@JuliusBorisov I seem to recall Sven not knowing how BG2 ends until it was played in the office. "Some people at Larian playing BG" does not equate to the creative lead knowing what he's doing.
"Think about it: would you prefer their team to attempt an experiment creating BG3 (rtwp) or use all their experience from many years (tb)? I certainly would prefer the latter."
If turn based is all they know, they were a bad choice to begin with. Full stop. I'd rather have a develop that knows rtwp and has demonstrated that they know how to make a game that looks and feels like BG. Like Beamdog, or Obsidian.
@ThacoBell its not a discussion when someone like you doesn’t acknowledge clear facts. I’d rather discuss the game with people that actually are interested in it
You keep using "clear facts" for things that are opinions. You're "facts" are surprisingly easy to poke holes in.
Turn-based suits D&D, full stop. You don't agree with that, - ok. But it suits D&D.
Look, Swen really likes BG. How else he would name Minsc as his most favourite NPC? He told about that during PAX East, 2019. https://www.twitch.tv/videos/402524252?t=
Developing smth you're skilled at (TB) would provide a much better game. BG is not about combat mode in the first place. It's about the feeling of exploration, companions, story. But people can have other opinions on this. ofc.
@JuliusBorisov "Turn-based suits D&D, full stop. You don't agree with that, - ok. But it suits D&D."
Baldur's Gate isn't full D&D. Its an adaptation that tooks what doesn't work translating from tabletop and made something better. I am a casual D&D fan. I am a huge BG fan. These things are not identical. If this was JUST a D&D game, Larian would have my full blessing. I might even be cautiously excited, despite being turn based. The Issue is that Larian is seemingly dropping everything that set BG apart as more than jsut another D&D game.
Yes, this is the core of your resistance. You're paying attention to the BG games, first and foremost. WotC, Larian are paying attention to D&D, first and foremost.
If you consider BG was an adaptation of D&D, probably you can allow for a thought that probably there can be other adaptations, not RtwP.
Yes, this is the core of your resistance. You're paying attention to the BG games, first and foremost. WotC, Larian are paying attention to D&D, first and foremost.
If you consider BG was an adaptation of D&D, probably you can allow for a thought that probably there can be other adaptations, not RtwP.
This is the criticism I don't get from Larian/TB detractors. Sorry but any BG game has to be a Forgotten Realms game before that, and has to be a D&D game before that. WotC isn't going to greenlight projects that use outdated rulesets and wants a game that looks like modern D&D. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that priority! D&D existed long before the BG series and will long outlive it. D&D is the franchise, not actually BG.
I'm not a big fan of the '20 years in the making' statement. I was listening to Whats Good Games podcast and when they got to the Baldurs Gate 3 preview I had to turn it off they seemed so misinformed asking if it played like Diablo and such, not there fault they weren't familiar with the series but it still made me a bit sad. Like if people watched the OT Star Wars Trilogy and thought it was lamed and the new trilogy is much more popular. At the end of it they were saying Baldurs Gates not been relevant for decades and it was dead and no new games have came out. Despite what Beamdog have done it's just forgotten and ignored and that's a shame that legacy isn't appreciated.
Anyway but they read the Larian PR statement and it says '20 years in the making' which feels disingenuous, like Larian have been involved with reviving the BG IP since BG2 or something when in reality they have been drafted in the last few years and the game is rather unrelated except being DnD.
Yes, this is the core of your resistance. You're paying attention to the BG games, first and foremost. WotC, Larian are paying attention to D&D, first and foremost.
If you consider BG was an adaptation of D&D, probably you can allow for a thought that probably there can be other adaptations, not RtwP.
This is the criticism I don't get from Larian/TB detractors. Sorry but any BG game has to be a Forgotten Realms game before that, and has to be a D&D game before that. WotC isn't going to greenlight projects that use outdated rulesets and wants a game that looks like modern D&D. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that priority! D&D existed long before the BG series and will long outlive it. D&D is the franchise, not actually BG.
Which sorts of circles back to the argument that they should not have called it Baldur's Gate 3.
Personally, I don't really care about how they name the series, one way or the other. I may complain myself from time to time, but it is mostly about how they seem to be implementing the rules and how it looks a lot like D:OS. But on the name? It's not as if they can hurt the original series.
The original games are over and done, and I don't need a sequel to them myself. The rules have changed and so have the Realms.
I would have preferred them to pick a different setting. I don't think the Baldur's Gate area is that interesting (yes, even though I loved the first game) & there are so many places in the Realms which never got an official cRPG. Amn was a lot more interesting as well, especially with that sweet Mosaic art. I wouldn't have said no to go back to the Moonsea either. Making it play in BG again feels like the safe but boring option.
Still, I'll give every decent looking D&D game a try. So I'll wait and see.
I think it just means it was wanted/talked about/planned/discussed/thought of for twenty years, not literally "We were involved in it for 20 years". Because it definitely has history, between enhanced editions and in-between stories and mods and attempts to realize a third that didn't come to fruition. Tus in my opinion 20 years in the making is accurate.
Yes, this is the core of your resistance. You're paying attention to the BG games, first and foremost. WotC, Larian are paying attention to D&D, first and foremost.
If you consider BG was an adaptation of D&D, probably you can allow for a thought that probably there can be other adaptations, not RtwP.
This is the criticism I don't get from Larian/TB detractors. Sorry but any BG game has to be a Forgotten Realms game before that, and has to be a D&D game before that. WotC isn't going to greenlight projects that use outdated rulesets and wants a game that looks like modern D&D. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that priority! D&D existed long before the BG series and will long outlive it. D&D is the franchise, not actually BG.
