Since BG3 will be ages after BG2, will be any significant change on the social structure or on technology?
Technology almost certainly not, FR is supposed to remain a high-fantasy, i.e. swords and spells kind of setting.
As for social structure, I think there has been quite a bit of discussion on this before. According to WotC the city of Baldur's Gate is now supposed to be the "Gotham" of FR, which means lots of crime, corruption slums and a huge contrast between the rich and poor. Personally not a fan of this, as I am already concerned after the trailer that BG 3 will be grimdark & a Gotham kind of setting will not help.
Interesting, only an note. When i mean "technology", i don't mean steampunk tanks and lever action rifles for eg, but there was Airships on IWD2 and i was thinking if they would have more type of "magic engines" and constructs, if people would start to use construct/undead labor and it affecting the work relations between those who have access to arcane powers/knowledge and those who doesn't have. I love when they introduce this fantastic elements and use then not only for combat.
When i mean "technology", i don't mean steampunk tanks and lever action rifles for eg, but there was Airships on IWD2 and i was thinking if they would have more type of "magic engines" and constructs, if people would start to use construct/undead labor and it affecting the work relations between those who have access to arcane powers/knowledge and those who doesn't have. I love when they introduce this fantastic elements and use then not only for combat.
There was a single airship in IWD2, a gnomish oddity. IWD2 is also set a little over 50 years before BG1, and we don't see any airship docks in either Baldur's Gate or Athkathla, except for the extraplanar oddity. There might be a very minor change, in the sense that there are a couple more of those oddities, but other than that I think (and I hope) we'll not see any major shift. It would change the atmosphere too much.
Did the firearms developed by the Gnomes ever get popular. I know little of what happened in Forgotten Realms after 3.5
Most of the gunpowder stuff came from Lantanese gnomes, who were guarding those secrets pretty well. The parts of Lantan that weren't destroyed by floods during the spellplague (4th ed.) were transported to Abeir, and when that was restored in 5th ed the inhabitants were even more guarded and secretive.
@Sjerrie Don't forget the airship plans in BG1 that the thieves guild asks you to steal. Apparently at least one nation as them and regards them as a national secret.
That's Halruaa, but their skyships are powered by magic and magically-compelled elemental forces (similar to the airships in Eberron, I believe). In a high-magic world like Faerun where mages regularly jaunt half-way across the world with teleport spells, I'm guessing skyships are regarded as something more like a curiosity than a useful invention, similar to how Gond creates many wondrous things, but most of them perform functions that are already accomplished via magic, much more readily and easily, so there's not much of a market for them.
@DinoDin You know, I can only point at the evidence and say "there it is" and have you continually turn away and shout, "Nu-uh" so many times. Its there if you would bother to look at it. It should also be noted the most of the others who doubted it have not once come back to refute it after seeing it. I am done with with your willful ignorance and mental gymnastics. The evidence speaks for itself.
To be honest, your evidences point out to one thing - old scheme proved to be ineffective. Beamdog created new content true to original BG - same engine, same style, same characters. And sales were more than modest. While new isometric RPGs at the very same time made serious (enough) money, proving existence of the audience for that kind of games in general. Is not it logical for WotC to go where supposed money audience is? Us - old fans - are too few apparently to demand personal attention with games catering to our needs. But WotC looked around and saw that among new isometric RPG-makers Larian are the most successful, hence, it's more reasonable to let them try something new with WotC famous franchise.
There is not conspiracy here, not even necessarily greed - old style BG proved to be less interesting (less sales) than completely new games even in unknown setting (PoE). It's a simple choice - we tried old style, it did not work, the game, the name, the franchise will die unless we either keep it alive for free (aka pay our own money to let few fans be happy) or try something new.
It's not "no more old BG because Larian's BG3" but "old BG failed let's try new with Larian to keep the game alive".
P.S. And you can not truly believe a few jerks were the reason for the low commercial success of SoD.
@Mirandel " And you can not truly believe a few jerks were the reason for the low commercial success of SoD."
