What a strange thing to mention. Come on, I get you don't like BG3, but this is overboard. The last two Larian games are highly successful RPGs.
"Strange"? To you, perhaps. I on the other hand find it remains to be seen if Larian even gets another shot at the Baldur's Gate IP. Fickle as WotC appears to be, they may very well task another studio for the creation of BG4. Or NwN3. Or IwD3, for that matter. It happened before and will most likely continue to happen in the future.
Unless what people really want is an RPG with gameplay that resembles a late 90s RTS?
This is just insulting to people who would like to have seen a more faithful style. RtwP games barely resemble RTS's except at face value.
I can agree with people who prefer turn based or feel it fits DnD better but simply putting people down for wanting similar mechanics to a game that not only they love but is a benchmark for RtwP style is a bit rude.
... seems to me like that studio is trying its hardest to do a faithful, respectful progression of the series.
See, this here is at the heart of the split between at least some of the people on the two sides of this debate (not looking to speak for everyone). I don't see it this way at all. Not even in the slightest. For me, whether this is true is still very much an open question the answer to which is yet to be determined (by the eventual form of their BG3 game).
It's not just the D:OS games but all Larian games that I have never had an interest in. As such, I had never even heard of Larian as a studio up until their successful D:OS1 KS. And I am someone who pays close attention to studios that I classify as cRPG studios. So for me, Larian has not yet done anything to earn my trust or faith or even respect.
... seems to me like that studio is trying its hardest to do a faithful, respectful progression of the series.
See, this here is at the heart of the split between at least some of the people on the two sides of this debate (not looking to speak for everyone). I don't see it this way at all. Not even in the slightest. For me, whether this is true is still very much an open question the answer to which is yet to be determined (by the eventual form of their BG3 game).
It's not just the D:OS games but all Larian games that I have never had an interest in. As such, I had never even heard of Larian as a studio up until their successful D:OS1 KS. And I am someone who pays close attention to studios that I classify as cRPG studios. So for me, Larian has not yet done anything to earn my trust or faith or even respect.
Out of curiosity, which studio do you think would be most fitting to make the true faithful BG3 successor? Obsidian, Inxile, Beamdog, Owlcat...dunno CDProjetkt, Bioware, Bethesda?
... seems to me like that studio is trying its hardest to do a faithful, respectful progression of the series.
See, this here is at the heart of the split between at least some of the people on the two sides of this debate (not looking to speak for everyone). I don't see it this way at all. Not even in the slightest. For me, whether this is true is still very much an open question the answer to which is yet to be determined (by the eventual form of their BG3 game).
It's not just the D:OS games but all Larian games that I have never had an interest in. As such, I had never even heard of Larian as a studio up until their successful D:OS1 KS. And I am someone who pays close attention to studios that I classify as cRPG studios. So for me, Larian has not yet done anything to earn my trust or faith or even respect.
Out of curiosity, which studio do you think would be most fitting to make the true faithful BG3 successor? Obsidian, Inxile, Beamdog, Owlcat...dunno CDProjetkt, Bioware, Bethesda?
Personally I would have said Obsidian, Inxile and Beamdog because their teams had fairly good connections to the old games.
That said if they had picked it up and say Inxile's version looked and played really similar to Wasteland 2 I think we'd be having the same discussion. Hell if Obsidian had grabbed it and it just looked like reskinned PoE I think people would be a bit annoyed even though some fans would be happy with it being an evolution of RtwP formula.
All in all nothing wrong with Larian getting the gig, I'm just a little dissapointed how it's being conceptualized. This is about as much Baldurs Gate 3 as Swords Coast Legends for me.
... seems to me like that studio is trying its hardest to do a faithful, respectful progression of the series.
See, this here is at the heart of the split between at least some of the people on the two sides of this debate (not looking to speak for everyone). I don't see it this way at all. Not even in the slightest. For me, whether this is true is still very much an open question the answer to which is yet to be determined (by the eventual form of their BG3 game).
