@DinoDin It is art. Art is one of those philosophical wonders that give us significance and make us feel like we're not mere specks in the universe, even if we are. We can at least *pretend* or impart our own meaning onto it so we don't just feel empty inside trying to deal with our overgrown neocortexes! You can't just tell people that doesn't matter. It matters to a lot of people. There are people on this forum who are probably going through a low point in their lives, or dealing with severe mental illnesses, and one of the things that has helped them was living through this game.
I'm not blaming Larian for that. I'm not "blaming" anyone for that. But that sense of ownership of our own interpretations of a piece of art is not to be bastardized by anyone, because to a lot of people that's the only ownership they have of anything.
Imagine releasing trap music under Beethoven's name. Would that matter? Does the global interpretation of his timeless classical music amount to nothing?
It may seem like hyperbole to you, and to an extent it is. But I'd rather people launched a hyperbolic defense of their favorite piece of art than to let it rot away as if it never meant anything.
Larian's labor would be appreciated if their labor was applied in the right way. If builders knocked down your house, you wouldn't praise them for their labor, would you?
Again, I'm just baffled by this need for the combat system to be a certain way.
Having some consistency in core features is pretty important to a franchise. Street Fighter didn't suddenly become a cart racing game between 2 and 3. Neverwinter Nights didn't become a first person shooter between 1 and 2. If any of that happened, the fans of the previous games would rightly be mad about it. The differences between 3 and the first two are just as big.
No, those examples are objectively bigger changes than switching a CRPG from RTWP combat to turnbased combat
Sure, in a narrow, technical sense, but they all cross the threshold into being so unlike the previous installations in the series that it bears almost no relation. RTWP is an entirely separate experience than turn based, especially for those like me who almost never pause.
@DinoDin It is art. Art is one of those philosophical wonders that give us significance and make us feel like we're not mere specks in the universe, even if we are. We can at least *pretend* or impart our own meaning onto it so we don't just feel empty inside trying to deal with our overgrown neocortexes! You can't just tell people that doesn't matter. It matters to a lot of people. There are people on this forum who are probably going through a low point in their lives, or dealing with severe mental illnesses, and one of the things that has helped them was living through this game.
I'm not blaming Larian for that. I'm not "blaming" anyone for that. But that sense of ownership of our own interpretations of a piece of art is not to be bastardized by anyone, because to a lot of people that's the only ownership they have of anything.
Imagine releasing trap music under Beethoven's name. Would that matter? Does the global interpretation of his timeless classical music amount to nothing?
It may seem like hyperbole to you, and to an extent it is. But I'd rather people launched a hyperbolic defense of their favorite piece of art than to let it rot away as if it never meant anything.
Larian's labor would be appreciated if their labor was applied in the right way. If builders knocked down your house, you wouldn't praise them for their labor, would you?
Art isn't owned by its consumers though. It's owned by its creators.
In fact the best art, generally speaking, has been that which doesn't try to placate some specific fanbase, but is instead the most sincere expression of the creator's own mind.
Again, I'm just baffled by this need for the combat system to be a certain way.
Having some consistency in core features is pretty important to a franchise. Street Fighter didn't suddenly become a cart racing game between 2 and 3. Neverwinter Nights didn't become a first person shooter between 1 and 2. If any of that happened, the fans of the previous games would rightly be mad about it. The differences between 3 and the first two are just as big.
No, those examples are objectively bigger changes than switching a CRPG from RTWP combat to turnbased combat
Sure, in a narrow, technical sense, but they all cross the threshold into being so unlike the previous installations in the series that it bears almost no relation. RTWP is an entirely separate experience than turn based, especially for those like me who almost never pause.
Not at all in a narrow, technical sense. BG3 is still a CRPG. Street Fighter Racing is not a fighting game.
And don't even get me started on the lore breaks. Illithid ceremorphosis kills you in a few hours. There is no time to travel to a new city, or find a healer, or even *rest*.
Again, I'm just baffled by this need for the combat system to be a certain way.
Having some consistency in core features is pretty important to a franchise. Street Fighter didn't suddenly become a cart racing game between 2 and 3. Neverwinter Nights didn't become a first person shooter between 1 and 2. If any of that happened, the fans of the previous games would rightly be mad about it. The differences between 3 and the first two are just as big.
