Great, thanks for finally agreeing. Calling this Baldur's Gate 3 is meaningless.
It's a D&D game using a reworked divinity engine.
It should be abundantly clear that I do not agree with you, and that I think it's fine to call this game Baldur's Gate 3. The answer in the interview was fine and did not dodge the question. Not liking the answer one gets is not the same as not getting an answer at all.
Q: "What do you say to the concern that this game doesn't resemble Baldur's Gate?"
A: "Let me assure you, it is D&D."
It may be an answer, though definitely not a direct one. They don't want to be seen directly dismissing the concerns of those who think making a D&D game is not reason enough to use the Baldur's Gate 3 branding, so instead they're dismissing them by not addressing the question directly.
It's also very clear from Larian's communication that they lack an appreciation for the Baldur's Gate games that goes beyond them being D&D games and having some memorable characters. And hey, this is probably true for most people who played the games once or twice twenty years ago and have forgotten most of the experience since. But when it comes to making a sequel, I do have an expectation for the developer team to not only familiarize themselves for the source material (which some of them apparently didn't do at all), but also develop an appreciation for it that goes beyond "it's D&D."
Q: "What do you say to the concern that this game doesn't resemble Baldur's Gate?"
A: "Let me assure you, it is D&D."
It may be an answer, though definitely not a direct one. They don't want to be seen directly dismissing the concerns of those who think making a D&D game is not reason enough to use the Baldur's Gate 3 branding, so instead they're dismissing them by not addressing the question directly.
It's also very clear from Larian's communication that they lack an appreciation for the Baldur's Gate games that goes beyond them being D&D games and having some memorable characters. And hey, this is probably true for most people who played the games once or twice twenty years ago and have forgotten most of the experience since. But when it comes to making a sequel, I do have an expectation for the developer team to not only familiarize themselves for the source material (which some of them apparently didn't do at all), but also develop an appreciation for it that goes beyond "it's D&D."
In some respects the argument cannot be answered to everyone's satisfaction.
People continue to try to say it doesnt have the "style" and "feel" of the franchise, but those qualities are not something that can be reasonably answered in a mechanical fashion because people are as-of-yet unable to articulate what the "feel" and "style" of BG2 is.
So Larian gave the only earnest and honest answer it can: It's using the D&D 5e ruleset. Which on a mechanical level, means that BG3 will be far far far closer to BG2 than PoE, PK, D:OS, or DA:O.
I also reject the premise that it is "very clear" that they dont have an appreciation for the franchise. Frankly, I'm not sure how you can be certain of that. What's more, they've given interviews about how excited they are to be working on the franchise, and seem to have demonstrated a very healthy level of respect/appreciation/admiration.
If Baldurs Gate 3 takes place in the city then it is a sequel in my book. It's politics played a large role in the first game and Siege of Dragonspear. Even Tales of the Sword Coast took us there.
Shadows of Amn and Throne of Bhaal never took place in the city which is a great miss for the series. We got barely a mention. Likely this is why players identity the series more with the protagonist than the city.
There were plenty high level characters planted in Baldurs Gate and it's surroundings to make something interesting work.
I think what we all need to learn here is that there are always going to be different opinions but I am going to list a couple of facts below.
1. People are allowed to believe that this IS a worthy sequel to Baldur’s Gate 1&2 without being made to feel like second class fans.
2. People are allowed to believe that this is NOT a worthy sequel to Baldur’s Gate 1&2 without being made to feel like a second class fans.
As someone who has accidentally myself forgotten the above on occasion let’s try to remember not be personal with each other because we are allowed to have different opinions. That does not make what you or anyone else believes in relation to this game being a sequel a pure fact as there is always going to be someone that feels differently or disagrees.
People are allowed to have concerns about the game. I 100% accept and appreciate that now. Just please don’t force your concerns on me as if they should be mine and I will try my best not to do the same to you.
As far as I’m concerned what I’ve seen and read so far gives me great hope that this game will be more than a worthy sequel to Baldur’s Gate 1&2 and I have full faith in Larian as out of the studios being mentioned they in my opinion have produced the best games and are the more solid studio. This is just my opinion and people are alllowed to disagree but please remember that just because you disagree it does not make what you think a fact! I will try to remember the same.
@abul
he he I think if I said a sequel to Baldur’s Gate 1 that people may have been confused but I will edit my post so that Baldur’s Gate 1 does not feel offended ?
Q: "What do you say to the concern that this game doesn't resemble Baldur's Gate?"
A: "Let me assure you, it is D&D."
It may be an answer, though definitely not a direct one. They don't want to be seen directly dismissing the concerns of those who think making a D&D game is not reason enough to use the Baldur's Gate 3 branding, so instead they're dismissing them by not addressing the question directly.
It's also very clear from Larian's communication that they lack an appreciation for the Baldur's Gate games that goes beyond them being D&D games and having some memorable characters. And hey, this is probably true for most people who played the games once or twice twenty years ago and have forgotten most of the experience since. But when it comes to making a sequel, I do have an expectation for the developer team to not only familiarize themselves for the source material (which some of them apparently didn't do at all), but also develop an appreciation for it that goes beyond "it's D&D."
In some respects the argument cannot be answered to everyone's satisfaction.