Which sorts of circles back to the argument that they should not have called it Baldur's Gate 3.
Personally, I don't really care about how they name the series, one way or the other. I may complain myself from time to time, but it is mostly about how they seem to be implementing the rules and how it looks a lot like D:OS. But on the name? It's not as if they can hurt the original series.
The original games are over and done, and I don't need a sequel to them myself. The rules have changed and so have the Realms.
I would have preferred them to pick a different setting. I don't think the Baldur's Gate area is that interesting (yes, even though I loved the first game) & there are so many places in the Realms which never got an official cRPG. Amn was a lot more interesting as well, especially with that sweet Mosaic art. I wouldn't have said no to go back to the Moonsea either. Making it play in BG again feels like the safe but boring option.
Still, I'll give every decent looking D&D game a try. So I'll wait and see.
The thing is, if WotC wants to create games in some of those unexplored places, the best plan for doing that is launching a new generation CRPG that gets a lot of hype, then using that hype to create games in riskier settings. Studios aren't going to invest millions in a Chult set RPG unless they have a compelling reason to do so.
Turn-based suits D&D, full stop. You don't agree with that, - ok. But it suits D&D.
One can agree with that, but D&D does not equal the Baldur’s Gate franchise.
And everytime Sven answered “why Baldur’s Gate” he gave that D&D and Larian were a natural fit. Which it is: but why Baldur’s Gate?
Larian and WotC could have called this game anything else, and that argument would have been justified.
IMO, they should have named it something else because it could turn into another amazing D&D franchise like BG or NWN or IWD instead of piggybacking off of an already established one.
Now the last Gazette they released gave me a tiny bit of hope with their mention of legendary characters showing up to tie in the original series but it better be more than cameos of rodents and hamsters though or else it’s just another misleading statement in an attempt of appeasement.
@JuliusBorisov "Yes, this is the core of your resistance. You're paying attention to the BG games, first and foremost. WotC, Larian are paying attention to D&D, first and foremost."
You just summed up everything I've been saying from the very beginning. If you think this is some kind of revelation, you haven't been paying attention. The ENTIRETY of my complaint stems from the name. There is a legacy attached to that name that is being stomped into the dirt. Change the name, and I have no problem with the game.
For someone who keeps claiming to be done talking to me, you really are going out of your way to reply to everything I say.
@DinoDin "There is absolutely nothing wrong with that priority! D&D existed long before the BG series and will long outlive it. D&D is the franchise, not actually BG."
WotC doesn't seem to agree. Since they went out of their way focus on the a "long outdated ruleset" by naming the new game directly after it. This game could have been called anything else. But "Baldur's Gate 3" was decided specifically because of the games reputation and history as one of the greatest of its time. If WotC really wanted to distance this game from that, this would have been called "D&D: Tentacle Grape Edition" or maybe "Baldur's Gate: Tad Tones"
Here is my idea to that. I totally hear you. But I never agreed with it for solely one reason.
If in 2019, or 2018, or any other year someone asked me: "Do you want BG3? What do you want it to be like?" - I would have answered (and actually answered many times, considering the BG3 aim of Trent etc.) that I totally want BG3 and want it to become among the best RPGs ever, just like BG2 was. I would totally want it to take its place in top 10 Metacritic all-time best RPGs. I would want it to be a party-based game, modernised as Dragon Age, with relationships, and epic fights. I would want it to use the camera to see characters. I would want it to be about DnD and DnD areas, monsters and characters. That is all.
As you can see, this is my definition of any potential BG3. It doesn't take into account the combat mode. The engine. The camera setting.
This is why I've been hooked ever since the first announcement. I played D:OS and D:OS 2. And during both games, I felt something. Something for the first time since DA:O. Something that in spirit resembled BG 2. Imagine my surprise when I was 100% sure PoE is our BG3 which never happened. Imagine my feelings when I had to agree with IGN, years after, that it's D:OS that feels like BG2 sometimes. Yeah, yeah, I know, a lot of you folks won't agree. But that is WHAT I FELT MYSELF, completely uninfluenced by media. Only later I learned about other stuff. Only much later the BG3 announcement came.
And guess what. Double my feelings about what a potential BG3 should be with my feelings from D:OS games.
And you're asking why I'm excited? That's why.
I totally understand what I felt was not universal. I totally understand some folks played D:OS and didn't like it. I totally understand some folks didn't even play D:OS and still didn't like it for some reason.
But please, for the love of Selune, understand that there are people for whom BG3 from Larian, in all its current state, makes perfect sense. And such people agree with ALL the approaches WotC and Larian are taking towards such a title.
"And you're asking why I'm excited? That's why."
"But please, for the love of Selune, understand that there are people for whom BG3 from Larian, in all its current state, makes perfect sense. And such people agree with ALL the approaches WotC and Larian are taking towards such a title."
I never asked why you or anyone else could be excited. I understand why other people are excited. What I want is for people to stop looking down on those of us who AREN'T. I have been insulted, called irrational, senile, un-reasonable, and a terrorist. One user last year made a dummy account only to paste a paragraphs long rant about how stupid, pathetic, and evil I am, all because I don't share the excitement that about half the fanbase seems too. And I'm sick of it.
I have never attacked anyone over it. I have never called someone else a filthy name over it. I only ask that other people extend the same courtesy. My feelings on the game and opinions are just as valid as everyone else's.
@DinoDin "There is absolutely nothing wrong with that priority! D&D existed long before the BG series and will long outlive it. D&D is the franchise, not actually BG."