No, those examples are objectively bigger changes than switching a CRPG from RTWP combat to turnbased combat
Sure, in a narrow, technical sense, but they all cross the threshold into being so unlike the previous installations in the series that it bears almost no relation. RTWP is an entirely separate experience than turn based, especially for those like me who almost never pause.
Not at all in a narrow, technical sense. BG3 is still a CRPG. Street Fighter Racing is not a fighting game.
Forest for the trees, friend. You're trying so hard to be right you're failing to understand me. Fans of the original series, when presented with a sequel, can tolerate deviation, as long as it isn't too much, and it "feels" like part of the series. Deviate too much and any sense of that continuity is lost, and after that, it doesn't matter how much further you go because they are already turned off. BG3 crosses this threshold, and in that sense, it's just as bad as if they turned it into a competitive fishing game, because I and other fans have already checked out mentally.
Of course this doesn't apply to everyone. Some will enjoy it because it has Baldurs Gate in the name and some will enjoy it because they just like RPGs in general. But for people who wanted what they were offered, an actual sequel in any possible sense of the term besides some bland token throwbacks, it's a total disaster.
@DinoDin Its creators were Bioware. Bioware's vision for the franchise should've been respected. It is sacrilege. It's hard to even see how it isn't. Even if you like that BG3 is sacrilegious, you can't honestly say that it isn't with a straight face.
@DinoDin Its creators were Bioware. Bioware's vision for the franchise should've been respected. It is sacrilege. It's hard to even see how it isn't. Even if you like that BG3 is sacrilegious, you can't honestly say that it isn't with a straight face.
I... think I disagree with this. Entirely. Completely. There may be literally no common ground here.
I dont think it is remotely sacrilege for an entirely different studio to make an iteration of a franchise in their own style and to their own tastes.
You're not required to like it. You're not required to buy it, support it or defend it. They are allowed to make it. The owner of the IP gave them the legal and creative direction to do what they want with it.
Furthermore, I suspect if you asked Sven if he felt he was upholding Bioware's vision for the BG franchise, he'd say he is. It's a matter of interpretation
Again, I'm just baffled by this need for the combat system to be a certain way.
Having some consistency in core features is pretty important to a franchise. Street Fighter didn't suddenly become a cart racing game between 2 and 3. Neverwinter Nights didn't become a first person shooter between 1 and 2. If any of that happened, the fans of the previous games would rightly be mad about it. The differences between 3 and the first two are just as big.
No, those examples are objectively bigger changes than switching a CRPG from RTWP combat to turnbased combat
Sure, in a narrow, technical sense, but they all cross the threshold into being so unlike the previous installations in the series that it bears almost no relation. RTWP is an entirely separate experience than turn based, especially for those like me who almost never pause.
Not at all in a narrow, technical sense. BG3 is still a CRPG. Street Fighter Racing is not a fighting game.
Forest for the trees, friend. You're trying so hard to be right you're failing to understand me. Fans of the original series, when presented with a sequel, can tolerate deviation, as long as it isn't too much, and it "feels" like part of the series. Deviate too much and any sense of that continuity is lost, and after that, it doesn't matter how much further you go because they are already turned off. BG3 crosses this threshold, and in that sense, it's just as bad as if they turned it into a competitive fishing game, because I and other fans have already checked out mentally.
If you're going to make an argument, make it sincere. Don't rely on hyperbole. It's much easier to grasp one's meaning in text if you avoid hyperbole.
Few would agree that a different combat system = different genre of game. The fact that Deadfire and the newest Pathfinder game have both, undermines your claim that different combat systems is equivalent to completely switching the genre.
But this is really what I take issue with: "Fans of the original series"
In what sense can you speak for that group? I would never be so presumptuous to say this. This kind of rhetoric reminds me of the frequent way politicians say "the American people think x" and then just insert into x whatever the politician thinks. And frankly there's no evidence that fans of the original series, 1. matter enough to determine BG3's success, 2. are in agreement with your take on the combat.
D:OS3 BG3 is to the BG Trilogy to what Fallout 3 was to the original Fallout games. Only difference is one studio changed a TB RPG franchise into an action RPG, the other studio did the reverse.
Again, I'm just baffled by this need for the combat system to be a certain way.
Having some consistency in core features is pretty important to a franchise. Street Fighter didn't suddenly become a cart racing game between 2 and 3. Neverwinter Nights didn't become a first person shooter between 1 and 2. If any of that happened, the fans of the previous games would rightly be mad about it. The differences between 3 and the first two are just as big.