I can, and I do. I was here for all of it. They not only bombed the forums with countless off topic comments and entire threads dedicated to nothing but hate and vitriol aimed directly at Mizhena (which you STILL see happen here occasionally), but also death threats sent to writers, as well as HUNDREDS of review bombs from people who never even played the game. If you look at reviews from confirmed game owners, they are consistently much higher. The controversy overshadowed everything else about the game.
@ThacoBell@Mirandel I think both of you have valid points, based on my own experiences with SoD and with the wider CRPG genre over the last couple decades. In general, modern isometric RPGs such as Pillars of Eternity or Tides of Numenera have not sold as well compared to their full 3D counterparts such as Dragon Age: Inquisition, Divinity or Witcher 3. How much of this is due to changes in gamer preferences as compared to traditional demand forces like marketing hype is unknown, but considering that Witcher: Thronebreaker is built in a similar style to isometric RPGs and its sales were disappointing, even with the strength of the Witcher brand and CD Projekt's name behind it, that might definitely make companies like WotC pause and take stock when determining which D&D project they're going to support next.
On the other hand, I have no doubt that the controversy and review bombing of SoD DID affect its potential sales. I know, because I was nearly affected by it myself. I came late to the release of SoD (and so I don't have firsthand experience or knowledge of everything that went down), so while I was vaguely aware of some fracas surrounding a trans character and "SJW revisionists", all I really had to go on were the ratings and reviews on GoG, which are overwhelmingly negative. As ThacoBell points out, a lot of the negative reviews are from people who don't even own SoD, while the reviews from actual owners are generally more positive. Regardless, what convinced me to eventually buy SoD was my love for the BG series and the nostalgia of the past. I think that, had I been a completely new player with no ties to the BG series to tip me in the other direction, I would have been put off by the low score and negative reviews.
I'm glad I didn't give in to the negative press, because SoD hasn't been given a fair go, in my opinion. I got into an argument with some players on the GoG forums who are convinced that SoD is SJW propaganda, and that saddens me because I did not get that feeling at all while playing the game. There are spots SoD could have been done better, certainly, but on the whole it's still a fun, memorable romp through the Sword Coast with new friends and old. If there are other players like me out there, whether a newcomer to the BG series, or an old veteran seeking to revisit past destinations, that are turned off from buying SoD because of the hysteria (yes, I would call it that) surrounding SoD, I would consider that a great tragedy, all those players missing out on what is ultimately still a fun D&D game.
And apologies for continuing to derail this thread about BG3. XD
Well I always saw Thethyr and Cormyr as being heavily cavalry-ous, since their themes are both very heavy on the feudality-and-chivalry-and-knights parts of medieval Europe. I wouldn't call them very renowned for it though.
There's the Tuigan Horde, standing in for the Mongols and Turks and the Golden Horde, which I would assume includes a certain penchant for horses. But again, I don't think they're particularly renowned for it beyond being "riding barbarians".
The there's the people of the Shaar, another steppe barbarian themed culture. Their horses are said to be better than any other, but unfortunately can only survive of grass that grows in the Shaar, or something. Also not particularly renowned as cavalry beyond that.
@Mirandel " And you can not truly believe a few jerks were the reason for the low commercial success of SoD."
I can, and I do. I was here for all of it. They not only bombed the forums with countless off topic comments and entire threads dedicated to nothing but hate and vitriol aimed directly at Mizhena (which you STILL see happen here occasionally), but also death threats sent to writers, as well as HUNDREDS of review bombs from people who never even played the game. If you look at reviews from confirmed game owners, they are consistently much higher. The controversy overshadowed everything else about the game.
If I to believe this, then I would have to believe the majority of BG fans are misogynists, racists and homophobs. And it's not the case.
I was there too and bough SoD at the start like most of us here. There were many things people did not like - as with absolutely ANY franchise. Continuation is hard. However, all (I am pretty sure it's "all") BG fans are adults, capable to think on their own. @Zaxares is an example of it - he saw the score and reviews but judged by himself. So would do any individual confident in his ability to make to form a personal opinion. There are many modern examples in different media where trolls try (and succeed!) on lowering ratings at some sites but it did not affect the sales (take Captain Marvel, for example). If something is good it will go through when demand is there.
