in your ballpark (i.e. ...Gravity Rush 2) but that doesn't mean they are bad per se. I am sure there are semi-mainstream games who fit in your parameters - even if the mix is not exactly what you are looking for.
I just try to convince you otherwise, because I fear that you may overlook some pretty neat games that you could enjoy by being too ..hasty to disregard modern games that tap into the mainstream, jsut because you disagree with popular game design trends. (Which, for the record, I do often enough myself. Which is probably the reason I play niche games most of the time.. ^^)
But there are good and thought out stories out there (i. e. Persona 5 has a good story, even if it did not click with me)
Its funny you should bring up Persona because I consider that series to be a very good example of what I said. I loved Shin Megami Tensei III and Digital Devil Saga. I did try to play Persona 3 but it wasn't as appealing and it was certainly a worse game than the aforementioned. Then I tried Persona 4 and I found the whole style of it just be the opposite of what I look for, its just bad anime tropes at this point, and Persona 5 is the same, but of course as the Persona games sold better because they were a lot more pandering, they're considered the bigger deal now. They're an example of the plot might be in a vacuum, not awful, but the presentation is so saccharine and pointlessly cartoony it ruins any pretention towards the writing, which is basically the problem with most anime shows as well.
But there are good and thought out stories out there (i. e. Persona 5 has a good story, even if it did not click with me)
Its funny you should bring up Persona because I consider that series to be a very good example of what I said. I loved Shin Megami Tensei III and Digital Devil Saga. I did try to play Persona 3 but it wasn't as appealing and it was certainly a worse game than the aforementioned. Then I tried Persona 4 and I found the whole style of it just be the opposite of what I look for, its just bad anime tropes at this point, and Persona 5 is the same, but of course as the Persona games sold better because they were a lot more pandering, they're considered the bigger deal now. They're an example of the plot might be in a vacuum, not awful, but the presentation is so saccharine and pointlessly cartoony it ruins any pretention towards the writing, which is basically the problem with most anime shows as well.
I personaly think Persona 4 is *much* better than P3, but that is kinda beside the point..
You can't actually compare SMT and Persona that much, because the focus of the games is kinda different.
I admit, I only played SMT 1 & 2 (or rather tried playing..) and Imagine, but as far as I can tell they also had there fair share of tropes there.
Persona got mroe popular than SMT because of the Social Link system - not because it is easier (even though it is) or less complex. Persona 2, which did not have that system, actually got the SMT labe in the west to better sell...
But the design can be massively distracting or even off-putting. That unfortunatly prevents me from giving you any game recomendations, because most of the games have ...unusual design choices..
Or are Danganronpa. ...My game library has gotten weird oO
Anyways, my point was that I hope you can still find good games and even find the hidden gems that are mainstream hits!
(Also, I don't like animes, or most cartoons/movies for that matter, but I personally like a nice, bright humorous design - especially if dark stuff is coming up. But that is personal taste.)
You can't actually compare SMT and Persona that much
I have one point of comparison, I like one and am borderline disgusted by the other with all its terrible music, characters and saccharine tone :P
I also hated Dark Souls, which either means what I'm saying makes sense or it makes no sense at all, but fact is what I said is what I feel quite generally it is, by my own admission, a big generalisation. Getting into individual games the factors tend to be a bit more specific, but the AAA part of things is a hard and easy pass for me now due to the very poor state of that part of the industry.
And that's the bitter truth. The Baldur's Gate that would sell well today, is not a game with the soul of the prior games, it would trade that entirely away and become something entirely different, not something I would want, simply to please an audience I think is incapable of appreciating real quality.
That's not necessarily the case. Pillars of Eternity was a huge success, and it did it precisely by respecting and being inspired by the design choices of the Baldur's Gate games and marketing itself on those terms. A lot of people want a genuine BG-like experience and are willing to fork out cash for it. Not necessarily the general audience, but not every game needs to target the general audience.
That's not necessarily the case. Pillars of Eternity was a huge success, and it did it precisely by respecting and being inspired by the design choices of the Baldur's Gate games and marketing itself on those terms. A lot of people want a genuine BG-like experience and are willing to fork out cash for it. Not necessarily the general audience, but not every game needs to target the general audience.