People continue to try to say it doesnt have the "style" and "feel" of the franchise, but those qualities are not something that can be reasonably answered in a mechanical fashion because people are as-of-yet unable to articulate what the "feel" and "style" of BG2 is.
So Larian gave the only earnest and honest answer it can: It's using the D&D 5e ruleset. Which on a mechanical level, means that BG3 will be far far far closer to BG2 than PoE, PK, D:OS, or DA:O.
I also reject the premise that it is "very clear" that they dont have an appreciation for the franchise. Frankly, I'm not sure how you can be certain of that. What's more, they've given interviews about how excited they are to be working on the franchise, and seem to have demonstrated a very healthy level of respect/appreciation/admiration.
I thought it was pretty clear that when I or other people make those statements, we're not trying to establish facts but rather impart our impressions. I don't always put "I think" at the beginning of every sentence because it gets annoying after a while. Though to be fair, tone and therefore meaning is also not always easy to convey in writing, so if it helps, imagine I wrote "I think" before "it's also very clear" and "they don't want".
Which on a mechanical level, means that BG3 will be far far far closer to BG2 than PoE, PK, D:OS, or DA:O.
This of course also applies to your statements. If I imagine "I think" before it, it's a fine statement of opinion. If I imagine you were trying to establish a fact, the holes begin to appear in the argument. If you selectively focus on some of the mechanics, it's true. If you focus on different mechanics, it's false.
If Baldurs Gate 3 takes place in the city then it is a sequel in my book. It's politics played a large role in the first game and Siege of Dragonspear. Even Tales of the Sword Coast took us there.
Shadows of Amn and Throne of Bhaal never took place in the city which is a great miss for the series. We got barely a mention. Likely this is why players identity the series more with the protagonist than the city.
There were plenty high level characters planted in Baldurs Gate and it's surroundings to make something interesting work.
Well... That's precisely why I feel that Baldur's Gate 3 ISN'T really a sequel. For me, the Baldur's Gate series was all about the Bhaalspawn saga. It wasn't about being isometric, the Infinity Engine, the AD&D ruleset, or being RTwP, because I can scratch similar itches with Icewind Dale, Planescape: Torment, or the newer Pillars of Eternity games. It's not even about the eponymous city itself, because as you pointed out, BG2 and ToB don't even go back there. The BG series is the BG series because it was about the adventures of Gorion's Ward and the path they took to their ultimate destiny, whether as a deity or a mortal. As such, it feels to me that naming this game Baldur's Gate 3 was a mistake.
Now, let me get it out of the way that I'm quite sure that the decision was made at the highest levels between WotC and Larian, and that as the owners of the D&D brand, I acknowledge that WotC had every right to name this game as it is, but I still feel it was a bait and switch move to attract interest from an existing fanbase when the final product wasn't really going to be a continuation of the previous games. It'd be like if they announced they were making Back to the Future IV, except that there's no Doc Brown, no Marty McFly, no time travel and no DeLorean (although it does make a cameo), and the only real link it has to the previous movies is that it's also set in Hill Valley. :P
That aside, as I've mentioned in previous posts I AM still interested in what Larian has showed us so far. I do have some concerns and gripes, but as yet they've not proven to be dealbreakers. While I wish the game was named differently (and I fully understand and sympathize with those whose feelings against BG3 are much stronger than mine), ultimately what I want out of BG3 is a fun 5E D&D game. I have never played any of Larian's games before, so I'm keeping an open mind.
The game was always meant to be called BG3 no matter which developer would be making it. Reasons are not developers ' intentions but it's just how franchises and rightholders work.
Whether it's 2002, 2008, or 2020, it has been always meant to have that title and in the same time have no connection to the original games: different engines, different gameplay.
I wonder how people would feel if this game was actually Baldurs Gate 3 and would take place after 2, replacing Throne of Bhall and telling the theorised story that was being built up with the Council of Amn, Mind Flayers etc. I wonder how people would feel then.
Shadows of Amn and Throne of Bhaal never took place in the city which is a great miss for the series. We got barely a mention. Likely this is why players identity the series more with the protagonist than the city. .
It's funny that most people think of the city of Amn when they think of Baldurs Gate and not the city of Baldurs Gate.
Q: "What do you say to the concern that this game doesn't resemble Baldur's Gate?"
A: "Let me assure you, it is D&D."
It may be an answer, though definitely not a direct one. They don't want to be seen directly dismissing the concerns of those who think making a D&D game is not reason enough to use the Baldur's Gate 3 branding, so instead they're dismissing them by not addressing the question directly.
It's also very clear from Larian's communication that they lack an appreciation for the Baldur's Gate games that goes beyond them being D&D games and having some memorable characters. And hey, this is probably true for most people who played the games once or twice twenty years ago and have forgotten most of the experience since. But when it comes to making a sequel, I do have an expectation for the developer team to not only familiarize themselves for the source material (which some of them apparently didn't do at all), but also develop an appreciation for it that goes beyond "it's D&D."
In some respects the argument cannot be answered to everyone's satisfaction.
People continue to try to say it doesnt have the "style" and "feel" of the franchise, but those qualities are not something that can be reasonably answered in a mechanical fashion because people are as-of-yet unable to articulate what the "feel" and "style" of BG2 is.