No, those examples are objectively bigger changes than switching a CRPG from RTWP combat to turnbased combat
Sure, in a narrow, technical sense, but they all cross the threshold into being so unlike the previous installations in the series that it bears almost no relation. RTWP is an entirely separate experience than turn based, especially for those like me who almost never pause.
Not at all in a narrow, technical sense. BG3 is still a CRPG. Street Fighter Racing is not a fighting game.
Forest for the trees, friend. You're trying so hard to be right you're failing to understand me. Fans of the original series, when presented with a sequel, can tolerate deviation, as long as it isn't too much, and it "feels" like part of the series. Deviate too much and any sense of that continuity is lost, and after that, it doesn't matter how much further you go because they are already turned off. BG3 crosses this threshold, and in that sense, it's just as bad as if they turned it into a competitive fishing game, because I and other fans have already checked out mentally.
If you're going to make an argument, make it sincere. Don't rely on hyperbole. It's much easier to grasp one's meaning in text if you avoid hyperbole.
Few would agree that a different combat system = different genre of game. The fact that Deadfire and the newest Pathfinder game have both, undermines your claim that different combat systems is equivalent to completely switching the genre.
But this is really what I take issue with: "Fans of the original series"
In what sense can you speak for that group? I would never be so presumptuous to say this. This kind of rhetoric reminds me of the frequent way politicians say "the American people think x" and then just insert into x whatever the politician thinks. And frankly there's no evidence that fans of the original series, 1. matter enough to determine BG3's success, 2. are in agreement with your take on the combat.
I can do whatever I want, actually. I'm not making an argument, I'm complaining. If you want to nitpick that, go ahead, but let's not pretend my views on a video game are a topic of serious discussion.
@DinoDin Its creators were Bioware. Bioware's vision for the franchise should've been respected. It is sacrilege. It's hard to even see how it isn't. Even if you like that BG3 is sacrilegious, you can't honestly say that it isn't with a straight face.
I think this post goes a great deal to demonstrating what I was saying in my previous post.
Sacrilege? You telling me what I think? Again, it's not healthy to have this kind of possessive attitude about things that, at the end of the day, are just consumer entertainment products. Not saying there's anything wrong with those -- they're a big part of what makes life great. But they're not *yours".
This might be set in the D&D universe. This is not a Baldur's Gate game.
Real Time with pause defined Baldur's Gate. If this is ONLY turned based combat why even call it Baldur's Gate? It's just a DOS reskinned game then. The stream was a complete disaster today. They gave us easily the most boring combat demo i have ever seen. If they don't revise the combat system to be Real Time with pause then they forgot what people want from a Baldur's Gate game. Beamdog would of been more faithful to BG3 then how Larian is "envisioning" the spiritual successor to BG3. Stunningly Disappointing.
@DinoDin Its creators were Bioware. Bioware's vision for the franchise should've been respected. It is sacrilege. It's hard to even see how it isn't. Even if you like that BG3 is sacrilegious, you can't honestly say that it isn't with a straight face.
I... think I disagree with this. Entirely. Completely. There may be literally no common ground here.
I dont think it is remotely sacrilege for an entirely different studio to make an iteration of a franchise in their own style and to their own tastes.
You're not required to like it. You're not required to buy it, support it or defend it. They are allowed to make it. The owner of the IP gave them the legal and creative direction to do what they want with it.
Furthermore, I suspect if you asked Sven if he felt he was upholding Bioware's vision for the BG franchise, he'd say he is. It's a matter of interpretation
If we all held the same opinion one way or the other, there would be no debate.....and here we have the issue.
The fanbase is divided. Even more so this time than SoD (don't even get me started on that...). The only way I can see us uniting again is if it absolutely *blows* expectations out of the water. I'm talking Ocarina of Time-level good. Not just "Oh, this is a decent game, I'll play this for 5 minutes!" level good. That won't cut the mustard, and it won't cut the mustard for a lot of people.
Larian have time now to *listen* to us. And by "us" I don't mean just the rtwp people. I mean all of us. Take into consideration our complaints, our wants, our concerns. And give us the best possible version of their vision so it can *at least* be appreciated in its own right, irrespective of what's gone before. It's not impossible, but half the fanbase is hanging on here. If they let us go, the other half won't be enough to carry them, and I can guarantee it.
@DinoDin Its creators were Bioware. Bioware's vision for the franchise should've been respected. It is sacrilege. It's hard to even see how it isn't. Even if you like that BG3 is sacrilegious, you can't honestly say that it isn't with a straight face.