Yeah, the first POE did well and I finished it and consider it to be a pretty great game, however PoE2's sales were really bad, I have not played that enough to say much more about it than that but that might be seen as a sign that kind of game won't sell. I do think that would be a very knee jerk reaction, like I guess to make more of a real criticism of what @JuliusBorisov said that I quoted before, you had one game that did well and a sequel to it that didn't, but I feel his point that this proves that style of game is not good anymore is a kneejerk statement based on some evidence that is far from exhaustive, not to mention I consider the statement to use the word "good" very dishonestly. Lets call it for what you mean, what sells? Because I will always 100% reject the idea that commercial success decides what is "good". For one; because no one honestly believes that, everyone will consider something good that didn't do commercially well, and consider something bad that did do commercially well. There's a difference between talking about money and talking about quality of product, so lets not confuse them.
Comments
Now that is out of the way time to move on, I have no interest in nursing a grudge over it (but others are free to do so if they want).
In fact I think this game is going to be way, way better then BG 1 & 2, don't get me wrong, I loved BG 1 & 2 and Throne of Bhaal. But 5e is a much better rule system then 2e, by a massive margin, this game will have far more character creation options by the sounds of it, even with just the PHB races and classes that is Humans, Variant Humans, High Elves, Wild Elves, Drow, Hill Dwarves, Mountain dwarves, Lightfoot Halflings, Stout Halflings, Rock Gnomes, Forest Gnomes, Tieflings, Dragonborn, Half Elves, Half Orcs, Wizards, Warlocks, Sorcerers, Clerics, Fighters, Rogues, Rangers, Paladins, Druids, Bards, Barbarians, Monks, with dozens of subraces and backgrounds.
If it adds stuff from the SCAG that is 3 extra subraces and Half Elf and Tiefling variant, if they add stuff from MTOF that is 1 race (Gith) 13 subraces (3 elf, 8 Tiefling, 2 Gith), if they add VGTM that 13 new races (Goliaths, Aasimar, Firbolgs who are really renamed wood giants, Kenku, Tabaxi, Tritons, Lizardfolk, Hobgoblins, Goblins, Bugbears, Orcs, Yuan Ti Purebloods, Kobolds, with 3 Aasimar subraces, if they add XGTE that around 40 subclasses, if they add EEPG that 3 races (Genasai, Goliaths, Aakcrokaa) and 4 subraces of Genasi, if they add the Tortle Package that is 1 race Tortles, if they add Aquistions Incorporated book's race, Verdants that is 1 more race.
Larian is ambitious. They self publish so they don't have a publisher rushing them or making demands that undermine their vision. I doubt all of that will be in BG3 but a lot will be.
This is going to be way better then BG 1 & 2 it's going to set a new standard.
And before anyone accuses me of being a Larian fan boy, I've never played any of their games. I just read all the interviews carefully.
It's going to have the environmental interactions that Larian is fameous for, but with the depth and tactical complexity that D&D 5e possesses, it's going to benifit from Larian's experience, they have talked about things they want to do better, like parties and multi-player, it's going to take advantage of all of Stadia's capiblities, which means it's going to be playable on mobile devices, smart TVs PCs, and more right out the door (I think consoles will come later, BG3 will already be compatible with controllers thanks to Stadia), and so much more. Its got a team of 27 writers alone! Its internal staff is over 200 people, between 4 studios, with other 100 external staff which doesn't count support from WotC on things like lore, plot, writing and so on. It's going to be epic.
Don't get me wrong, I am sympathetic to the BG purists, the heart wants what the heart wants, but I'm excited in a sense because despite the name, it's not really BG3, I'm excited because its the first proper Forgotten Realms (and somewhat Spelljammer) 5e game, and that is something the market place was crying out for. The original BG story line ended with Murder in Baldur's Gate, with the official protagonist dead.
Swordcoast Legends was a HUGE failure because it deviated so far from 5e rules as to not resemble them at all. And WotC and Larian know this. They will not be making Swordcoast Legends, no one wants to double down on failure and Nathan Stewart VP of D&D Franchise of WotC made it clear that this game had to be 5e rules (or as close as the tech/medium allows). Larian is adapting almost everything 5e that it can, especially from the PHB.
And I am positive that there will be no loot boxes, or MMO style garabage in this game.
And has Larian said or done anything to make you think it will be overly PC?