So Larian gave the only earnest and honest answer it can: It's using the D&D 5e ruleset. Which on a mechanical level, means that BG3 will be far far far closer to BG2 than PoE, PK, D:OS, or DA:O.
I also reject the premise that it is "very clear" that they dont have an appreciation for the franchise. Frankly, I'm not sure how you can be certain of that. What's more, they've given interviews about how excited they are to be working on the franchise, and seem to have demonstrated a very healthy level of respect/appreciation/admiration.
I thought it was pretty clear that when I or other people make those statements, we're not trying to establish facts but rather impart our impressions. I don't always put "I think" at the beginning of every sentence because it gets annoying after a while. Though to be fair, tone and therefore meaning is also not always easy to convey in writing, so if it helps, imagine I wrote "I think" before "it's also very clear" and "they don't want".
Which on a mechanical level, means that BG3 will be far far far closer to BG2 than PoE, PK, D:OS, or DA:O.
This of course also applies to your statements. If I imagine "I think" before it, it's a fine statement of opinion. If I imagine you were trying to establish a fact, the holes begin to appear in the argument. If you selectively focus on some of the mechanics, it's true. If you focus on different mechanics, it's false.
Incidentally, this exactly demonstrates my point.
First - I get that this is your opinion. How was Larian supposed to assuage you for an opinion on a subject that you cannot specifically enumerate? They can’t. So when one accuses them of sidestepping, it’s problematic because the situation is such that they *cannot* give the argument some people want. If we follow this to the extreme, the criticism becomes a disingenuous way for some to vindicate their state of being upset at the name. That’s cynical, and I don’t want to believe that’s true, but... I’m not sure it isn’t.
Second - I don’t believe this to be an opinion. In terms of mechanical ruleset (what I mean when I say mechanics, and what Larian is referring to), 2.5 is closer to 5.0 than any of those other games because those other games are on fundamentally different ruleset. The only one that is close is PK because pathfinder is highly derivative of 3.0 - I can see an argument to say they’re are equivalently close.
Now, the catch is you might say that doesn’t represent the “style” again, but without a definition there, it is as good of an answer as you can get.
I should probably write a more positive defense of Larian rather than just tut tutting the critics. So here's the basic facts as I see them.
Larian made two hugely successful isometric, party-based, strategic combat RPG's. The two most commercially successful entries into the genre of the current generation. Critically successful as well. Games that borrow heavily from elements in the IE games.
It might not be your cup of tea, but that took a lot of work. And a lot of other studios with talented staffs were trying to do the same thing in these years, and no one succeeded as well as Larian. And Larian had no built-in advantages. It was not a well known studio prior to OS. The Divinity setting wasn't well known either. And it was definitely not at all known for making this particular subgenre of game. It didn't have a major publisher or marketing campaign. The success of the game spread organically, pretty much exclusively because of player and reviewer praise.
Because of all that hard work, they've been awarded the rights to make the BG3 sequel. Most of the work of making video games isn't fun, that's why you have to pay people to do it. Since they're the ones who know how to make an isometric, party-based, strategic combat CRPG in this era, I think they deserve some amount of deference in their design decisions. They, after all, know what the market wants more than we do. They know what their team can do well better than we do. As well, they're the ones who will suffer for making a low quality product. We can theorycraft about what would help or not help BG3, but we have no serious investment in its outcome. Our future employment doesn't depend on this title, for example.
At the end of the day if your game studio cannot produce games that are commercially successful, your game studio will not produce games for very long. Some companies take that logic too far, and cynically make games as a cashgrab. So far, this does not appear like a cashgrab product. Larian could make an action RPG instead or an MMO, and probably be in line for much larger sales numbers. This is still a title in a relatively niche genre.
Awesome. No one has claimed Larian can't make an amazing D&D game. I already said, if you give this another name, you have the possibility to have another legendary title in D&D games like the Baldur's Gate series or the Neverwinter Nights series. They are claiming that this game isn't in the spirit of Baldur's Gate.
Fans of the series have waited 20 years for another full stand alone game similar to what they experienced with the original games. We can wait for a studio like Owlcat or Obsidian (both of which have produced commercially successful games) to fine tune their RtwP engine and use it to make a 5e D&D game centring around the aftermath of Throne of Bhaal (100, 200, 500 years later depending on when the timeline happens) even if it takes another 5 to 10 years to do so. That has now been ripped away, because why?
It's been ripped away in part because Owlcat released a truly buggy and often unplayable game at launch. Something that is far more deserving of criticism as being a bad, cynical move by a developer than anything Larian has done. To cite just one example.
Owlcat corrected almost ALL bugs And D:OS had a long alpha release.
@BallpointMan "First - I get that this is your opinion. How was Larian supposed to assuage you for an opinion on a subject that you cannot specifically enumerate? They can’t."
They CAN give a concrete answer though. Knowing exactly where they, and the game, stands is much better than them pretending that the BG sequel questions don't exist. What they are doing is infinitely more frustrating.
@BallpointMan "First - I get that this is your opinion. How was Larian supposed to assuage you for an opinion on a subject that you cannot specifically enumerate? They can’t."