I... think I disagree with this. Entirely. Completely. There may be literally no common ground here.
I dont think it is remotely sacrilege for an entirely different studio to make an iteration of a franchise in their own style and to their own tastes.
You're not required to like it. You're not required to buy it, support it or defend it. They are allowed to make it. The owner of the IP gave them the legal and creative direction to do what they want with it.
Furthermore, I suspect if you asked Sven if he felt he was upholding Bioware's vision for the BG franchise, he'd say he is. It's a matter of interpretation
Well said. If anything, there's clearly a lot of Dragon Age inspiration in this title, which is likely what BG3 would have looked like if Bioware made it.
D:OS3 BG3 is to the BG Trilogy to what Fallout 3 was to the original Fallout games. Only difference is one studio changed a TB RPG franchise into an action RPG, the other studio did the reverse.
The felt disappointment is all the same for many.
this is how i feel about the situation as well. this is not baldurs gate. this is dos 3 with a bg skin.
had this been an original dnd game not called bg 3 for marketing purposes i would not have minded. but they want people to think this is a continuation of the originals when it obviously is not. it's like what happend with dragon age 2. it was meant to be a spin off but ea forced bioware to add a 2 for marketing reasons.
i know i can just ignore it and not buy it but i can still share my disappointment.
Larian have time now to *listen* to us. And by "us" I don't mean just the rtwp people. I mean all of us. Take into consideration our complaints, our wants, our concerns. And give us the best possible version of their vision so it can *at least* be appreciated in its own right, irrespective of what's gone before. It's not impossible, but half the fanbase is hanging on here. If they let us go, the other half won't be enough to carry them, and I can guarantee it.
I've said this before on these boards, but it warrants repeating now. Why should they listen to the fanbase?
Look, in terms of quality assurance, maybe tweaking a few game systems, maybe adding some minor features, yes, all typical beta test feedback, of course I agree with fan input there.
But why listen to fans about fundamental decisions like how to organize the combat system? Why not let the artists make their art in the way they want to. I don't agree that this game needs to be focus grouped, at all. The best video games I've played, including the original BG's, weren't games that tried to bring fans on board in a deep way in the creative process. Bad and mediocre games tend to be the ones that try too hard to cater to what fans want.
Edit to add: And of course bears mentioning that just because people are intense fans of games, doesn't at all mean they're going to have any insight on how to make games.
Larian have time now to *listen* to us. And by "us" I don't mean just the rtwp people. I mean all of us. Take into consideration our complaints, our wants, our concerns. And give us the best possible version of their vision so it can *at least* be appreciated in its own right, irrespective of what's gone before. It's not impossible, but half the fanbase is hanging on here. If they let us go, the other half won't be enough to carry them, and I can guarantee it.
I've said this before on these boards, but it warrants repeating now. Why should they listen to the fanbase?
Look, in terms of quality assurance, maybe tweaking a few game systems, maybe adding some minor features, yes, all typical beta test feedback, of course I agree with fan input there.
But why listen to fans about fundamental decisions like how to organize the combat system? Why not let the artists make their art in the way they want to. I don't agree that this game needs to be focus grouped, at all. The best video games I've played, including the original BG's, weren't games that tried to bring fans on board in a deep way in the creative process. Bad and mediocre games tend to be the ones that try too hard to cater to what fans want.
Edit to add: And of course bears mentioning that just because people are intense fans of games, doesn't at all mean they're going to have any insight on how to make games.
But the difference is this is an *established franchise.* It's not completely original material. It already has its own universe and its own flavor that fans like the taste of. You can't just deviate away from that and use the excuse "It's mine now, tough luck!" That's dictatorial, and no one likes a dictator.
You said it yourself; consumer demand is important. If it's that important, don't you think they should listen to us? If they don't, half of us are gone anyway. You think it's an effective business model to alienate half of a fanbase?
they arnt even listening to the bg fans. if anything they are listening to their own fans which is why bg 3 is taking so much from dos 2.
I think people are noticing things that stand out from BG, and hence why it seems like they are taking alot from OS2, but, it's really just the fact of TB combat and the background stories, from what I can tell. Obviously the basic game engine itself is from OS, but that engine was based on the IE games in the first place. There's more interactivity with objects too, but I think we all expected that, even if there had never been OS games. Deadfire and Kingmaker have upped interactivity as well. And it's clearly not the same, elemental focused system as OS.