It's not just the D:OS games but all Larian games that I have never had an interest in. As such, I had never even heard of Larian as a studio up until their successful D:OS1 KS. And I am someone who pays close attention to studios that I classify as cRPG studios. So for me, Larian has not yet done anything to earn my trust or faith or even respect.
Out of curiosity, which studio do you think would be most fitting to make the true faithful BG3 successor? Obsidian, Inxile, Beamdog, Owlcat...dunno CDProjetkt, Bioware, Bethesda?
Personally I would have said Obsidian, Inxile and Beamdog because their teams had fairly good connections to the old games.
That said if they had picked it up and say Inxile's version looked and played really similar to Wasteland 2 I think we'd be having the same discussion. Hell if Obsidian had grabbed it and it just looked like reskinned PoE I think people would be a bit annoyed even though some fans would be happy with it being an evolution of RtwP formula.
All in all nothing wrong with Larian getting the gig, I'm just a little dissapointed how it's being conceptualized. This is about as much Baldurs Gate 3 as Swords Coast Legends for me.
That's, the point. From all those studios I would say only Beamdog could produce the game that would be the most faithful to previous installments (but since SoD was hatefully review bombed, WoTC was not willing to risk this story to repeat). Obsidian won't do anything remotely in the spirit of BG1 or BG2 since their acquisition by MS. Inxile... Numenera and Wasteland 2 were both TB, so it seems Inxile is also no go for you guys. Owlcat is content to focus on Pathfinder brand and I would say, that's great. I don't even want to start with Bioware or Bethesda.... So, there is not much other choice to go for WoTC than Larian.
... seems to me like that studio is trying its hardest to do a faithful, respectful progression of the series.
See, this here is at the heart of the split between at least some of the people on the two sides of this debate (not looking to speak for everyone). I don't see it this way at all. Not even in the slightest. For me, whether this is true is still very much an open question the answer to which is yet to be determined (by the eventual form of their BG3 game).
It's not just the D:OS games but all Larian games that I have never had an interest in. As such, I had never even heard of Larian as a studio up until their successful D:OS1 KS. And I am someone who pays close attention to studios that I classify as cRPG studios. So for me, Larian has not yet done anything to earn my trust or faith or even respect.
Out of curiosity, which studio do you think would be most fitting to make the true faithful BG3 successor? Obsidian, Inxile, Beamdog, Owlcat...dunno CDProjetkt, Bioware, Bethesda?
... seems to me like that studio is trying its hardest to do a faithful, respectful progression of the series.
See, this here is at the heart of the split between at least some of the people on the two sides of this debate (not looking to speak for everyone). I don't see it this way at all. Not even in the slightest. For me, whether this is true is still very much an open question the answer to which is yet to be determined (by the eventual form of their BG3 game).
It's not just the D:OS games but all Larian games that I have never had an interest in. As such, I had never even heard of Larian as a studio up until their successful D:OS1 KS. And I am someone who pays close attention to studios that I classify as cRPG studios. So for me, Larian has not yet done anything to earn my trust or faith or even respect.
Out of curiosity, which studio do you think would be most fitting to make the true faithful BG3 successor? Obsidian, Inxile, Beamdog, Owlcat...dunno CDProjetkt, Bioware, Bethesda?
First off, I want to be clear given certain other people's posts, that I was not in any way saying - and did not say - Larian should not have got the contract. I only said that Larian doesn't get an automatic pass from me the way it does with some others.
That said, yes I would certainly have preferred Obsidian because they make games I generally like. However, as @spacejaws says, an Obsidian version could also have resulted in things I did not care for. Beamdog is a question mark for me. I agree they would have the potential for making the most faithfully represented game, but the fact that they haven't yet made a full, original cRPG would leave me skeptical about their ability to pull off a game like BG3 as their first game. But then again, Bioware was a relatively unknown studio at the time they made BG1.
A quick post by me during the weekend: I'm sorry for the latest comments and reactions by a few members in this thread. All of them are now removed as we're doing an investigation. The Site Rules apply to everyone, including moderators.