WotC doesn't seem to agree. Since they went out of their way focus on the a "long outdated ruleset" by naming the new game directly after it. This game could have been called anything else. But "Baldur's Gate 3" was decided specifically because of the games reputation and history as one of the greatest of its time. If WotC really wanted to distance this game from that, this would have been called "D&D: Tentacle Grape Edition" or maybe "Baldur's Gate: Tad Tones"
Meh, you have a stubborn commitment to some things that I don't think serve you well. I mean, does being obstinate about the game's title actually accomplish anything or make you feel happier? It doesn't seem to, to me.
Yes, WotC is choosing to launch a new generation of D&D video games with a title that will generate tons of hype. I don't understand why this is some moral transgression for people, that they want to make money with their work. If you asked anybody here if they would do the same amount of work for more money, they would take it. So let's drop the moralizing about them making a decision that helps the company's bottom line -- it's something everyone does. Not only is it an important decision for the bottom line now, but it's an important decision for the viability of D&D titles going forward. Proving you can make a bog standard success is necessary before you start making your more outlandish titles, before you make titles that don't yet have a proven market. Planescape:Torment doesn't exist without BG being successful, after all. And Torment EE doesn't get made without BG EE.
And this isn't some EA or Bethesda style cash grab. Obviously there is a level of greed that is objectionable. Larian is a studio that has shown a lot of commitment to its fans. Hell, they haven't even really done cashgrabby DLC's for their OS titles. Something you cannot say about Obsidian or Owlcat. But yeah if this game was just a "spiritual successor" to BG, it wouldn't be generating nearly as much hype, which means it wouldn't have as big of a budget either.
Turn-based suits D&D, full stop. You don't agree with that, - ok. But it suits D&D.
One can agree with that, but D&D does not equal the Baldur’s Gate franchise.
Without D&D there would be no Baldur's Gate franchise. BG and BG2 were explicitly based on AD&D second edition. Yes, they made some changes to the rules and gameplay, but it's a huge reach to use those changes to say that Baldur's Gate isn't AD&D2e. Surely there's a better argument than something as historically inaccurate as "Baldur's Gate isn't D&D."
It's clear that some people who post here care a lot about this upcoming game and how it will turn out.
It's also clear that some people who post here care a lot about the legacy of Baldur's Gate and whether or not it's losing its established values or identity.
I'm sure that there's quite a bit of overlap between those two groups, but if you happen to belong to one and not the other, to you one of those things will matter and the other will not—to state the obvious. It's easy to see how that could affect your view of this game, and how your judgment of it could hold a different emotional charge to someone who might be in the "opposite" position. And there's nothing wrong with that. Just don't try to pretend that the other position is illegitimate or wrong. It's all down to subjective values and preferences.
As someone who belongs to the latter group and not the prior one, I'm going to reveal something about myself that I don't think I've ever shared on this forum just to give a little insight into where I'm coming from. I consider it one of my ultra-long-term life goals as a game developer to recreate both games in an open-source environment, fix all of their outstanding issues, and preserve the content in a state that's as close to vanilla as possible, but with additional optional modernization settings (such as AI-upscaled backgrounds/sprites/UI, quick loot, and so on). Imagine the EEs, but much closer to vanilla, with a lot less bugs (sorry but it's true), and with a lot more customization/modernization options.
Now, I may be a hopeless dreamer but I'm not completely naive, so I do realize that this is an insanely work-intensive project that I might never actually get done—not alone, anyway—but regardless, I'm going to keep working towards it. It's not an exaggeration to say that my entire life revolves around my fascination with Baldur's Gate, and that's probably not going to change at this point. And while it would be nice to one day play the game in the form that I had envisioned it (which is of course BioWare's vision, mine would just be the framing around it), it's not just me and the other fans who I want to make it for. The main reason I'm doing this is to create the best possible version of something that I love to leave for posterity. So that people many years into the future who appreciate old games may stumble upon Baldur's Gate and play a version of it that would truly represent the game's original vision but without all the headache that playing vanilla entails. (As much as I love vanilla, it is very buggy and difficult to control. Not to even mention the resolution woes.)
The only reason I'm explaining all of this is to give a better sense of how much the legacy of a game can matter to a person. I realize I'm pretty unconventional in this regard (to put it in a way that's flattering to myself), but I think this is still worth explaining because some people may not realize that something which appears as trivial from a wider cultural viewpoint as the legacy of an old game can actually be pretty damn close to the top of some people's value heaps.
@DinoDin "There is absolutely nothing wrong with that priority! D&D existed long before the BG series and will long outlive it. D&D is the franchise, not actually BG."
WotC doesn't seem to agree. Since they went out of their way focus on the a "long outdated ruleset" by naming the new game directly after it. This game could have been called anything else. But "Baldur's Gate 3" was decided specifically because of the games reputation and history as one of the greatest of its time. If WotC really wanted to distance this game from that, this would have been called "D&D: Tentacle Grape Edition" or maybe "Baldur's Gate: Tad Tones"
Meh, you have a stubborn commitment to some things that I don't think serve you well. I mean, does being obstinate about the game's title actually accomplish anything or make you feel happier? It doesn't seem to, to me.
Yes, WotC is choosing to launch a new generation of D&D video games with a title that will generate tons of hype. I don't understand why this is some moral transgression for people, that they want to make money with their work. If you asked anybody here if they would do the same amount of work for more money, they would take it. So let's drop the moralizing about them making a decision that helps the company's bottom line -- it's something everyone does. Not only is it an important decision for the bottom line now, but it's an important decision for the viability of D&D titles going forward. Proving you can make a bog standard success is necessary before you start making your more outlandish titles, before you make titles that don't yet have a proven market. Planescape:Torment doesn't exist without BG being successful, after all. And Torment EE doesn't get made without BG EE.