Literally everything else is D&D. And even the TB combat isn't the same as it is in OS, it's more akin to how XCOM does turns. The effective strategies in such a system are going to be quite different than from OS.
Larian have time now to *listen* to us. And by "us" I don't mean just the rtwp people. I mean all of us. Take into consideration our complaints, our wants, our concerns. And give us the best possible version of their vision so it can *at least* be appreciated in its own right, irrespective of what's gone before. It's not impossible, but half the fanbase is hanging on here. If they let us go, the other half won't be enough to carry them, and I can guarantee it.
I've said this before on these boards, but it warrants repeating now. Why should they listen to the fanbase?
Look, in terms of quality assurance, maybe tweaking a few game systems, maybe adding some minor features, yes, all typical beta test feedback, of course I agree with fan input there.
But why listen to fans about fundamental decisions like how to organize the combat system? Why not let the artists make their art in the way they want to. I don't agree that this game needs to be focus grouped, at all. The best video games I've played, including the original BG's, weren't games that tried to bring fans on board in a deep way in the creative process. Bad and mediocre games tend to be the ones that try too hard to cater to what fans want.
Edit to add: And of course bears mentioning that just because people are intense fans of games, doesn't at all mean they're going to have any insight on how to make games.
But the difference is this is an *established franchise.* It's not completely original material. It already has its own universe and its own flavor that fans like the taste of. You can't just deviate away from that and use the excuse "It's mine now, tough luck!" That's dictatorial, and no one likes a dictator.
You said it yourself; consumer demand is important. If it's that important, don't you think they should listen to us? If they don't, half of us are gone anyway. You think it's an effective business model to alienate half of a fanbase?
again this is the same thing Bethesda did with fallout. fallout 3 took elements from the original games but for the most part is nothing like those in terms of style. only new vegas felt like the old games and that is due to the people that worked on fallout 2 worked on that game so they under stood the universe.
and just like larian Bethesda were fans of fallout. but just because your a fan of a series and you take it over does not mean you understand the spirit.
Also you do not have cooldowns for starters, you have to rest to regain abilities so you have a limited number of spells you can use in combat. You do not do more damage from above, like in dos games, you can sneak everywhere in dos games, not in shadows or places with cover, You do not have character classes so your character can learn any ability or spell, you do not have to roll to see if you make it, you do it or not in dos....etc, etc, To be honest, the only thing they have in common is that they are both turn-based games, and as @DinoDin said you move your entire party in your initiative, you do not get alternative turns like in Dos games.
You said it yourself; consumer demand is important. If it's that important, don't you think they should listen to us? If they don't, half of us are gone anyway. You think it's an effective business model to alienate half of a fanbase?
No, I don't think they should listen to the hardcore fanbase at all when it comes to core design decisions.
There's no evidence that gamers can give any insight into what will make a successful video game. Players have no clue about the limitations of the engine, what's the labor cost of making a new feature viable, etc.
I include myself in this, btw. This is why you don't see me advocating for specific features that I do tend to enjoy. I'd prefer RTwP too, I'd prefer a six person party. But I would rather play games that were completely liberated to be designed how its designers intended. Fans need to stop pretending that they speak for more people than themselves for one. But even if they did, they need to stop insisting on having some kind of key control over the direction of products! Again, you're free to boycott the game if it upsets alot.
I, on the other hand, will continue to enjoy and be surprised by studios taking risks and offering gameplay systems that are fresh, exciting, and a sincere expression of their creators' wishes.
Yea I'm sorry but yes I'm a little disappointed. Yes it's not exactly OS3 but it looks to have more in spirit with OS than Baldur's Gate. Other than it being DnD it doesn't really look to play much like the series I love. I'm sure it will still be great in it's own right but just as Fallout 3 killed CRPG Fallout, Baldur's Gate 3 has ended any hope for classic Baldur's Gate. Plenty of people will enjoy it but it looks mostly like the people who will like it the most are those that didn't actually like how Baldur's Gate played.
Almost like the Final Fantasy VII Remake where people are getting excited because it's no longer turn based and that turn based was not fun in the first place where you have to ask do you even like the original because what you want the Remake to be is a totally different game.
@DinoDin You do realize a lot of people here are devs themselves (including those that work for Beamdog), right?
Regulations are in place to prevent that exact thing you are advocating for. Not just in gaming, but in most areas. Dictatorships in the name of art are no better than dictatorships in other walks of life. It's not a good enough excuse to just say "But creative control!!!!"