Please, do continue discussing BG3, both positively and negatively, and never hesitate to post criticism and concerns. From day 1 of the first announcement of BG3 I have been striving to have a balanced discussion here.
Sorry to all those affected on behalf of the moderation team.
... seems to me like that studio is trying its hardest to do a faithful, respectful progression of the series.
See, this here is at the heart of the split between at least some of the people on the two sides of this debate (not looking to speak for everyone). I don't see it this way at all. Not even in the slightest. For me, whether this is true is still very much an open question the answer to which is yet to be determined (by the eventual form of their BG3 game).
It's not just the D:OS games but all Larian games that I have never had an interest in. As such, I had never even heard of Larian as a studio up until their successful D:OS1 KS. And I am someone who pays close attention to studios that I classify as cRPG studios. So for me, Larian has not yet done anything to earn my trust or faith or even respect.
Out of curiosity, which studio do you think would be most fitting to make the true faithful BG3 successor? Obsidian, Inxile, Beamdog, Owlcat...dunno CDProjetkt, Bioware, Bethesda?
My two cents on this, BG3 doesn't need to exist.
People on both sides of the argument have pointed out numerous times that the CHARNAME story was in the center of all the Baldur's Gate games, and that story has ended, so a direct story followup is not possible. Really as far as BG sequels go, the precedent is a direct story followup, and that's already not an option. So why even name the game BG3? (I mean, in any sense that transcends obvious marketing considerations.)
But okay, they wanted to make BG3. Since following the story followup precedent is out the window, they could have tried to follow the precedent that all BG games have similar (mostly identical, really) gameplay mechanics. Except, there's already a wrench thrown into the works of that plan, because Wizards prioritizes selling books and they monolithically deny all aims for new games to be released under older D&D rulesets, so some of the mechanics would already have to differ by necessity.
That said, I think it would be possible to create a Baldurlike under 5th edition that at least preserved most of the non-ruleset mechanics from the original games and still passed as a spiritual successor and therefore as a fairly faithful sequel—borked FR lore notwithstanding. Today, a Baldurlike wouldn't be nearly as massive of a gaming phenomenon as it used to be in the 90s, but it would certainly still have its niche and many fans would still appreciate it.
Now, on to the question at hand—I know, took me a while—who could make it? To me the first most obvious answer that comes to mind is Obsidian, but as others have pointed out Obsidian's Microsoft acquisition may have changed their MO. My actual answer is any studio could make it, as long as they approached it with the necessary respect and desire to preserve the identity of the franchise. It wouldn't need to be a big studio, BioWare wasn't big when they started out either. I wouldn't even need to have heard of them. If they did good work and were respectful, that'd be good enough for me.
Of course, Wizards has numerous considerations that would likely prevent my "faithful sequel" version of BG3 from ever being made, which directs me to my original answer at the top of this post: BG3 doesn't need to exist. Make it its own franchise, or even a spinoff if they want, but leave the BG franchise alone. Let it continue to represent what it's always represented.
Unless what people really want is an RPG with gameplay that resembles a late 90s RTS?
This is just insulting to people who would like to have seen a more faithful style. RtwP games barely resemble RTS's except at face value.
I can agree with people who prefer turn based or feel it fits DnD better but simply putting people down for wanting similar mechanics to a game that not only they love but is a benchmark for RtwP style is a bit rude.
The thing is, I didn't insult anyone in my post or put anyone down. But it does seem people are attached to certain mechanics that aren't peculiar to RPG's. There's nothing wrong with this. I love RTS games and it's what made me love the BG series. But it's also not correct to assume that a game in a series changing its mechanics is a "betrayal" of the series. As I said before, Ultima4 and Ultima7 both represented pretty radical departures from some mechanics or aspects within the series. No one calls them unfaithful Ultimas. They're considered the best titles in the series. Taking risks is good!
Secondly, if people are bothered by insults or putting down, the record needs to show that it's actually Larian and "Larian fanboys" who have received the most abuse in these threads.