I mean Ceramorphisis (turning some some into a mindflayer) is argueably an act of brutal rape in of itself, it's Mindflayers forcefully impregnating you with a Mindflayer Tadpole none consentually, until you functionally give birth to it, by the new Mindflayer jacking your body and killing you. It's a violation and death of such horror that if it were real, it would he worst then most regular rapes by several orders of magnitude, which are horrifying enough. There is no lust or sexual pleasure behind the act, but it's still forcing someone to particape unwillingly in a lethal act of reproduction. So no it's not that PC honestly. The trailer made some people sick.
I heard second hand that one of
The one thing that some may view as "PC" thing that I actual hope is in the game is Blessed Of Corellon Larethian, which is a trait that any Elf character can have that allows them to change their biological sex during a Long Rest. The Drow do not like this, it undermines their female dominated society, so Drow like this are prosecuted, but unlike most Drow they can seek sanctuary in a Temple of Corellon Larethian (the Priests see this trait as a gift, which trumps normal surface elf antidrow prejudices). Given the lore of Corellon Larethian all the way back to Elaine Cunninghams novel Evermeet, this actually makes a lot of sense, as his/her gender and form is very fluid, except during his marriage to Lolth.
Re/all: while every fan and sceptic are entitled to their opinion, emotions shouldn't lead to breaking the Site Rules. Those who support BGIII, and those who criticize it, should both feel welcome on this forum, not targeted.
When i mean MMO garbage, i mean things that are present on Larian's games but luckily aren't present on Pillars of Eternity, on Pathfinder Kingmaker and other cRPG's :
As for "adapting almost everything 5e that it can", i strongly disagree.
He :
Compare this to Solasta devs
I genuinely respect each individual subjective experience here. I truly do. But all I can really do here is express my own thoughts about it.
1) In terms of overall gameplay--especially the combat system--I accept and even look forward to the game being something relatively fresh compared with the past 2 games. BG3 is NOT going to be closely modeled after BG1 and 2's Infinity engine with 2nd Edition AD&D rules. There is no good reason to expect that it ever would have been. This is just not a realistic expectation imho.
2) Continuing the story as a Bhaalspawn is untenable, really. Or there's no good reason to expect that would happen either. Again, not a realistic expectation.
3) The question then becomes how can this new tale meaningfully connect to the story of the previous two games?
Graphically speaking we'll have a 3D engine for this game--or at least that is the most reasonable expectation. BG3 will be based on 5th Edition rules with some changes made for things that the developer feels don't translate well to a CRPG. It's set one hundred years in the future in Faerun ten years after the devastating cataclysm of the Spellplague and Second Sundering. It may (probably will) have some lore changes (minor? major? we don't know yet) that serve to explain it's story, or some key elements of the story.
So in my mind, in order to legitimately call this game BG 3, I return to point 3 above. I believe that I myself could write a very satisfying story within the parameters defined thus far. I therefore have high confidence that WotC/ Larian can write a better story better than me, as I'm just a fan and not a professional fantasy writer.
It's understandable that folks are anxious about how well combat will work out in BG3 for their own personal tastes. And that many fans are dubious about how well the story writers will meaningfully tie this new tale into the previous two, given that the Bhaalspawn saga will use Abdel Adrian as Gorion's Ward and takes place a century later, post-Spellplague/Second Sundering.
But I remain very much glass half full with this. Because I can see in my own mind a way of doing this that I know I would love. And maybe I'm naive about it, I do get a sense from Sven Vinke and Mike Mearles thus far that they understand what is at stake with this property. Yes, there are many younger players that have never played the BG games. But I would wager that the majority of people interested in this title have played BG and are fond of it. My expectation is that WotC/Larian realizes how critically important it is that they make this game 100% relevant to the two previous installments of the game 20 years ago.
Another factor to how important this is to WotC is that FR is now it's premiere setting and they want to make it synonymous with D&D. They are in pre-production now for the next D&D blockbuster film, which I do believe they will finally get right. It will without a doubt be set in and strongly emphasize the Forgotten Realms settting itself. They want for FR to be on par in the public imagination with Middel-Earth, GoT's Westeros, and Harry Potter's universe. Lore is and has always been an important part of that sort of imaginal world-building. The BG story is extremely important to the appeal of this franchise imo. For now, I do have faith that Larian and WotC get that.
I felt the need to respond to this part, as it hits close to my concerns with BG3.