Video games are not paintings. Many people work on them, and synergy between fans and developers has always been key to a flourishing industry (contrary to what you seem to think). There has to be at least some semblance of a hive mind, because you are selling your product to possibly millions of people. That doesn't mean sacrificing your creative input. It means tuning it to the same frequency as the community you are representing. Otherwise you are just making video games *you* would like to play....and that makes absolutely no sense.
Yea I'm sorry but yes I'm a little disappointed. Yes it's not exactly OS3 but it looks to have more in spirit with OS than Baldur's Gate. Other than it being DnD it doesn't really look to play much like the series I love. I'm sure it will still be great in it's own right but just as Fallout 3 killed CRPG Fallout, Baldur's Gate 3 has ended any hope for classic Baldur's Gate. Plenty of people will enjoy it but it looks mostly like the people who will like it the most are those that didn't actually like how Baldur's Gate played.
Almost like the Final Fantasy VII Remake where people are getting excited because it's no longer turn based and that turn based was not fun in the first place where you have to ask do you even like the original because what you want the Remake to be is a totally different game.
oh don't get me started on the ff7 remake. i don't trust modern square to make that game good and already have low expectations for that. the fact there is a chance it could never get finished [ it''s gonna be episodic] does not help matters.
@DinoDin You do realize a lot of people here are devs themselves (including those that work for Beamdog), right?
Regulations are in place to prevent that exact thing you are advocating for. Not just in gaming, but in most areas. Dictatorships in the name of art are no better than dictatorships in other walks of life. It's not a good enough excuse to just say "But creative control!!!!"
Video games are not paintings. Many people work on them, and synergy between fans and developers has always been key to a flourishing industry (contrary to what you seem to think). There has to be at least some semblance of a hive mind, because you are selling your product to possibly millions of people. That doesn't mean sacrificing your creative input. It means tuning it to the same frequency as the community you are representing. Otherwise you are just making video games *you* would like to play....and that makes absolutely no sense.
Developers making games they would want to play sounds like the best formula for churning out truly classic titles. Pretty sure if the unknown at the time studio of Bioware announced they were making a D&D game with realtime combat it would have been vetoed by that era's D&D or CRPG fanbase.
I'm aware some Beamdog employees comment here. And, coincidentally, they're the ones who post the most optimistic and open-minded takes on what Larian is doing.
@DinoDin You do realize a lot of people here are devs themselves (including those that work for Beamdog), right?
Regulations are in place to prevent that exact thing you are advocating for. Not just in gaming, but in most areas. Dictatorships in the name of art are no better than dictatorships in other walks of life. It's not a good enough excuse to just say "But creative control!!!!"
Video games are not paintings. Many people work on them, and synergy between fans and developers has always been key to a flourishing industry (contrary to what you seem to think). There has to be at least some semblance of a hive mind, because you are selling your product to possibly millions of people. That doesn't mean sacrificing your creative input. It means tuning it to the same frequency as the community you are representing. Otherwise you are just making video games *you* would like to play....and that makes absolutely no sense.
Developers making games they would want to play sounds like the best formula for churning out truly classic titles. Pretty sure if the unknown at the time studio of Bioware announced they were making a D&D game with realtime combat it would have been vetoed by that era's fanbase.
I'm aware some Beamdog employees comment here. And, coincidentally, they're the ones who actually post the most optimistic and open-minded takes on what Larian is doing.
thats a bad example. besides fallout 1 and 2 crpgs were kinda dead before baldurs gate 1. if anything it revived them.
Comments
I'm not blaming Larian for that. I'm not "blaming" anyone for that. But that sense of ownership of our own interpretations of a piece of art is not to be bastardized by anyone, because to a lot of people that's the only ownership they have of anything.
Imagine releasing trap music under Beethoven's name. Would that matter? Does the global interpretation of his timeless classical music amount to nothing?
It may seem like hyperbole to you, and to an extent it is. But I'd rather people launched a hyperbolic defense of their favorite piece of art than to let it rot away as if it never meant anything.
Larian's labor would be appreciated if their labor was applied in the right way. If builders knocked down your house, you wouldn't praise them for their labor, would you?
Sure, in a narrow, technical sense, but they all cross the threshold into being so unlike the previous installations in the series that it bears almost no relation. RTWP is an entirely separate experience than turn based, especially for those like me who almost never pause.