They CAN give a concrete answer though. Knowing exactly where they, and the game, stands is much better than them pretending that the BG sequel questions don't exist. What they are doing is infinitely more frustrating.
So you want a concrete answer to an issue that the disaffected do not seem to be able to concretely articulate? And when Larian isnt able to provide that to their satisfaction, they're "pretending that the BG sequel question doesnt exist".
Second - I don’t believe this to be an opinion. In terms of mechanical ruleset (what I mean when I say mechanics, and what Larian is referring to), 2.5 is closer to 5.0 than any of those other games because those other games are on fundamentally different ruleset. The only one that is close is PK because pathfinder is highly derivative of 3.0 - I can see an argument to say they’re are equivalently close.
My rebuttal was based on your original wording. You used the word "mechanics", which I interpreted to mean "game mechanics" in this context. But if you meant ruleset, then yes, when looking at just the ruleset, the AD&D 2nd edition and D&D 5th edition games probably have more in common than they do with games that aren't based on D&D. (I don't think anyone was disputing that.) When people criticize BG3 for having too little in common mechanically with previous BG games, they probably mean the game mechanics outside of the ruleset. The turn-based combat, the camera controls, the party controls, the action bar UI, the maximum party size, and so on.
First - I get that this is your opinion. How was Larian supposed to assuage you for an opinion on a subject that you cannot specifically enumerate? They can’t. So when one accuses them of sidestepping, it’s problematic because the situation is such that they *cannot* give the argument some people want. If we follow this to the extreme, the criticism becomes a disingenuous way for some to vindicate their state of being upset at the name. That’s cynical, and I don’t want to believe that’s true, but... I’m not sure it isn’t.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Why is it cynical for me to criticize Larian and Wizards for having done something that I don't think they should have done? It's not like it's impossible for them to take people's criticisms to heart, change their minds, and change the title to something like "Baldur's Gate: Mind Flayers from Spaaaaace!" Sure, it's unlikely, but surely not impossible. Stranger things have happened in our universe.
And even if my criticism was purely in hindsight after they could no longer change the outcome, it might still cause them to change their minds and not do it again to some other franchise in the future. Or it could dissuade some other company from doing so.
So no, I don't think criticizing what I see as bad behavior is cynical in any way.
If Baldurs Gate 3 takes place in the city then it is a sequel in my book. It's politics played a large role in the first game and Siege of Dragonspear. Even Tales of the Sword Coast took us there.
Shadows of Amn and Throne of Bhaal never took place in the city which is a great miss for the series. We got barely a mention. Likely this is why players identity the series more with the protagonist than the city.
There were plenty high level characters planted in Baldurs Gate and it's surroundings to make something interesting work.
Well... That's precisely why I feel that Baldur's Gate 3 ISN'T really a sequel. For me, the Baldur's Gate series was all about the Bhaalspawn saga. It wasn't about being isometric, the Infinity Engine, the AD&D ruleset, or being RTwP, because I can scratch similar itches with Icewind Dale, Planescape: Torment, or the newer Pillars of Eternity games. It's not even about the eponymous city itself, because as you pointed out, BG2 and ToB don't even go back there. The BG series is the BG series because it was about the adventures of Gorion's Ward and the path they took to their ultimate destiny, whether as a deity or a mortal. As such, it feels to me that naming this game Baldur's Gate 3 was a mistake.
You have it wrong. Shadows of Amn and Throne of Bhaal were spin-offs. Right now they go back to the main storyline involving the city prosper
Second - I don’t believe this to be an opinion. In terms of mechanical ruleset (what I mean when I say mechanics, and what Larian is referring to), 2.5 is closer to 5.0 than any of those other games because those other games are on fundamentally different ruleset. The only one that is close is PK because pathfinder is highly derivative of 3.0 - I can see an argument to say they’re are equivalently close.
My rebuttal was based on your original wording. You used the word "mechanics", which I interpreted to mean "game mechanics" in this context. But if you meant ruleset, then yes, when looking at just the ruleset, the AD&D 2nd edition and D&D 5th edition games probably have more in common than they do with games that aren't based on D&D. (I don't think anyone was disputing that.) When people criticize BG3 for having too little in common mechanically with previous BG games, they probably mean the game mechanics outside of the ruleset. The turn-based combat, the camera controls, the party controls, the action bar UI, the maximum party size, and so on.
First - I get that this is your opinion. How was Larian supposed to assuage you for an opinion on a subject that you cannot specifically enumerate? They can’t. So when one accuses them of sidestepping, it’s problematic because the situation is such that they *cannot* give the argument some people want. If we follow this to the extreme, the criticism becomes a disingenuous way for some to vindicate their state of being upset at the name. That’s cynical, and I don’t want to believe that’s true, but... I’m not sure it isn’t.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Why is it cynical for me to criticize Larian and Wizards for having done something that I don't think they should have done? It's not like it's impossible for them to take people's criticisms to heart, change their minds, and change the title to something like "Baldur's Gate: Mind Flayers from Spaaaaace!" Sure, it's unlikely, but surely not impossible. Stranger things have happened in our universe.
And even if my criticism was purely in hindsight after they could no longer change the outcome, it might still cause them to change their minds and not do it again to some other franchise in the future. Or it could dissuade some other company from doing so.