And this isn't some EA or Bethesda style cash grab. Obviously there is a level of greed that is objectionable. Larian is a studio that has shown a lot of commitment to its fans. Hell, they haven't even really done cashgrabby DLC's for their OS titles. Something you cannot say about Obsidian or Owlcat. But yeah if this game was just a "spiritual successor" to BG, it wouldn't be generating nearly as much hype, which means it wouldn't have as big of a budget either.
They're not though.
They have isolated fans. Thaco isn't the only one. Just take a trip to the Steam forums to see.
They could have generated the same amount of hype if not more if it was just released that Larian was creating a brand new 5e D&D game that takes place in Baldur's Gate 100 years after the first 2 games.
Everyone would have a clear picture of what to expect and their first teaser trailer would still put to rest the discussion of Larian not being able to deliver a dark and edgy experience. People would have been talking more about the little clues that trailer revealed (the dead 3 symbol for example) and what role they may play in the upcoming game instead of bickering about game mechanics. They could then draw in the 'classic' fans by mentioning that certain characters from the first two games will be making an appearance. More discussion could then revolve around that slowly building hype up until release.
The vibe around the game would have been significantly more positive instead of divisive. WotC (all blame goes to them and not Larian) screwed up. Which isn't that surprising.
The game is still going to generate sales and it will probably be Larian's biggest seller due the D&D IP, but it could also kill Larian if it does not live up to the legacy its now chasing.
Turn-based suits D&D, full stop. You don't agree with that, - ok. But it suits D&D.
One can agree with that, but D&D does not equal the Baldur’s Gate franchise.
Without D&D there would be no Baldur's Gate franchise. BG and BG2 were explicitly based on AD&D second edition. Yes, they made some changes to the rules and gameplay, but it's a huge reach to use those changes to say that Baldur's Gate isn't AD&D2e. Surely there's a better argument than something as historically inaccurate as "Baldur's Gate isn't D&D."
I never said Baldur's Gate isn't D&D. I said they were not equal.
It's called branding. D&D is one brand. Baldur's Gate is another brand. Baldur's Gate is under the umbrella of D&D but it still has its distinct characteristics that separates it from other D&D products. These characteristics go beyond the fictional city of its namesake.
A brand can mean different things to different people but there are core elements that do define the brand. For example, if Larian said they were going to making Baldur's Gate 3, but based it solely off of their created IP in the Original Sin series, people would be claiming it isn't Baldur's Gate because that core feature (it being D&D) isn't there.
Those core elements aren't there for a good chunk of the player base. It may still be there for others (as Bengoshi pointed out) but that does not mean it is there for everyone. As I said, it'll only be there for me if they tie in 'legendary' characters from the first games in a meaningful way. If they don't do that, they not only ruined one franchise, but missed the opportunity to create a brand new one.
The vibe around the game would have been significantly more positive instead of divisive. WotC (all blame goes to them and not Larian) screwed up. Which isn't that surprising.
The game is still going to generate sales and it will probably be Larian's biggest seller due the D&D IP, but it could also kill Larian if it does not live up to the legacy its now chasing.
Again, I'm going to ask the same thing I said before. Where's your evidence? There is no evidence of a significant backlash of any sort post gameplay reveal. A few isolated people on some internet forums isn't evidence for overall divisiveness.
Your second point is of course very true. The game has a huge investment and will be well known whether it succeeds or fails. And it definitely has the power to sink someone like Larian if it's truly bad. The gaming industry has been fickle in the past.
All the more reason to defer to the people actually taking the risk on their core design choices.
I never said Baldur's Gate isn't D&D. I said they were not equal.
It's called branding. D&D is one brand. Baldur's Gate is another brand. Baldur's Gate is under the umbrella of D&D but it still has its distinct characteristics that separates it from other D&D products. These characteristics go beyond the fictional city of its namesake.
A brand can mean different things to different people but there are core elements that do define the brand. For example, if Larian said they were going to making Baldur's Gate 3, but based it solely off of their created IP in the Original Sin series, people would be claiming it isn't Baldur's Gate because that core feature (it being D&D) isn't there.
Those core elements aren't there for a good chunk of the player base. It may still be there for others (as Bengoshi pointed out) but that does not mean it is there for everyone. As I said, it'll only be there for me if they tie in 'legendary' characters from the first games in a meaningful way. If they don't do that, they not only ruined one franchise, but missed the opportunity to create a brand new one.
I'm fine if it's a good D&D adventure, because Baldur's Gate is specifically a CRPG line using the D&D rules and set in the Forgotten Realms.
BG1 and BG2 tell a complete story, this story doesn't have to (and should not) continue.
I remember some guy predicting in the early 2000s that KOTOR would fail because it's not set during the movies.
Look, Swen really likes BG. How else he would name Minsc as his most favourite NPC? He told about that during PAX East, 2019. https://www.twitch.tv/videos/402524252?t=
Minsc is probably the easiest NPC to be aware of. He's very quotable, shows up the most in other works (see Trivia section here: https://baldursgate.fandom.com/wiki/Minsc), and he has a miniature giant space hamster for crying out loud. You could easily decide Minsc is your favorite NPC from Baldur's Gate without ever playing it. I'm not saying that's the case here, just answering the question you asked.
The vibe around the game would have been significantly more positive instead of divisive. WotC (all blame goes to them and not Larian) screwed up. Which isn't that surprising.