Also just to add, the BG games very much *do* resemble RTS games. Bioware themselves said they were inspired in part by their warcraft2 sessions, and the game was even originally going to be an RTS. The similarities are not at all superficial. Hell, kiting is as legit a tactic in BG as it is in Starcraft or Warcraft.
This has the potential to be a great Baldur’s Gate sequel. All down to opinion at the end of the day
It's actually not a matter of opinion. No matter what someone wants do in their head-canon or whatever, the title is going to be sold in stores as Baldur's Gate 3. I see no benefit in continuing to protest that.
... seems to me like that studio is trying its hardest to do a faithful, respectful progression of the series.
See, this here is at the heart of the split between at least some of the people on the two sides of this debate (not looking to speak for everyone). I don't see it this way at all. Not even in the slightest. For me, whether this is true is still very much an open question the answer to which is yet to be determined (by the eventual form of their BG3 game).
It's not just the D:OS games but all Larian games that I have never had an interest in. As such, I had never even heard of Larian as a studio up until their successful D:OS1 KS. And I am someone who pays close attention to studios that I classify as cRPG studios. So for me, Larian has not yet done anything to earn my trust or faith or even respect.
I had also never heard of Larian until Original Sin. As I suspect is true for a lot of gamers. It vastly outsold any of their previous titles. And it's a testament to how the game was able to dominate in the tactical CRPG market, despite it being their first entry into that subgenre and despite very few gamers knowing the company. So alot of fans were coming at OS with the perspective you have, don't know the company, no built up goodwill or trust. And it was a somewhat crowded market at the time. Nonetheless, they succeeded, surpassing (in sales at least) even what well established companies had done.
Obviously the game did something for fans of these types of games. I totally get that it's not everyone's fave--its worldbuilding and characterization is kind of weak, imo. But it's an extremely strong game in many other aspects.
@DinoDin just trying my best to see things from both sides and not force my view on people. . As far as I’m concerned this new game is Baldur’s Gate 3. Nothing anyone here says will change that. But I appreciate that other people have their own head cannon and believe that Baldur's Gate was only defined by the story of Gorions ward.. that’s up to them at the end of the day. It was so much more than that in my humble opinion and I can’t wait to see what Baldur’s Gate 3, the sequel to Baldur’s Gate 2 has to offer
Sure, I agree with that perspective but uh, everyone knows what we're referring to when we talk about BG3, correct? So we've accepted it.
I mean I dunno, I never finished Ultima8 because it was boring, and never picked up 9 based on its terrible reviews. But I don't exclude them as the final titles of the series. Not to get too deep on this, but words, names and phrases need to have a shared understanding in order for a conversation to take place. I just hope when the game comes out for example, we're not interjecting critiques/reviews/discussions of our experiences of the game with reminders from some people that they still don't consider it BG3, despite the fact that it is in fact BG3.
Secondly, if people are bothered by insults or putting down, the record needs to show that it's actually Larian and "Larian fanboys" who have received the most abuse in these threads.
I strongly disagree. Being critical of companies and products are not "insults or putting down".
Sure, I agree with that perspective but uh, everyone knows what we're referring to when we talk about BG3, correct? So we've accepted it.
I mean I dunno, I never finished Ultima8 because it was boring, and never picked up 9 based on its terrible reviews. But I don't exclude them as the final titles of the series. Not to get too deep on this, but words, names and phrases need to have a shared understanding in order for a conversation to take place. I just hope when the game comes out for example, we're not interjecting critiques/reviews/discussions of our experiences of the game with reminders from some people that they still don't consider it BG3, despite the fact that it is in fact BG3.
I'm as tired as anyone else of this argument being had over and over again ad infinitum but fact is that no, it is a valid reason for disliking the product and no, there's no reason they should stop feeling that way just because the game is released.
This has the potential to be a great Baldur’s Gate sequel. All down to opinion at the end of the day
It's actually not a matter of opinion. No matter what someone wants do in their head-canon or whatever, the title is going to be sold in stores as Baldur's Gate 3. I see no benefit in continuing to protest that.
There is definitely potential for it to be a great game. Every sign points to it being a sequel.