The audience is simply too small, only the best of the best (or the most shiny) stands out. WotC are searching for that "best". At the moment it's Larian. Let's see if it works.
I know, it looks like I dislike PfK (which is not true) but they had that cute animation when your party on the map was indicated by the chess-horse. Gave an idea, that the horses are indeed there
This is the Forgotten Realms. If you try to ride horses they'll probably grow tentacles and start to breath fire.
That actually reminds me of this other RPG system I used to play back in the 90's called "Dragon Warriors". They had a monster in their bestiary called Hippogriffs, but they're not the hippogriffs you might know from D&D. Rather, hippogriffs in the DW setting were fell creatures who resembled horses during the day (although they always have a feral, savage look about them), but as night fell they undergo a transformation, growing bat-like wings (which allowed them to fly), fangs and scales. They eat only raw flesh (which they go hunting for during their nightly transformations), and while they can be tamed for riding, magic (or an extremely foolhardy trainer) is usually required to accomplish this.
When i played 3.5e, there was in my party an goblin with an "crippling disease" but with extreme hgih int and he used to be mounted on other animasl 24/7 since he can't move. There are also rules for naval combat.
“Baldur’s Gate was one of the first truly open-world fantasy RPGs in which player agency was part of the core narrative design,” Tofer says of what made Baldur’s Gate different from much of what came before. “The game encourages exploration and discovery, building out an entire world populated by unique characters, treasures, stories, and quests. Players got to choose their path and their decisions in one moment affected other parts of the game and story. At the time this choice was pretty revolutionary.”
“I’d argue that Baldur’s Gate is best known for its narrative design. It has scores of branching dialogue, interesting NPCs, and side quests all woven into the overarching epic storyline. Any Baldur’s Gate game brings with it the expectation that there will be a rich narrative with player choices that matter to the overall story.”
About SoD:
“What did we learn? Expectations. People want more of kind of the same. It's hard to describe. It's like I want more and I want different. Yeah. So it's just like, don't give me the same stuff, don't give me different stuff...The familiarity is so important. You play Baldur's Gate, you loved it, and then you think about coming back, it's like what was there?”
“Baldur’s Gate was one of the first truly open-world fantasy RPGs in which player agency was part of the core narrative design,” Tofer says of what made Baldur’s Gate different from much of what came before. “The game encourages exploration and discovery, building out an entire world populated by unique characters, treasures, stories, and quests. Players got to choose their path and their decisions in one moment affected other parts of the game and story. At the time this choice was pretty revolutionary.”
I definitely agree with that. Part of what I really loved about BG1 was just traipsing across the open world and seeing what lay over the next hill. Every map was unique, and had 3-4 unique encounters, some of which tied in to the bigger plot, and others that were just throwaway encounters that nonetheless proved memorable on their own. (I'm sure I wasn't the only one to stumble across the Ogre Mage Kahrk when I was waaaay too low level to take him on and wound up having to go "Yeah, I think I'll come back to this map later.") More modern RPGs have a tendency to try and link everything back to the main story, but part of what makes a fantasy world believable is diversity, having a lot of different factions at play, all with their own (and sometimes conflicting) agendas.
Baldur's Gate is open-world in the exact sense we would associate the word with something like Morrowind or Skyrim, it just happened to be isometric. Baldur's Gate 2 is better on balance for numerous reasons, but one thing it did not have is the same pure sense of wonder and adventure of having absolutely no idea what was lurking in any given corner of the map. The 2nd game, for all it's strengths, was a series of vignettes. The amount of content in Baldur's Gate 2 gave a pretty damn good illusion of being open-world, but it wasn't. The only other game that evoked this kind of whimsical innocence for me was Might & Magic VI.
In no way is BG 1 the isometric open world equivalent to Morrowind or Skyrim. You are locked out of too much content until you progress in the story. Hell, you can't even enter the main city until Chapter 5. Also, the world is split into discrete areas with loading screens. Open worlds should be more seamless.