The game is still going to generate sales and it will probably be Larian's biggest seller due the D&D IP, but it could also kill Larian if it does not live up to the legacy its now chasing.
Again, I'm going to ask the same thing I said before. Where's your evidence? There is no evidence of a significant backlash of any sort post gameplay reveal. A few isolated people on some internet forums isn't evidence for overall divisiveness.
Your second point is of course very true. The game has a huge investment and will be well known whether it succeeds or fails. And it definitely has the power to sink someone like Larian if it's truly bad. The gaming industry has been fickle in the past.
All the more reason to defer to the people actually taking the risk on their core design choices.
If the actual games official message boards are not proof enough then I can't help you.
People on message boards are not the causal fans. Your casual fan base is not paying attention yet. These are the people who are invested in the product, especially this early in development. Turning them off your product is not a good thing.
There maybe an echo chamber as you claim, but that echo chamber rings both ways.
I already pointed out the consequence of the reverse. That first question asker saying he never played Baldur's Gate before but after the presentation he really really wants to. He is going in expecting something completely different than what he is expecting and it is the improper branding that is going to ruin that experience for him just as it has ruined it for others like Thacobell.
I never said Baldur's Gate isn't D&D. I said they were not equal.
It's called branding. D&D is one brand. Baldur's Gate is another brand. Baldur's Gate is under the umbrella of D&D but it still has its distinct characteristics that separates it from other D&D products. These characteristics go beyond the fictional city of its namesake.
A brand can mean different things to different people but there are core elements that do define the brand. For example, if Larian said they were going to making Baldur's Gate 3, but based it solely off of their created IP in the Original Sin series, people would be claiming it isn't Baldur's Gate because that core feature (it being D&D) isn't there.
Those core elements aren't there for a good chunk of the player base. It may still be there for others (as Bengoshi pointed out) but that does not mean it is there for everyone. As I said, it'll only be there for me if they tie in 'legendary' characters from the first games in a meaningful way. If they don't do that, they not only ruined one franchise, but missed the opportunity to create a brand new one.
I'm fine if it's a good D&D adventure, because Baldur's Gate is specifically a CRPG line using the D&D rules and set in the Forgotten Realms.
BG1 and BG2 tell a complete story, this story doesn't have to (and should not) continue.
I remember some guy predicting in the early 2000s that KOTOR would fail because it's not set during the movies.
Truthfully I am fine with a good D&D adventure as well. I like the premise of escaping from mindflayers after getting their eye treatment.
I just see missed potential if it doesn't actually tie in the first two games.
If the actual games official message boards are not proof enough then I can't help you.
There's no evidence that a larger number of fans are upset. You can go to the Larian BG3 forum right now and see kanistha's post with very few people actually voicing his RtwP or bust argument. Most are like "great idea but i don't require it", or just outright rejecting his suggestion.
Stop conflating your views and the views of a few other gamers with some widely held backlash. There's been no sizable backlash to BG3 so far.
If the actual games official message boards are not proof enough then I can't help you.
There's no evidence that a larger number of fans are upset.
If the YouTube videos are any indication, it is a small part of the fanbase that is displeased. The Opening Cinematic currently sits at 11k likes and 154 dislikes, and the World Gameplay Reveal Announcement has 21k likes and 517 dislikes.
I suspect there is a large bias there since most of those are likely to be people subscribed to Larian's YouTube channel. However, I think we'd still see many more thumbs down if the IE fanbase really had the torches and pitchforks out.
If the actual games official message boards are not proof enough then I can't help you.
There's no evidence that a larger number of fans are upset.
If the YouTube videos are any indication, it is a small part of the fanbase that is displeased. The Opening Cinematic currently sits at 11k likes and 154 dislikes, and the World Gameplay Reveal Announcement has 21k likes and 517 dislikes.
I suspect there is a large bias there since most of those are likely to be people subscribed to Larian's YouTube channel. However, I think we'd still see many more thumbs down if the IE fanbase really had the torches and pitchforks out.
Most people LIKE most recent Larian games. I only liked Divine Divinity but i realize that i an the minority. D:OS2 has 95% of positive ratings, that means that among the purchasers, 19 in 20 recommend the game. Even i who din't liked the game din't wrote a negative review... PF:KM, IMO the best modern game has around 80% of steam users recommending. The difference is 4/5 to 19/20.
I was one of the most critiques of BG3, was expecting a SCL clone but on the reveal, i saw a lot of interesting things and only because visual wise isn't like BG1/2, BG3 worth a shot. At least looks like they are not completely ignoring the ruleset.
If the actual games official message boards are not proof enough then I can't help you.
There's no evidence that a larger number of fans are upset. You can go to the Larian BG3 forum right now and see kanistha's post with very few people actually voicing his RtwP or bust argument. Most are like "great idea but i don't require it", or just outright rejecting his suggestion.
Stop conflating your views and the views of a few other gamers with some widely held backlash. There's been no sizable backlash to BG3 so far.
Check the Steam forum which isn't just a bunch of fanboys salivating over anything a company does.
Check the Steam forum which isn't just a bunch of fanboys salivating over anything a company does.
Yeah, but the Steam forum bias (in general, not specifically BG3) is that it very frequently is a source of vitriol--much, much more so than Beamdog forums ever will be (at least I imagine). I'm not terribly surprised by what I saw there.
If the actual games official message boards are not proof enough then I can't help you.
There's no evidence that a larger number of fans are upset. You can go to the Larian BG3 forum right now and see kanistha's post with very few people actually voicing his RtwP or bust argument. Most are like "great idea but i don't require it", or just outright rejecting his suggestion.