I don't think anyone expects the new D&D game to use 2nd edition rules, it is generally understood that WotC doesn't allow that to happen. Ever. However, that doesn't mean that a new game, using 5th edition rules, cannot feature combat and gameplay that retains all of the fundamental gameplay features of the previous two games, some of which are:
These are just some of the cornerstones of why playing Baldur's Gate feels like playing Baldur's Gate, and what I think a studio would do well to preserve if they're aiming to make a faithful sequel. Not a clone, not a retread, but a sequel that respects and tries to honor the essential values of its predecessors.
That's not to say that BG3 won't fit at least most of these criteria, it's still early to tell. However, some of us think that the interviews so far give us reason to worry. I'm personally concerned because not only has Swen Vincke said that Larian had changed some of these core values already, but to me he also came across flippant about it, like he didn't fully understand the implications of how such changes affect the base qualities of the game.
I also have some concern due to the apparent budget of the game, which seems too high to justify it being a smaller niche game (such as PoE), which a faithful Baldur's Gate sequel would need to be at this point in time.
Yeah, to be honest this is the big thing that will probably decide whether I even seek to try out the game or not, because I'm just so disillusioned with the AAA games market and I frankly want to see it die (and who knows it might crash one day), and in this particular case I think it'd be chasing an audience that just isn't there unless this game plays like The Witcher 3, and at that point it'd be a bigger betrayal than Ninja Gaiden 3 *shivers*
Don't you think this is a recipe for failure? If the game only had all of the fundamental gameplay features of the previous two games, it wouldn't become popular today, wouldn't sell well, wouldn't be highly reviewed?
PoE is all of that. And see how PoE 2 suffered. I feel strongly BG3 shouldn't look at BG 1&2. Maybe it should feel inspired by that, but nothing more.
So I really think it's too early either for total hatred or total devotion to the game. We should wait for a few more facts before deciding if we love or hate it.
Aside from a couple mentions of continuity between BG2 and BG3 (a point I can see) very few people seem to demand a return to BG-style writing as opposed to BG-style combat.
Putting aside that I fail to understand the appeal (or even quality) of the combat in BG, I'm more baffled that which was usually praised as BGs strongpoint gets so little mention.
Is that because the battle is more important or because there is more faith into Larians writing style?
Those of the more pessimistic group who do mention writing seem to not really like Larians style, so I kinda doubt it is that.
But maybe I'm the odd one here, because for me combat is only a secondary concern in a game.
Well, either that or you guys talk about a different Baldurs Gate - because a lot of things I read are, for me, not realized in Baldurs Gate 2 at all.
Mhm, I remember that some people actually prefer BG1 over BG2, I wonder if there is a connection.
Depends on your definition of failure. Would it be the largest game that year? No. Would it be a very well-loved and critically acclaimed mid-budget CRPG? If they make it good, it very well could be.
But then, that's not how big publishers work. They want to minimize risk and maximize audience. Always. Which is the phenomenon that causes the AAA market to be saturated with milktoast middle-of-the-road games, virtually all in the same genre or very close to it. Which fits my definition of failure.
Has PoE 2 suffered? I'm asking genuinely because I don't know. I only know that its fundraiser campaign was a record-breaking success.
Yeah, different people have different preferences. Some of us like more about Baldur's Gate than the (admittedly excellent) characters and storytelling. And yes, some of us even prefer BG1 over BG2. Go figure.
https://www.onlysp.com/pillars-of-eternity-ii-sales-below-expectations/
https://en.cbreaker.net/1514/
https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/103444-finally-some-sales-evidence/
Oh, and BG3 doesn't have a publisher. Larian will be self-publishing.
1 - As i've said, MORE gameplay features is fine. Fly and Climb would be amazing, but less features or mmoish mechanics is not fine. About if BG2 was launched today, see pathfinder kingmaker "too many dungeons" - IGN, "i can't use my polexe aginst an swarm of insects" ~ Most critiques
See how IGN "criticized" an game that is very similar to BG2
2 - PoE 2 had in a very limited way. You still can do more on BG than on PoE1/2. There are more spells on BG2:EE than on PoE2 and if you consider that the same spell can produce different effects depending the caster level, there are an total of 275 spells and 298 with Throne of Bhaal on BG2:EE ( Source - fandom wiki )
His statements are everything that i need to know that will be SCL2.