So no, I don't think criticizing what I see as bad behavior is cynical in any way.
Fair enough on the first part. Sorry I wasnt more clear.
On the second part - Criticizing Larian isnt cynical. That's completely fine. I wasnt trying to say you cannot be critical. The thing that is cynical in my post would be my belief that people arent acting in good faith on this issue.
What would be disingenuous (in my mind) would be asking for them to answer a question that doesnt have a real "answer" (Why doesnt this game feel more like that game, when the feeling/style of the game cannot be defined adequately by any involved) - and and then when you get some kind of answer, handwaving it and accusing them of not giving you the answer you wanted. (Accusing them of dodging a question that seemingly has no answer)
Since you cannot define what that expected answer would or should be, you can always deflect and say "No. This isnt it". That argument is disingenuous. The cynical view would be if I felt that tactic was being employed in this thread.
To be clear (before anyone takes the above out of context) - I'm not specifically referring to you (or anyone in particular). Just speaking to you about it. Second thing - while that view is cynical (I'd be the cynical one for adopting it), I'm not saying anyone is doing it, but some of the arguments have begun to make me wonder on this point.
Well it wasn't anybody from this forum who asked Larian that question, it was from a media interview, but I think those who criticize Wizards and Larian for abusing the brand latched on to that question as it is relevant to their concerns, and it was an opportunity for Larian to address those concerns.
To speak for myself, really the only answer that would completely satisfy me (other than them remaking the game after having played the originals more) is for them to say that they hear the concerns and they're changing the title—or looking into it.
Of course, as I said, I know that's not likely to happen, and if it did, it probably wouldn't come out in an interview, but my point is that there is a satisfying answer they could have given to that question.
I think that is misrepresenting the issues. The question what made Baldur's Gate into Baldur's Gate may have different answers for different people and is subjective, so there is no "true" answer. But that doesn't mean there aren't good or bad answers.
For many people Baldur's Gate was the story of the Bhaalspawn. For others it was mainly the AD&D 2nd edition ruleset combined with RTwP set in the Forgotten Realms.
It's like when Ravel asks what can change the nature of a man. There isn't one true answer, but when someone answers the question it tells you something about the person. No one is expecting Larian to give the one true answer, what people are looking for is an answer that gives them confidence that they thought about the question and that they are going to move in a good direction.
I think that is misrepresenting the issues. The question what made Baldur's Gate into Baldur's Gate may have different answers for different people and is subjective, so there is no "true" answer. But that doesn't mean there aren't good or bad answers.
For many people Baldur's Gate was the story of the Bhaalspawn. For others it was mainly the AD&D 2nd edition ruleset combined with RTwP set in the Forgotten Realms.
It's like when Ravel asks what can change the nature of a man. There isn't one true answer, but when someone answers the question it tells you something about the person. No one is expecting Larian to give the one true answer, what people are looking for is an answer that gives them confidence that they thought about the question and that they are going to move in a good direction.
I think you said you disagree with me, and more or less fed my argument back.
It's subjective. That's what we're confirming. No one can define it because it's a matter of subjective opinion that changes between people. For many people "D&D" is an acceptable answer, and yet several others have suggested Larian is dodging the issue and disrespecting the BG fanbase with this answer.
As to the last part: That's where the cynical bit comes in. Some people are so dissatisfied that their answer might change to suit their dissatisfaction.
This is, by and large, the central thesis of my argument.
I suppose the only difference what we each said if I have separated the "mechanics" away from what the game looks and feels like. The artistic quality that some think is being lost, but cannot adequately define.
My very personal opinion, Baldur's Gate 3 is no more a poor choice of name for the game than Baldur's Gate was for number 1 or Baldur's Gate 2 was for number 2. Them naming the games after some city instead of what the games were actually about was a very poor choice from the start and now they're just sticking with it.
Even those who saw BG as "mainly the AD&D 2nd edition ruleset combined with RTwP set in the Forgotten Realms" never mistaken other games, situated in Forgotten Realms and run by ADnD rules for BG. Same way as there are countless FPS using same mechanic yet there are few recognizable franchises and no one call one game being a sequel to another only for shared gameplay.
The answer "this is DnD" - is terrible on every level. I was, and still am advocating for "wait and see" view, but that particular answer was just insulting, the interviewer dropped the ball by not pressing here.
baldurs gate 1 and 2 were the story of the bhaalspawn.
just as neverwinter nights 1 was the story of the hero of never winter. and it's expansions were the story of the hero of water deep.
or planescape torment is not about sigil it's about the namelessone.
the only dnd game where the story is pretty much about the setting is icewind dale.
none of the dnd games were about the setting. they were about the main chracter's story in said setting, so calling it baldurs gate 3 just says this will be a continuation of the series. when it's a new story set in the same region with nothing to do with the bhaalspawn story.
I should probably write a more positive defense of Larian rather than just tut tutting the critics. So here's the basic facts as I see them.
Larian made two hugely successful isometric, party-based, strategic combat RPG's. The two most commercially successful entries into the genre of the current generation. Critically successful as well. Games that borrow heavily from elements in the IE games.