Ultima 7 on the other hand would qualify... only the first part though.
Baldur's Gate is open-world in the exact sense we would associate the word with something like Morrowind or Skyrim, it just happened to be isometric. Baldur's Gate 2 is better on balance for numerous reasons, but one thing it did not have is the same pure sense of wonder and adventure of having absolutely no idea what was lurking in any given corner of the map. The 2nd game, for all it's strengths, was a series of vignettes. The amount of content in Baldur's Gate 2 gave a pretty damn good illusion of being open-world, but it wasn't. The only other game that evoked this kind of whimsical innocence for me was Might & Magic VI.
I've heard this a few times and I think I disagree. I think BG1 gives a bit of an illusion of being more open world than the second. Yes, there's a wide world of wilderness that you seem to march your guys thru every step of, but it's pretty sparse, and the almost all the quests contained in the first half are elementary. And even alot of its side content doesn't grant much in terms of experience.
There's only two side dungeons in the whole of the pre-cloakwood area (excluding Durlag here). And they're both one level. Whereas the second game has arguably seven dungeon or dungeon-esque areas associated with the stronghold questlines, all of which are complicated quests. Add the thief stronghold questline, which you can still do, the Copper Coronet sewers. And a whole bunch of minor stuff I forgot. There's a greater wealth of non-linear content in the game, imo, even if there might be literally fewer areas to walk thru.
It's true that 2's main quest line plays a bigger role, but even in that there's more branching. Bodhi or the shadow thieves, multiple ways out of the Underdark.
It's more that in bg2 the bulk of the quests is in the city and that the number of wilderness areas is much less (but there are more challenging "wilderness" areas)
In bg1 there may be less to do but you cannot fill all maps with encounters if you consider the party level is low; it would become unbalanced. Bg1 also has all maps connect making an exact large worldmap if you joined them all. So yes, it really is an open world. Travel times are just to simulate between far away areas but they probably could not make it dynamic (0 time to any adjacent and x hours to the next, etc).
Bg2 could benefit from some "on the road" wilderness areas between the main locations, even if they would be more sparsely populated with npcs or quests. To me it would be more realistic. I mean, if you walk everywhere you might as well meet some people before you get there. Bg2 is more location based world and not a full open world(map).
It is likely only zone based because of computer capabilities of the 90s. Only in the 00s for pcs and algorithms were used smart enough to have a full map while rendering only what is in sight.
It is likely only zone based because of computer capabilities of the 90s. Only in the 00s for pcs and algorithms were used smart enough to have a full map while rendering only what is in sight.
While true-ish, this also still is exactly why the game doesn't count as open world.
Comments
Interesting, only an note. When i mean "technology", i don't mean steampunk tanks and lever action rifles for eg, but there was Airships on IWD2 and i was thinking if they would have more type of "magic engines" and constructs, if people would start to use construct/undead labor and it affecting the work relations between those who have access to arcane powers/knowledge and those who doesn't have. I love when they introduce this fantastic elements and use then not only for combat.
There was a single airship in IWD2, a gnomish oddity. IWD2 is also set a little over 50 years before BG1, and we don't see any airship docks in either Baldur's Gate or Athkathla, except for the extraplanar oddity. There might be a very minor change, in the sense that there are a couple more of those oddities, but other than that I think (and I hope) we'll not see any major shift. It would change the atmosphere too much.
Most of the gunpowder stuff came from Lantanese gnomes, who were guarding those secrets pretty well. The parts of Lantan that weren't destroyed by floods during the spellplague (4th ed.) were transported to Abeir, and when that was restored in 5th ed the inhabitants were even more guarded and secretive.
To be honest, your evidences point out to one thing - old scheme proved to be ineffective. Beamdog created new content true to original BG - same engine, same style, same characters. And sales were more than modest. While new isometric RPGs at the very same time made serious (enough) money, proving existence of the audience for that kind of games in general. Is not it logical for WotC to go where supposed money audience is? Us - old fans - are too few apparently to demand personal attention with games catering to our needs. But WotC looked around and saw that among new isometric RPG-makers Larian are the most successful, hence, it's more reasonable to let them try something new with WotC famous franchise.