PoE 2 din't sold well, but PoE 1 did. And if you see by steamspy, PoE1 has around the same number of unity sold(1 to 2 millions) of D:OS1
https://steamspy.com/search.php?s=pillars+of+eternity
https://steamspy.com/search.php?s=divinity
On google store, is complicated to judge since many games got removed from google store and google "most solds" are country based, but while visited Bariloche some time ago, i remember to see by curiosity the google store and BG2 was the 5th most sold game on "payed apps". In a ultra casual market, Baldur's Gate sold better than a lor of modernized "watching timers dressing games" that should't be considered RPG's.
That's interesting, I thought PoE 2 was very popular. I've only heard good things about it, and although I haven't played it yet, it's very high on my backlog.
That said, every time you hear that a game under-performed in sales, another way to phrase it is that they went way over what a realistic budget would have been for their niche.
And since PoE 1 performed well, it's also likely that it's failed to draw the more casual crowd back in for a second time, the reasons for which could be myriad. Apparently the more hardcore fans flocked back, because their fundraiser was a huge success.
I didn't say they did. However, if BG3 has an AAA budget, the same concerns still apply. Investors want their money back, and small niche games don't make a return on large-niche-sized investments.
Yes, and the big sales of PoE 1 are kinda explained by those articles, and the approach of gamers towards PoE 2: apparently PoE 1 sold well mostly due to nostalgia. But after trying PoE (or reading about it) and learning about PoE 2, much fewer people bought PoE 2.
But that is becoming off-topic. My main idea is that there's evidence BGIII should have its own personality and not look at BG 1&2 as a game model, because that game model, tried by PoE & PoE 2, showed it's not that good nowadays - listen to Josh in that video, he has a lot of insights about PoE 2 and today's gaming.
Speaking for myself, yes for me the story, character development, party dynamics, lore, choice and consequence, these things are what really matter in an RPG. Combat is something I tolerate because I have no other choice, but combat is my least liked part of an RPG. But this also is why the nature of the combat system matters. If the game features very little combat, then I don't care if the combat system sucks because I don't have to deal with it that much and I can enjoy the game despite its shitty combat system (ex. T:ToN). On the other hand, if combat makes up a lot of the game and is central to the game, but the combat system is garbage, then it's a HUGE issue (ex. D:OS).
@kanisatha That is similiar to my own opinion. Though now I have to ask if D:OS will get combat heavier once I finish the first questline (The murder one, stil lcan't really play -_-). Because so far, there where surprisingly few battles.
Now I have a question for those who have played D:OS:
How many battles and how important was fighting in those game?
About skills & cooldowns:
I'm relatively sure cooldowns are not invented by mmos and are in fact older.
Also, it is rather unlikely that they will add many cooldowns, because resource management works different in D&D.
The only thing I can think of that could get a cooldown would be sleep. But that is actually based on the rules, because you can not gain the benefits of a long rest more than once a day..
Though I think some skills & spells also have a cooldown in the rules, but most is limited through LR.
Well, if you're doing a study, you can count me in the "prefers BG1" camp.
I wouldn't say I'm "pessimistic" about BG3 though. At this point I'm more "concerned and skeptical".
Yeah, I despise today's gaming. I look down on it. I think its shallow, superficial and inferior to much of what came before. I think videogame design has devolved in the last two decades. I think most people simply want to be wowed by cinematics and visuals and don't genuinely care one bit about things that mean anything like genuinely rewarding game design and genuinely well written stories. And I do think game critics today are completely unworthy of talking about games. Josh Sawyer's video is ultimately more about why the game didn't sell well, not on its failings as a game (although in terms of that game in particular it doesn't seem as strong as the first game due to having different goals that didn't follow on that well from the first game)
And that's the bitter truth. The Baldur's Gate that would sell well today, is not a game with the soul of the prior games, it would trade that entirely away and become something entirely different, not something I would want, simply to please an audience I think is incapable of appreciating real quality. That's what sucks about being the kind of person who really cares about the quality of things, since this applies to all mediums, not just videogames. Most people don't care, they just want entertained. I get that, but its kind of soul crushing for someone who really looks for artistic satisfaction.
That's mainly why indy games tend to be the only ones I consider anymore, because at that level game developers in terms of their goals are a bit more balanced, they do want to make money but as they're not pouring millions into something to try and make billions back, they are more free to try their own things. Its possible to make a living and worry about the quality of the product but its a lot easier to do with lower budget projects.