Stop conflating your views and the views of a few other gamers with some widely held backlash. There's been no sizable backlash to BG3 so far.
Check the Steam forum which isn't just a bunch of fanboys salivating over anything a company does.
What kind of numbers are we talking about here? Earlier you directed me to Larian's forums and it's literally the same names making a fuss about RtwP, with very very few others joining them. If these voices can't make themselves bigger than some obscure internet forums, that says everything about their size.
Comments
"Think about it: would you prefer their team to attempt an experiment creating BG3 (rtwp) or use all their experience from many years (tb)? I certainly would prefer the latter."
If turn based is all they know, they were a bad choice to begin with. Full stop. I'd rather have a develop that knows rtwp and has demonstrated that they know how to make a game that looks and feels like BG. Like Beamdog, or Obsidian.
You keep using "clear facts" for things that are opinions. You're "facts" are surprisingly easy to poke holes in.
Look, Swen really likes BG. How else he would name Minsc as his most favourite NPC? He told about that during PAX East, 2019. https://www.twitch.tv/videos/402524252?t=
Developing smth you're skilled at (TB) would provide a much better game. BG is not about combat mode in the first place. It's about the feeling of exploration, companions, story. But people can have other opinions on this. ofc.
Baldur's Gate isn't full D&D. Its an adaptation that tooks what doesn't work translating from tabletop and made something better. I am a casual D&D fan. I am a huge BG fan. These things are not identical. If this was JUST a D&D game, Larian would have my full blessing. I might even be cautiously excited, despite being turn based. The Issue is that Larian is seemingly dropping everything that set BG apart as more than jsut another D&D game.
If you consider BG was an adaptation of D&D, probably you can allow for a thought that probably there can be other adaptations, not RtwP.
This is the criticism I don't get from Larian/TB detractors. Sorry but any BG game has to be a Forgotten Realms game before that, and has to be a D&D game before that. WotC isn't going to greenlight projects that use outdated rulesets and wants a game that looks like modern D&D. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that priority! D&D existed long before the BG series and will long outlive it. D&D is the franchise, not actually BG.
Anyway but they read the Larian PR statement and it says '20 years in the making' which feels disingenuous, like Larian have been involved with reviving the BG IP since BG2 or something when in reality they have been drafted in the last few years and the game is rather unrelated except being DnD.
Which sorts of circles back to the argument that they should not have called it Baldur's Gate 3.
Personally, I don't really care about how they name the series, one way or the other. I may complain myself from time to time, but it is mostly about how they seem to be implementing the rules and how it looks a lot like D:OS. But on the name? It's not as if they can hurt the original series.
The original games are over and done, and I don't need a sequel to them myself. The rules have changed and so have the Realms.
I would have preferred them to pick a different setting. I don't think the Baldur's Gate area is that interesting (yes, even though I loved the first game) & there are so many places in the Realms which never got an official cRPG. Amn was a lot more interesting as well, especially with that sweet Mosaic art. I wouldn't have said no to go back to the Moonsea either. Making it play in BG again feels like the safe but boring option.
Still, I'll give every decent looking D&D game a try. So I'll wait and see.
The thing is, if WotC wants to create games in some of those unexplored places, the best plan for doing that is launching a new generation CRPG that gets a lot of hype, then using that hype to create games in riskier settings. Studios aren't going to invest millions in a Chult set RPG unless they have a compelling reason to do so.
One can agree with that, but D&D does not equal the Baldur’s Gate franchise.
And everytime Sven answered “why Baldur’s Gate” he gave that D&D and Larian were a natural fit. Which it is: but why Baldur’s Gate?
Larian and WotC could have called this game anything else, and that argument would have been justified.
IMO, they should have named it something else because it could turn into another amazing D&D franchise like BG or NWN or IWD instead of piggybacking off of an already established one.
Now the last Gazette they released gave me a tiny bit of hope with their mention of legendary characters showing up to tie in the original series but it better be more than cameos of rodents and hamsters though or else it’s just another misleading statement in an attempt of appeasement.
You just summed up everything I've been saying from the very beginning. If you think this is some kind of revelation, you haven't been paying attention. The ENTIRETY of my complaint stems from the name. There is a legacy attached to that name that is being stomped into the dirt. Change the name, and I have no problem with the game.
For someone who keeps claiming to be done talking to me, you really are going out of your way to reply to everything I say.
@DinoDin "There is absolutely nothing wrong with that priority! D&D existed long before the BG series and will long outlive it. D&D is the franchise, not actually BG."
WotC doesn't seem to agree. Since they went out of their way focus on the a "long outdated ruleset" by naming the new game directly after it. This game could have been called anything else. But "Baldur's Gate 3" was decided specifically because of the games reputation and history as one of the greatest of its time. If WotC really wanted to distance this game from that, this would have been called "D&D: Tentacle Grape Edition" or maybe "Baldur's Gate: Tad Tones"
If in 2019, or 2018, or any other year someone asked me: "Do you want BG3? What do you want it to be like?" - I would have answered (and actually answered many times, considering the BG3 aim of Trent etc.) that I totally want BG3 and want it to become among the best RPGs ever, just like BG2 was. I would totally want it to take its place in top 10 Metacritic all-time best RPGs. I would want it to be a party-based game, modernised as Dragon Age, with relationships, and epic fights. I would want it to use the camera to see characters. I would want it to be about DnD and DnD areas, monsters and characters. That is all.
As you can see, this is my definition of any potential BG3. It doesn't take into account the combat mode. The engine. The camera setting.