Art isn't owned by its consumers though. It's owned by its creators.
In fact the best art, generally speaking, has been that which doesn't try to placate some specific fanbase, but is instead the most sincere expression of the creator's own mind.
Not at all in a narrow, technical sense. BG3 is still a CRPG. Street Fighter Racing is not a fighting game.
Forest for the trees, friend. You're trying so hard to be right you're failing to understand me. Fans of the original series, when presented with a sequel, can tolerate deviation, as long as it isn't too much, and it "feels" like part of the series. Deviate too much and any sense of that continuity is lost, and after that, it doesn't matter how much further you go because they are already turned off. BG3 crosses this threshold, and in that sense, it's just as bad as if they turned it into a competitive fishing game, because I and other fans have already checked out mentally.
Of course this doesn't apply to everyone. Some will enjoy it because it has Baldurs Gate in the name and some will enjoy it because they just like RPGs in general. But for people who wanted what they were offered, an actual sequel in any possible sense of the term besides some bland token throwbacks, it's a total disaster.
I... think I disagree with this. Entirely. Completely. There may be literally no common ground here.
I dont think it is remotely sacrilege for an entirely different studio to make an iteration of a franchise in their own style and to their own tastes.
You're not required to like it. You're not required to buy it, support it or defend it. They are allowed to make it. The owner of the IP gave them the legal and creative direction to do what they want with it.
Furthermore, I suspect if you asked Sven if he felt he was upholding Bioware's vision for the BG franchise, he'd say he is. It's a matter of interpretation
If you're going to make an argument, make it sincere. Don't rely on hyperbole. It's much easier to grasp one's meaning in text if you avoid hyperbole.
Few would agree that a different combat system = different genre of game. The fact that Deadfire and the newest Pathfinder game have both, undermines your claim that different combat systems is equivalent to completely switching the genre.
But this is really what I take issue with: "Fans of the original series"
In what sense can you speak for that group? I would never be so presumptuous to say this. This kind of rhetoric reminds me of the frequent way politicians say "the American people think x" and then just insert into x whatever the politician thinks. And frankly there's no evidence that fans of the original series, 1. matter enough to determine BG3's success, 2. are in agreement with your take on the combat.
The felt disappointment is all the same for many.
I can do whatever I want, actually. I'm not making an argument, I'm complaining. If you want to nitpick that, go ahead, but let's not pretend my views on a video game are a topic of serious discussion.
I think this post goes a great deal to demonstrating what I was saying in my previous post.
Sacrilege? You telling me what I think? Again, it's not healthy to have this kind of possessive attitude about things that, at the end of the day, are just consumer entertainment products. Not saying there's anything wrong with those -- they're a big part of what makes life great. But they're not *yours".
Real Time with pause defined Baldur's Gate. If this is ONLY turned based combat why even call it Baldur's Gate? It's just a DOS reskinned game then. The stream was a complete disaster today. They gave us easily the most boring combat demo i have ever seen. If they don't revise the combat system to be Real Time with pause then they forgot what people want from a Baldur's Gate game. Beamdog would of been more faithful to BG3 then how Larian is "envisioning" the spiritual successor to BG3. Stunningly Disappointing.
If we all held the same opinion one way or the other, there would be no debate.....and here we have the issue.
The fanbase is divided. Even more so this time than SoD (don't even get me started on that...). The only way I can see us uniting again is if it absolutely *blows* expectations out of the water. I'm talking Ocarina of Time-level good. Not just "Oh, this is a decent game, I'll play this for 5 minutes!" level good. That won't cut the mustard, and it won't cut the mustard for a lot of people.
Larian have time now to *listen* to us. And by "us" I don't mean just the rtwp people. I mean all of us. Take into consideration our complaints, our wants, our concerns. And give us the best possible version of their vision so it can *at least* be appreciated in its own right, irrespective of what's gone before. It's not impossible, but half the fanbase is hanging on here. If they let us go, the other half won't be enough to carry them, and I can guarantee it.
Well said. If anything, there's clearly a lot of Dragon Age inspiration in this title, which is likely what BG3 would have looked like if Bioware made it.
this is how i feel about the situation as well. this is not baldurs gate. this is dos 3 with a bg skin.
had this been an original dnd game not called bg 3 for marketing purposes i would not have minded. but they want people to think this is a continuation of the originals when it obviously is not. it's like what happend with dragon age 2. it was meant to be a spin off but ea forced bioware to add a 2 for marketing reasons.
i know i can just ignore it and not buy it but i can still share my disappointment.