And this position I have isn't based on rationality. Being rational is just doing the minimum you have to do for maximum output. I get why things work the way they do. I don't need it explained for me, and if you want to call me whatever term you want to ridicule or undermine me, whatever. I'm not winning this debate, because I fully expect to hate Baldur's Gate 3, because I know realistically it's going to be a game I hate. Its fine, I'll go play Realms Beyond or ATOM RPG. Those are projects more likely to be what I want. I'm just disappointed its "Baldur's Gate 3" we're talking about because of how much I loved the prior games.
But I have to say, they are well done games out there. Maybe some aspects are worse, but others are better - and I'm not talking about the graphic.
But there are good and thought out stories out there (i. e. Persona 5 has a good story, even if it did not click with me), there are games with good gameplay (need your preferences to give a name here..). For every bad, uncreative game there is a good and creative one out there.
Maybe there are some that are not in your ballpark (i.e. ...Gravity Rush 2) but that doesn't mean they are bad per se. I am sure there are semi-mainstream games who fit in your parameters - even if the mix is not exactly what you are looking for.
I just try to convince you otherwise, because I fear that you may overlook some pretty neat games that you could enjoy by being too ..hasty to disregard modern games that tap into the mainstream, jsut because you disagree with popular game design trends. (Which, for the record, I do often enough myself. Which is probably the reason I play niche games most of the time.. ^^)
Its funny you should bring up Persona because I consider that series to be a very good example of what I said. I loved Shin Megami Tensei III and Digital Devil Saga. I did try to play Persona 3 but it wasn't as appealing and it was certainly a worse game than the aforementioned. Then I tried Persona 4 and I found the whole style of it just be the opposite of what I look for, its just bad anime tropes at this point, and Persona 5 is the same, but of course as the Persona games sold better because they were a lot more pandering, they're considered the bigger deal now. They're an example of the plot might be in a vacuum, not awful, but the presentation is so saccharine and pointlessly cartoony it ruins any pretention towards the writing, which is basically the problem with most anime shows as well.
I personaly think Persona 4 is *much* better than P3, but that is kinda beside the point..
You can't actually compare SMT and Persona that much, because the focus of the games is kinda different.
I admit, I only played SMT 1 & 2 (or rather tried playing..) and Imagine, but as far as I can tell they also had there fair share of tropes there.
Persona got mroe popular than SMT because of the Social Link system - not because it is easier (even though it is) or less complex. Persona 2, which did not have that system, actually got the SMT labe in the west to better sell...
But the design can be massively distracting or even off-putting. That unfortunatly prevents me from giving you any game recomendations, because most of the games have ...unusual design choices..
Or are Danganronpa. ...My game library has gotten weird oO
Anyways, my point was that I hope you can still find good games and even find the hidden gems that are mainstream hits!
(Also, I don't like animes, or most cartoons/movies for that matter, but I personally like a nice, bright humorous design - especially if dark stuff is coming up. But that is personal taste.)
I have one point of comparison, I like one and am borderline disgusted by the other with all its terrible music, characters and saccharine tone :P
I also hated Dark Souls, which either means what I'm saying makes sense or it makes no sense at all, but fact is what I said is what I feel quite generally it is, by my own admission, a big generalisation. Getting into individual games the factors tend to be a bit more specific, but the AAA part of things is a hard and easy pass for me now due to the very poor state of that part of the industry.
That's not necessarily the case. Pillars of Eternity was a huge success, and it did it precisely by respecting and being inspired by the design choices of the Baldur's Gate games and marketing itself on those terms. A lot of people want a genuine BG-like experience and are willing to fork out cash for it. Not necessarily the general audience, but not every game needs to target the general audience.
Yeah, the first POE did well and I finished it and consider it to be a pretty great game, however PoE2's sales were really bad, I have not played that enough to say much more about it than that but that might be seen as a sign that kind of game won't sell. I do think that would be a very knee jerk reaction, like I guess to make more of a real criticism of what @JuliusBorisov said that I quoted before, you had one game that did well and a sequel to it that didn't, but I feel his point that this proves that style of game is not good anymore is a kneejerk statement based on some evidence that is far from exhaustive, not to mention I consider the statement to use the word "good" very dishonestly. Lets call it for what you mean, what sells? Because I will always 100% reject the idea that commercial success decides what is "good". For one; because no one honestly believes that, everyone will consider something good that didn't do commercially well, and consider something bad that did do commercially well. There's a difference between talking about money and talking about quality of product, so lets not confuse them.