It might not be your cup of tea, but that took a lot of work. And a lot of other studios with talented staffs were trying to do the same thing in these years, and no one succeeded as well as Larian. And Larian had no built-in advantages. It was not a well known studio prior to OS. The Divinity setting wasn't well known either. And it was definitely not at all known for making this particular subgenre of game. It didn't have a major publisher or marketing campaign. The success of the game spread organically, pretty much exclusively because of player and reviewer praise.
Because of all that hard work, they've been awarded the rights to make the BG3 sequel. Most of the work of making video games isn't fun, that's why you have to pay people to do it. Since they're the ones who know how to make an isometric, party-based, strategic combat CRPG in this era, I think they deserve some amount of deference in their design decisions. They, after all, know what the market wants more than we do. They know what their team can do well better than we do. As well, they're the ones who will suffer for making a low quality product. We can theorycraft about what would help or not help BG3, but we have no serious investment in its outcome. Our future employment doesn't depend on this title, for example.
At the end of the day if your game studio cannot produce games that are commercially successful, your game studio will not produce games for very long. Some companies take that logic too far, and cynically make games as a cashgrab. So far, this does not appear like a cashgrab product. Larian could make an action RPG instead or an MMO, and probably be in line for much larger sales numbers. This is still a title in a relatively niche genre.
Awesome. No one has claimed Larian can't make an amazing D&D game. I already said, if you give this another name, you have the possibility to have another legendary title in D&D games like the Baldur's Gate series or the Neverwinter Nights series. They are claiming that this game isn't in the spirit of Baldur's Gate.
Fans of the series have waited 20 years for another full stand alone game similar to what they experienced with the original games. We can wait for a studio like Owlcat or Obsidian (both of which have produced commercially successful games) to fine tune their RtwP engine and use it to make a 5e D&D game centring around the aftermath of Throne of Bhaal (100, 200, 500 years later depending on when the timeline happens) even if it takes another 5 to 10 years to do so. That has now been ripped away, because why?
It's been ripped away in part because Owlcat released a truly buggy and often unplayable game at launch. Something that is far more deserving of criticism as being a bad, cynical move by a developer than anything Larian has done. To cite just one example.
Owlcat corrected almost ALL bugs And D:OS had a long alpha release.
I had a game breaking bug that remained in the game months after release. A main quest bug where I literally could not advance the plot, tens of hours into the game -- and while the countdown timer was happening. And I wasn't alone in having that serious of an issue.
I'll take a flawed BG3 in the hand over a perfect BG3 in the bush any day.
The further and further we get from BG2, the less likely it is that the sequel would resemble the predecessors, and the less likely it might get made at all.
Let me just add, since you're getting mighty personal, I'm under no obligation to respond to every point you make in your posts. Just as Larian is not obligated to name the games that they earned the rights to according to your tastes.
Well enjoy your flawed BG3 then. Hopefully the hype you've consumed doesn't let you down too hard.
I will. It's not like the game is going to deeply surprise me at this point. It's pretty clear what the gameplay looks like from the extremely honest reveal they did. And so I get to enjoy a game that's had a lot of talented people put a lot of hard work into it.
You, on the other hand, get to stay mad about what is essentially just a superficial decision. Whether the game is called 3 or deserves to be called that doesn't effect if it will be good or not. Whose perspective on this issue is actually working for them? I get to enjoy a game. You get to be mad about it.
Comments
It should be abundantly clear that I do not agree with you, and that I think it's fine to call this game Baldur's Gate 3. The answer in the interview was fine and did not dodge the question. Not liking the answer one gets is not the same as not getting an answer at all.
A: "Let me assure you, it is D&D."
It may be an answer, though definitely not a direct one. They don't want to be seen directly dismissing the concerns of those who think making a D&D game is not reason enough to use the Baldur's Gate 3 branding, so instead they're dismissing them by not addressing the question directly.
It's also very clear from Larian's communication that they lack an appreciation for the Baldur's Gate games that goes beyond them being D&D games and having some memorable characters. And hey, this is probably true for most people who played the games once or twice twenty years ago and have forgotten most of the experience since. But when it comes to making a sequel, I do have an expectation for the developer team to not only familiarize themselves for the source material (which some of them apparently didn't do at all), but also develop an appreciation for it that goes beyond "it's D&D."
I'm just going to wait and see how the game turns out. I'm not prepared to find fault in every step Larian takes.
In some respects the argument cannot be answered to everyone's satisfaction.
People continue to try to say it doesnt have the "style" and "feel" of the franchise, but those qualities are not something that can be reasonably answered in a mechanical fashion because people are as-of-yet unable to articulate what the "feel" and "style" of BG2 is.
So Larian gave the only earnest and honest answer it can: It's using the D&D 5e ruleset. Which on a mechanical level, means that BG3 will be far far far closer to BG2 than PoE, PK, D:OS, or DA:O.
I also reject the premise that it is "very clear" that they dont have an appreciation for the franchise. Frankly, I'm not sure how you can be certain of that. What's more, they've given interviews about how excited they are to be working on the franchise, and seem to have demonstrated a very healthy level of respect/appreciation/admiration.
Shadows of Amn and Throne of Bhaal never took place in the city which is a great miss for the series. We got barely a mention. Likely this is why players identity the series more with the protagonist than the city.