There is not conspiracy here, not even necessarily greed - old style BG proved to be less interesting (less sales) than completely new games even in unknown setting (PoE). It's a simple choice - we tried old style, it did not work, the game, the name, the franchise will die unless we either keep it alive for free (aka pay our own money to let few fans be happy) or try something new.
It's not "no more old BG because Larian's BG3" but "old BG failed let's try new with Larian to keep the game alive".
P.S. And you can not truly believe a few jerks were the reason for the low commercial success of SoD.
@JuliusBorisov Sorry for offtopic.
I can, and I do. I was here for all of it. They not only bombed the forums with countless off topic comments and entire threads dedicated to nothing but hate and vitriol aimed directly at Mizhena (which you STILL see happen here occasionally), but also death threats sent to writers, as well as HUNDREDS of review bombs from people who never even played the game. If you look at reviews from confirmed game owners, they are consistently much higher. The controversy overshadowed everything else about the game.
On the other hand, I have no doubt that the controversy and review bombing of SoD DID affect its potential sales. I know, because I was nearly affected by it myself. I came late to the release of SoD (and so I don't have firsthand experience or knowledge of everything that went down), so while I was vaguely aware of some fracas surrounding a trans character and "SJW revisionists", all I really had to go on were the ratings and reviews on GoG, which are overwhelmingly negative. As ThacoBell points out, a lot of the negative reviews are from people who don't even own SoD, while the reviews from actual owners are generally more positive. Regardless, what convinced me to eventually buy SoD was my love for the BG series and the nostalgia of the past. I think that, had I been a completely new player with no ties to the BG series to tip me in the other direction, I would have been put off by the low score and negative reviews.
I'm glad I didn't give in to the negative press, because SoD hasn't been given a fair go, in my opinion. I got into an argument with some players on the GoG forums who are convinced that SoD is SJW propaganda, and that saddens me because I did not get that feeling at all while playing the game. There are spots SoD could have been done better, certainly, but on the whole it's still a fun, memorable romp through the Sword Coast with new friends and old. If there are other players like me out there, whether a newcomer to the BG series, or an old veteran seeking to revisit past destinations, that are turned off from buying SoD because of the hysteria (yes, I would call it that) surrounding SoD, I would consider that a great tragedy, all those players missing out on what is ultimately still a fun D&D game.
And apologies for continuing to derail this thread about BG3. XD
Have people in the hundred years finally learned to ride horses?
But on a more serious note, is there actually any nation in the Forgotten Realms that's particularly renowned for its cavalry?
There's the Tuigan Horde, standing in for the Mongols and Turks and the Golden Horde, which I would assume includes a certain penchant for horses. But again, I don't think they're particularly renowned for it beyond being "riding barbarians".
The there's the people of the Shaar, another steppe barbarian themed culture. Their horses are said to be better than any other, but unfortunately can only survive of grass that grows in the Shaar, or something. Also not particularly renowned as cavalry beyond that.
I was there too and bough SoD at the start like most of us here. There were many things people did not like - as with absolutely ANY franchise. Continuation is hard. However, all (I am pretty sure it's "all") BG fans are adults, capable to think on their own. @Zaxares is an example of it - he saw the score and reviews but judged by himself. So would do any individual confident in his ability to make to form a personal opinion. There are many modern examples in different media where trolls try (and succeed!) on lowering ratings at some sites but it did not affect the sales (take Captain Marvel, for example). If something is good it will go through when demand is there.
The audience is simply too small, only the best of the best (or the most shiny) stands out. WotC are searching for that "best". At the moment it's Larian. Let's see if it works.
I know, it looks like I dislike PfK (which is not true) but they had that cute animation when your party on the map was indicated by the chess-horse. Gave an idea, that the horses are indeed there
This is the Forgotten Realms. If you try to ride horses they'll probably grow tentacles and start to breath fire.
If you're LUCKY.