This is why I've been hooked ever since the first announcement. I played D:OS and D:OS 2. And during both games, I felt something. Something for the first time since DA:O. Something that in spirit resembled BG 2. Imagine my surprise when I was 100% sure PoE is our BG3 which never happened. Imagine my feelings when I had to agree with IGN, years after, that it's D:OS that feels like BG2 sometimes. Yeah, yeah, I know, a lot of you folks won't agree. But that is WHAT I FELT MYSELF, completely uninfluenced by media. Only later I learned about other stuff. Only much later the BG3 announcement came.
And guess what. Double my feelings about what a potential BG3 should be with my feelings from D:OS games.
And you're asking why I'm excited? That's why.
I totally understand what I felt was not universal. I totally understand some folks played D:OS and didn't like it. I totally understand some folks didn't even play D:OS and still didn't like it for some reason.
But please, for the love of Selune, understand that there are people for whom BG3 from Larian, in all its current state, makes perfect sense. And such people agree with ALL the approaches WotC and Larian are taking towards such a title.
"But please, for the love of Selune, understand that there are people for whom BG3 from Larian, in all its current state, makes perfect sense. And such people agree with ALL the approaches WotC and Larian are taking towards such a title."
I never asked why you or anyone else could be excited. I understand why other people are excited. What I want is for people to stop looking down on those of us who AREN'T. I have been insulted, called irrational, senile, un-reasonable, and a terrorist. One user last year made a dummy account only to paste a paragraphs long rant about how stupid, pathetic, and evil I am, all because I don't share the excitement that about half the fanbase seems too. And I'm sick of it.
I have never attacked anyone over it. I have never called someone else a filthy name over it. I only ask that other people extend the same courtesy. My feelings on the game and opinions are just as valid as everyone else's.
Meh, you have a stubborn commitment to some things that I don't think serve you well. I mean, does being obstinate about the game's title actually accomplish anything or make you feel happier? It doesn't seem to, to me.
Yes, WotC is choosing to launch a new generation of D&D video games with a title that will generate tons of hype. I don't understand why this is some moral transgression for people, that they want to make money with their work. If you asked anybody here if they would do the same amount of work for more money, they would take it. So let's drop the moralizing about them making a decision that helps the company's bottom line -- it's something everyone does. Not only is it an important decision for the bottom line now, but it's an important decision for the viability of D&D titles going forward. Proving you can make a bog standard success is necessary before you start making your more outlandish titles, before you make titles that don't yet have a proven market. Planescape:Torment doesn't exist without BG being successful, after all. And Torment EE doesn't get made without BG EE.
And this isn't some EA or Bethesda style cash grab. Obviously there is a level of greed that is objectionable. Larian is a studio that has shown a lot of commitment to its fans. Hell, they haven't even really done cashgrabby DLC's for their OS titles. Something you cannot say about Obsidian or Owlcat. But yeah if this game was just a "spiritual successor" to BG, it wouldn't be generating nearly as much hype, which means it wouldn't have as big of a budget either.
Without D&D there would be no Baldur's Gate franchise. BG and BG2 were explicitly based on AD&D second edition. Yes, they made some changes to the rules and gameplay, but it's a huge reach to use those changes to say that Baldur's Gate isn't AD&D2e. Surely there's a better argument than something as historically inaccurate as "Baldur's Gate isn't D&D."
It's also clear that some people who post here care a lot about the legacy of Baldur's Gate and whether or not it's losing its established values or identity.
I'm sure that there's quite a bit of overlap between those two groups, but if you happen to belong to one and not the other, to you one of those things will matter and the other will not—to state the obvious. It's easy to see how that could affect your view of this game, and how your judgment of it could hold a different emotional charge to someone who might be in the "opposite" position. And there's nothing wrong with that. Just don't try to pretend that the other position is illegitimate or wrong. It's all down to subjective values and preferences.
As someone who belongs to the latter group and not the prior one, I'm going to reveal something about myself that I don't think I've ever shared on this forum just to give a little insight into where I'm coming from. I consider it one of my ultra-long-term life goals as a game developer to recreate both games in an open-source environment, fix all of their outstanding issues, and preserve the content in a state that's as close to vanilla as possible, but with additional optional modernization settings (such as AI-upscaled backgrounds/sprites/UI, quick loot, and so on). Imagine the EEs, but much closer to vanilla, with a lot less bugs (sorry but it's true), and with a lot more customization/modernization options.
Now, I may be a hopeless dreamer but I'm not completely naive, so I do realize that this is an insanely work-intensive project that I might never actually get done—not alone, anyway—but regardless, I'm going to keep working towards it. It's not an exaggeration to say that my entire life revolves around my fascination with Baldur's Gate, and that's probably not going to change at this point. And while it would be nice to one day play the game in the form that I had envisioned it (which is of course BioWare's vision, mine would just be the framing around it), it's not just me and the other fans who I want to make it for. The main reason I'm doing this is to create the best possible version of something that I love to leave for posterity. So that people many years into the future who appreciate old games may stumble upon Baldur's Gate and play a version of it that would truly represent the game's original vision but without all the headache that playing vanilla entails. (As much as I love vanilla, it is very buggy and difficult to control. Not to even mention the resolution woes.)
The only reason I'm explaining all of this is to give a better sense of how much the legacy of a game can matter to a person. I realize I'm pretty unconventional in this regard (to put it in a way that's flattering to myself), but I think this is still worth explaining because some people may not realize that something which appears as trivial from a wider cultural viewpoint as the legacy of an old game can actually be pretty damn close to the top of some people's value heaps.