There were plenty high level characters planted in Baldurs Gate and it's surroundings to make something interesting work.
1. People are allowed to believe that this IS a worthy sequel to Baldur’s Gate 1&2 without being made to feel like second class fans.
2. People are allowed to believe that this is NOT a worthy sequel to Baldur’s Gate 1&2 without being made to feel like a second class fans.
As someone who has accidentally myself forgotten the above on occasion let’s try to remember not be personal with each other because we are allowed to have different opinions. That does not make what you or anyone else believes in relation to this game being a sequel a pure fact as there is always going to be someone that feels differently or disagrees.
People are allowed to have concerns about the game. I 100% accept and appreciate that now. Just please don’t force your concerns on me as if they should be mine and I will try my best not to do the same to you.
As far as I’m concerned what I’ve seen and read so far gives me great hope that this game will be more than a worthy sequel to Baldur’s Gate 1&2 and I have full faith in Larian as out of the studios being mentioned they in my opinion have produced the best games and are the more solid studio. This is just my opinion and people are alllowed to disagree but please remember that just because you disagree it does not make what you think a fact! I will try to remember the same.
BG1:
he he I think if I said a sequel to Baldur’s Gate 1 that people may have been confused but I will edit my post so that Baldur’s Gate 1 does not feel offended ?
I thought it was pretty clear that when I or other people make those statements, we're not trying to establish facts but rather impart our impressions. I don't always put "I think" at the beginning of every sentence because it gets annoying after a while. Though to be fair, tone and therefore meaning is also not always easy to convey in writing, so if it helps, imagine I wrote "I think" before "it's also very clear" and "they don't want".
This of course also applies to your statements. If I imagine "I think" before it, it's a fine statement of opinion. If I imagine you were trying to establish a fact, the holes begin to appear in the argument. If you selectively focus on some of the mechanics, it's true. If you focus on different mechanics, it's false.
Well... That's precisely why I feel that Baldur's Gate 3 ISN'T really a sequel. For me, the Baldur's Gate series was all about the Bhaalspawn saga. It wasn't about being isometric, the Infinity Engine, the AD&D ruleset, or being RTwP, because I can scratch similar itches with Icewind Dale, Planescape: Torment, or the newer Pillars of Eternity games. It's not even about the eponymous city itself, because as you pointed out, BG2 and ToB don't even go back there. The BG series is the BG series because it was about the adventures of Gorion's Ward and the path they took to their ultimate destiny, whether as a deity or a mortal. As such, it feels to me that naming this game Baldur's Gate 3 was a mistake.
Now, let me get it out of the way that I'm quite sure that the decision was made at the highest levels between WotC and Larian, and that as the owners of the D&D brand, I acknowledge that WotC had every right to name this game as it is, but I still feel it was a bait and switch move to attract interest from an existing fanbase when the final product wasn't really going to be a continuation of the previous games. It'd be like if they announced they were making Back to the Future IV, except that there's no Doc Brown, no Marty McFly, no time travel and no DeLorean (although it does make a cameo), and the only real link it has to the previous movies is that it's also set in Hill Valley. :P
That aside, as I've mentioned in previous posts I AM still interested in what Larian has showed us so far. I do have some concerns and gripes, but as yet they've not proven to be dealbreakers. While I wish the game was named differently (and I fully understand and sympathize with those whose feelings against BG3 are much stronger than mine), ultimately what I want out of BG3 is a fun 5E D&D game. I have never played any of Larian's games before, so I'm keeping an open mind.
The game was always meant to be called BG3 no matter which developer would be making it. Reasons are not developers ' intentions but it's just how franchises and rightholders work.
https://www.pcgamesn.com/chris-avellone-interview?amp
https://kotaku.com/baldurs-gate-3-was-almost-made-four-years-ago-5967965
Whether it's 2002, 2008, or 2020, it has been always meant to have that title and in the same time have no connection to the original games: different engines, different gameplay.
It's funny that most people think of the city of Amn when they think of Baldurs Gate and not the city of Baldurs Gate.
Incidentally, this exactly demonstrates my point.
First - I get that this is your opinion. How was Larian supposed to assuage you for an opinion on a subject that you cannot specifically enumerate? They can’t. So when one accuses them of sidestepping, it’s problematic because the situation is such that they *cannot* give the argument some people want. If we follow this to the extreme, the criticism becomes a disingenuous way for some to vindicate their state of being upset at the name. That’s cynical, and I don’t want to believe that’s true, but... I’m not sure it isn’t.
Second - I don’t believe this to be an opinion. In terms of mechanical ruleset (what I mean when I say mechanics, and what Larian is referring to), 2.5 is closer to 5.0 than any of those other games because those other games are on fundamentally different ruleset. The only one that is close is PK because pathfinder is highly derivative of 3.0 - I can see an argument to say they’re are equivalently close.
Now, the catch is you might say that doesn’t represent the “style” again, but without a definition there, it is as good of an answer as you can get.
Owlcat corrected almost ALL bugs And D:OS had a long alpha release.
They CAN give a concrete answer though. Knowing exactly where they, and the game, stands is much better than them pretending that the BG sequel questions don't exist. What they are doing is infinitely more frustrating.