I've said this before on these boards, but it warrants repeating now. Why should they listen to the fanbase?
Look, in terms of quality assurance, maybe tweaking a few game systems, maybe adding some minor features, yes, all typical beta test feedback, of course I agree with fan input there.
But why listen to fans about fundamental decisions like how to organize the combat system? Why not let the artists make their art in the way they want to. I don't agree that this game needs to be focus grouped, at all. The best video games I've played, including the original BG's, weren't games that tried to bring fans on board in a deep way in the creative process. Bad and mediocre games tend to be the ones that try too hard to cater to what fans want.
Edit to add: And of course bears mentioning that just because people are intense fans of games, doesn't at all mean they're going to have any insight on how to make games.
But the difference is this is an *established franchise.* It's not completely original material. It already has its own universe and its own flavor that fans like the taste of. You can't just deviate away from that and use the excuse "It's mine now, tough luck!" That's dictatorial, and no one likes a dictator.
You said it yourself; consumer demand is important. If it's that important, don't you think they should listen to us? If they don't, half of us are gone anyway. You think it's an effective business model to alienate half of a fanbase?
I think people are noticing things that stand out from BG, and hence why it seems like they are taking alot from OS2, but, it's really just the fact of TB combat and the background stories, from what I can tell. Obviously the basic game engine itself is from OS, but that engine was based on the IE games in the first place. There's more interactivity with objects too, but I think we all expected that, even if there had never been OS games. Deadfire and Kingmaker have upped interactivity as well. And it's clearly not the same, elemental focused system as OS.
Literally everything else is D&D. And even the TB combat isn't the same as it is in OS, it's more akin to how XCOM does turns. The effective strategies in such a system are going to be quite different than from OS.
again this is the same thing Bethesda did with fallout. fallout 3 took elements from the original games but for the most part is nothing like those in terms of style. only new vegas felt like the old games and that is due to the people that worked on fallout 2 worked on that game so they under stood the universe.
and just like larian Bethesda were fans of fallout. but just because your a fan of a series and you take it over does not mean you understand the spirit.
No, I don't think they should listen to the hardcore fanbase at all when it comes to core design decisions.
There's no evidence that gamers can give any insight into what will make a successful video game. Players have no clue about the limitations of the engine, what's the labor cost of making a new feature viable, etc.
I include myself in this, btw. This is why you don't see me advocating for specific features that I do tend to enjoy. I'd prefer RTwP too, I'd prefer a six person party. But I would rather play games that were completely liberated to be designed how its designers intended. Fans need to stop pretending that they speak for more people than themselves for one. But even if they did, they need to stop insisting on having some kind of key control over the direction of products! Again, you're free to boycott the game if it upsets alot.
I, on the other hand, will continue to enjoy and be surprised by studios taking risks and offering gameplay systems that are fresh, exciting, and a sincere expression of their creators' wishes.
Almost like the Final Fantasy VII Remake where people are getting excited because it's no longer turn based and that turn based was not fun in the first place where you have to ask do you even like the original because what you want the Remake to be is a totally different game.
Regulations are in place to prevent that exact thing you are advocating for. Not just in gaming, but in most areas. Dictatorships in the name of art are no better than dictatorships in other walks of life. It's not a good enough excuse to just say "But creative control!!!!"
Video games are not paintings. Many people work on them, and synergy between fans and developers has always been key to a flourishing industry (contrary to what you seem to think). There has to be at least some semblance of a hive mind, because you are selling your product to possibly millions of people. That doesn't mean sacrificing your creative input. It means tuning it to the same frequency as the community you are representing. Otherwise you are just making video games *you* would like to play....and that makes absolutely no sense.
oh don't get me started on the ff7 remake. i don't trust modern square to make that game good and already have low expectations for that. the fact there is a chance it could never get finished [ it''s gonna be episodic] does not help matters.
Developers making games they would want to play sounds like the best formula for churning out truly classic titles. Pretty sure if the unknown at the time studio of Bioware announced they were making a D&D game with realtime combat it would have been vetoed by that era's D&D or CRPG fanbase.
I'm aware some Beamdog employees comment here. And, coincidentally, they're the ones who post the most optimistic and open-minded takes on what Larian is doing.
thats a bad example. besides fallout 1 and 2 crpgs were kinda dead before baldurs gate 1. if anything it revived them.