They're not though.
They have isolated fans. Thaco isn't the only one. Just take a trip to the Steam forums to see.
They could have generated the same amount of hype if not more if it was just released that Larian was creating a brand new 5e D&D game that takes place in Baldur's Gate 100 years after the first 2 games.
Everyone would have a clear picture of what to expect and their first teaser trailer would still put to rest the discussion of Larian not being able to deliver a dark and edgy experience. People would have been talking more about the little clues that trailer revealed (the dead 3 symbol for example) and what role they may play in the upcoming game instead of bickering about game mechanics. They could then draw in the 'classic' fans by mentioning that certain characters from the first two games will be making an appearance. More discussion could then revolve around that slowly building hype up until release.
The vibe around the game would have been significantly more positive instead of divisive. WotC (all blame goes to them and not Larian) screwed up. Which isn't that surprising.
The game is still going to generate sales and it will probably be Larian's biggest seller due the D&D IP, but it could also kill Larian if it does not live up to the legacy its now chasing.
I never said Baldur's Gate isn't D&D. I said they were not equal.
It's called branding. D&D is one brand. Baldur's Gate is another brand. Baldur's Gate is under the umbrella of D&D but it still has its distinct characteristics that separates it from other D&D products. These characteristics go beyond the fictional city of its namesake.
A brand can mean different things to different people but there are core elements that do define the brand. For example, if Larian said they were going to making Baldur's Gate 3, but based it solely off of their created IP in the Original Sin series, people would be claiming it isn't Baldur's Gate because that core feature (it being D&D) isn't there.
Those core elements aren't there for a good chunk of the player base. It may still be there for others (as Bengoshi pointed out) but that does not mean it is there for everyone. As I said, it'll only be there for me if they tie in 'legendary' characters from the first games in a meaningful way. If they don't do that, they not only ruined one franchise, but missed the opportunity to create a brand new one.
Again, I'm going to ask the same thing I said before. Where's your evidence? There is no evidence of a significant backlash of any sort post gameplay reveal. A few isolated people on some internet forums isn't evidence for overall divisiveness.
Your second point is of course very true. The game has a huge investment and will be well known whether it succeeds or fails. And it definitely has the power to sink someone like Larian if it's truly bad. The gaming industry has been fickle in the past.
All the more reason to defer to the people actually taking the risk on their core design choices.
I'm fine if it's a good D&D adventure, because Baldur's Gate is specifically a CRPG line using the D&D rules and set in the Forgotten Realms.
BG1 and BG2 tell a complete story, this story doesn't have to (and should not) continue.
I remember some guy predicting in the early 2000s that KOTOR would fail because it's not set during the movies.
Minsc is probably the easiest NPC to be aware of. He's very quotable, shows up the most in other works (see Trivia section here: https://baldursgate.fandom.com/wiki/Minsc), and he has a miniature giant space hamster for crying out loud. You could easily decide Minsc is your favorite NPC from Baldur's Gate without ever playing it. I'm not saying that's the case here, just answering the question you asked.
If the actual games official message boards are not proof enough then I can't help you.
People on message boards are not the causal fans. Your casual fan base is not paying attention yet. These are the people who are invested in the product, especially this early in development. Turning them off your product is not a good thing.
There maybe an echo chamber as you claim, but that echo chamber rings both ways.
I already pointed out the consequence of the reverse. That first question asker saying he never played Baldur's Gate before but after the presentation he really really wants to. He is going in expecting something completely different than what he is expecting and it is the improper branding that is going to ruin that experience for him just as it has ruined it for others like Thacobell.
Truthfully I am fine with a good D&D adventure as well. I like the premise of escaping from mindflayers after getting their eye treatment.
I just see missed potential if it doesn't actually tie in the first two games.
There's no evidence that a larger number of fans are upset. You can go to the Larian BG3 forum right now and see kanistha's post with very few people actually voicing his RtwP or bust argument. Most are like "great idea but i don't require it", or just outright rejecting his suggestion.
Stop conflating your views and the views of a few other gamers with some widely held backlash. There's been no sizable backlash to BG3 so far.
If the YouTube videos are any indication, it is a small part of the fanbase that is displeased. The Opening Cinematic currently sits at 11k likes and 154 dislikes, and the World Gameplay Reveal Announcement has 21k likes and 517 dislikes.
I suspect there is a large bias there since most of those are likely to be people subscribed to Larian's YouTube channel. However, I think we'd still see many more thumbs down if the IE fanbase really had the torches and pitchforks out.
Most people LIKE most recent Larian games. I only liked Divine Divinity but i realize that i an the minority. D:OS2 has 95% of positive ratings, that means that among the purchasers, 19 in 20 recommend the game. Even i who din't liked the game din't wrote a negative review... PF:KM, IMO the best modern game has around 80% of steam users recommending. The difference is 4/5 to 19/20.
I was one of the most critiques of BG3, was expecting a SCL clone but on the reveal, i saw a lot of interesting things and only because visual wise isn't like BG1/2, BG3 worth a shot. At least looks like they are not completely ignoring the ruleset.
Check the Steam forum which isn't just a bunch of fanboys salivating over anything a company does.
Yeah, but the Steam forum bias (in general, not specifically BG3) is that it very frequently is a source of vitriol--much, much more so than Beamdog forums ever will be (at least I imagine). I'm not terribly surprised by what I saw there.
What kind of numbers are we talking about here? Earlier you directed me to Larian's forums and it's literally the same names making a fuss about RtwP, with very very few others joining them. If these voices can't make themselves bigger than some obscure internet forums, that says everything about their size.