So you want a concrete answer to an issue that the disaffected do not seem to be able to concretely articulate? And when Larian isnt able to provide that to their satisfaction, they're "pretending that the BG sequel question doesnt exist".
Surely you must see the issue there.
My rebuttal was based on your original wording. You used the word "mechanics", which I interpreted to mean "game mechanics" in this context. But if you meant ruleset, then yes, when looking at just the ruleset, the AD&D 2nd edition and D&D 5th edition games probably have more in common than they do with games that aren't based on D&D. (I don't think anyone was disputing that.) When people criticize BG3 for having too little in common mechanically with previous BG games, they probably mean the game mechanics outside of the ruleset. The turn-based combat, the camera controls, the party controls, the action bar UI, the maximum party size, and so on.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Why is it cynical for me to criticize Larian and Wizards for having done something that I don't think they should have done? It's not like it's impossible for them to take people's criticisms to heart, change their minds, and change the title to something like "Baldur's Gate: Mind Flayers from Spaaaaace!" Sure, it's unlikely, but surely not impossible. Stranger things have happened in our universe.
And even if my criticism was purely in hindsight after they could no longer change the outcome, it might still cause them to change their minds and not do it again to some other franchise in the future. Or it could dissuade some other company from doing so.
So no, I don't think criticizing what I see as bad behavior is cynical in any way.
Fair enough on the first part. Sorry I wasnt more clear.
On the second part - Criticizing Larian isnt cynical. That's completely fine. I wasnt trying to say you cannot be critical. The thing that is cynical in my post would be my belief that people arent acting in good faith on this issue.
What would be disingenuous (in my mind) would be asking for them to answer a question that doesnt have a real "answer" (Why doesnt this game feel more like that game, when the feeling/style of the game cannot be defined adequately by any involved) - and and then when you get some kind of answer, handwaving it and accusing them of not giving you the answer you wanted. (Accusing them of dodging a question that seemingly has no answer)
Since you cannot define what that expected answer would or should be, you can always deflect and say "No. This isnt it". That argument is disingenuous. The cynical view would be if I felt that tactic was being employed in this thread.
To be clear (before anyone takes the above out of context) - I'm not specifically referring to you (or anyone in particular). Just speaking to you about it. Second thing - while that view is cynical (I'd be the cynical one for adopting it), I'm not saying anyone is doing it, but some of the arguments have begun to make me wonder on this point.
Hope that clears it up (a bit).
To speak for myself, really the only answer that would completely satisfy me (other than them remaking the game after having played the originals more) is for them to say that they hear the concerns and they're changing the title—or looking into it.
Of course, as I said, I know that's not likely to happen, and if it did, it probably wouldn't come out in an interview, but my point is that there is a satisfying answer they could have given to that question.
For many people Baldur's Gate was the story of the Bhaalspawn. For others it was mainly the AD&D 2nd edition ruleset combined with RTwP set in the Forgotten Realms.
It's like when Ravel asks what can change the nature of a man. There isn't one true answer, but when someone answers the question it tells you something about the person. No one is expecting Larian to give the one true answer, what people are looking for is an answer that gives them confidence that they thought about the question and that they are going to move in a good direction.
I think you said you disagree with me, and more or less fed my argument back.
It's subjective. That's what we're confirming. No one can define it because it's a matter of subjective opinion that changes between people. For many people "D&D" is an acceptable answer, and yet several others have suggested Larian is dodging the issue and disrespecting the BG fanbase with this answer.
As to the last part: That's where the cynical bit comes in. Some people are so dissatisfied that their answer might change to suit their dissatisfaction.
This is, by and large, the central thesis of my argument.
I suppose the only difference what we each said if I have separated the "mechanics" away from what the game looks and feels like. The artistic quality that some think is being lost, but cannot adequately define.
Also, on a less serious note, from Watergate to Climategate to Gamergate to Baldur's Gategate? Someone need to update the wiki with this newest 'gate' scandal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_%22-gate%22_scandals
The answer "this is DnD" - is terrible on every level. I was, and still am advocating for "wait and see" view, but that particular answer was just insulting, the interviewer dropped the ball by not pressing here.
just as neverwinter nights 1 was the story of the hero of never winter. and it's expansions were the story of the hero of water deep.
or planescape torment is not about sigil it's about the namelessone.
the only dnd game where the story is pretty much about the setting is icewind dale.
none of the dnd games were about the setting. they were about the main chracter's story in said setting, so calling it baldurs gate 3 just says this will be a continuation of the series. when it's a new story set in the same region with nothing to do with the bhaalspawn story.
so in a way it's like neverwinter nights 2.
I had a game breaking bug that remained in the game months after release. A main quest bug where I literally could not advance the plot, tens of hours into the game -- and while the countdown timer was happening. And I wasn't alone in having that serious of an issue.
I will. It's not like the game is going to deeply surprise me at this point. It's pretty clear what the gameplay looks like from the extremely honest reveal they did. And so I get to enjoy a game that's had a lot of talented people put a lot of hard work into it.
You, on the other hand, get to stay mad about what is essentially just a superficial decision. Whether the game is called 3 or deserves to be called that doesn't effect if it will be good or not. Whose perspective on this issue is actually working for them? I get to enjoy a game. You get to be mad about it.