That actually reminds me of this other RPG system I used to play back in the 90's called "Dragon Warriors". They had a monster in their bestiary called Hippogriffs, but they're not the hippogriffs you might know from D&D. Rather, hippogriffs in the DW setting were fell creatures who resembled horses during the day (although they always have a feral, savage look about them), but as night fell they undergo a transformation, growing bat-like wings (which allowed them to fly), fangs and scales. They eat only raw flesh (which they go hunting for during their nightly transformations), and while they can be tamed for riding, magic (or an extremely foolhardy trainer) is usually required to accomplish this.
When i played 3.5e, there was in my party an goblin with an "crippling disease" but with extreme hgih int and he used to be mounted on other animasl 24/7 since he can't move. There are also rules for naval combat.
~dm_mylittlepony
Shall it never be forgotten.
https://www.denofgeek.com/us/games/pc-gaming/282565/baldurs-gate-legacy
“Baldur’s Gate was one of the first truly open-world fantasy RPGs in which player agency was part of the core narrative design,” Tofer says of what made Baldur’s Gate different from much of what came before. “The game encourages exploration and discovery, building out an entire world populated by unique characters, treasures, stories, and quests. Players got to choose their path and their decisions in one moment affected other parts of the game and story. At the time this choice was pretty revolutionary.”
“I’d argue that Baldur’s Gate is best known for its narrative design. It has scores of branching dialogue, interesting NPCs, and side quests all woven into the overarching epic storyline. Any Baldur’s Gate game brings with it the expectation that there will be a rich narrative with player choices that matter to the overall story.”
About SoD:
“What did we learn? Expectations. People want more of kind of the same. It's hard to describe. It's like I want more and I want different. Yeah. So it's just like, don't give me the same stuff, don't give me different stuff...The familiarity is so important. You play Baldur's Gate, you loved it, and then you think about coming back, it's like what was there?”
I definitely agree with that. Part of what I really loved about BG1 was just traipsing across the open world and seeing what lay over the next hill. Every map was unique, and had 3-4 unique encounters, some of which tied in to the bigger plot, and others that were just throwaway encounters that nonetheless proved memorable on their own. (I'm sure I wasn't the only one to stumble across the Ogre Mage Kahrk when I was waaaay too low level to take him on and wound up having to go "Yeah, I think I'll come back to this map later.") More modern RPGs have a tendency to try and link everything back to the main story, but part of what makes a fantasy world believable is diversity, having a lot of different factions at play, all with their own (and sometimes conflicting) agendas.
Ultima 7 on the other hand would qualify... only the first part though.
I've heard this a few times and I think I disagree. I think BG1 gives a bit of an illusion of being more open world than the second. Yes, there's a wide world of wilderness that you seem to march your guys thru every step of, but it's pretty sparse, and the almost all the quests contained in the first half are elementary. And even alot of its side content doesn't grant much in terms of experience.
There's only two side dungeons in the whole of the pre-cloakwood area (excluding Durlag here). And they're both one level. Whereas the second game has arguably seven dungeon or dungeon-esque areas associated with the stronghold questlines, all of which are complicated quests. Add the thief stronghold questline, which you can still do, the Copper Coronet sewers. And a whole bunch of minor stuff I forgot. There's a greater wealth of non-linear content in the game, imo, even if there might be literally fewer areas to walk thru.
It's true that 2's main quest line plays a bigger role, but even in that there's more branching. Bodhi or the shadow thieves, multiple ways out of the Underdark.
In bg1 there may be less to do but you cannot fill all maps with encounters if you consider the party level is low; it would become unbalanced. Bg1 also has all maps connect making an exact large worldmap if you joined them all. So yes, it really is an open world. Travel times are just to simulate between far away areas but they probably could not make it dynamic (0 time to any adjacent and x hours to the next, etc).
Bg2 could benefit from some "on the road" wilderness areas between the main locations, even if they would be more sparsely populated with npcs or quests. To me it would be more realistic. I mean, if you walk everywhere you might as well meet some people before you get there. Bg2 is more location based world and not a full open world(map).
While true-ish, this also still is exactly why the game doesn't count as open world.