If it has the potential to be a GREAT sequel, that is most definitely a matter of opinion.
I think in some way the second title in a series defines the series.
Ultima reinvented the engine & parts of the gameplay every iteration, but kept the protagonist (even if this was partially a retcon).
Icewind Dale kept the setting, but changed the protagonist(s).
D:OS kept most of the gameplay and the setting.
Jedi Knight kept the protagonist, except for Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy, which was specifically not named Jedi Knight 3.
BG 2 switched the location, but kept the protagonist. It also established a naming scheme, where expansion packs and sequels had subtitles (Tales of the Sword Coast, Shadows of Amn, Throne of Bhaal, Siege of Dragonspear). So saying that the Baldur's Gate series was about the Bhaalspawn is a fair take, especially as Larian breaks the naming convention. Opinions will differ.
As stated multiple times, I am not bothered about naming it BG 3 as I never expected a sequel to the Bhaalspawn story anyway. It's nicely concluded and since they did in two titles they managed to do without releasing a disappointing successor.
I just think it would improve cRPGs if we had a few less sequels and more fresh settings. Even if it had been (original!) Bioware I would have much preferred a new D&D game with a different setting than Baldur's Gate 3. I don't think Baldur's Gate is an especially interesting city in any DnD edition.
As stated multiple times, I am not bothered about naming it BG 3 as I never expected a sequel to the Bhaalspawn story anyway. It's nicely concluded and since they did in two titles they managed to do without releasing a disappointing successor.
Well. Let's just say if someone were to remake Throne of Bhaal and add an amount of side content to it befitting of a 'proper' Baldur's Gate game, I wouldn't mind.
BG 2 switched the location, but kept the protagonist. It also established a naming scheme, where expansion packs and sequels had subtitles (Tales of the Sword Coast, Shadows of Amn, Throne of Bhaal, Siege of Dragonspear). So saying that the Baldur's Gate series was about the Bhaalspawn is a fair take, especially as Larian breaks the naming convention. Opinions will differ.
Maybe Larian will add a subtitle prior to the release ? Or is it unlikely ?
BG 2 switched the location, but kept the protagonist. It also established a naming scheme, where expansion packs and sequels had subtitles (Tales of the Sword Coast, Shadows of Amn, Throne of Bhaal, Siege of Dragonspear). So saying that the Baldur's Gate series was about the Bhaalspawn is a fair take, especially as Larian breaks the naming convention. Opinions will differ.
Maybe Larian will add a subtitle prior to the release ? Or is it unlikely ?
Maybe, but I doubt it. Usually games are announced with subtitle, if they have one. And one fair point that has been made is that if you look at game design decisions beyond using D&D as a ruleset, is that in all places where there is a design difference between previous BG and D:OS games, Larian went with the D:OS design.
Examples include origin stories, party size and dialogue style. Not counting interface yet, as that will be at least partially placeholders. Not using a subtitle would be just one more example.
EDIT: I hasten to add that I don't care about having a subtitle or not, and that it is not something I think people should care about. Just answering the question.
Maybe Larian will add a subtitle prior to the release ?
Unlikely as I think it is, if they did that and also removed the "III", I'd be fully behind Larian releasing their game under the Baldur's Gate title.
After all, there's previous precedence for BG spinoffs with the Dark Alliance games. And Beamdog also released their BG-inspired expansion with the title Baldur's Gate: Siege of Dragonspear, which on certain platforms is actually a standalone game. (Likely for technical reasons, but still.)
The funny thing is that Larian spun off their own Divine Divinity franchise multiple times, so I think they understand when it's more appropriate to spin off than to create a sequel. I suspect Wizards might have a different mindset about it, though.
Secondly, if people are bothered by insults or putting down, the record needs to show that it's actually Larian and "Larian fanboys" who have received the most abuse in these threads.
I strongly disagree. Being critical of companies and products are not "insults or putting down".
Totally agreed actually. I'm not against anyone voicing criticism of specific things done by a company. Even harsh criticism where it is merited. I've criticized pretty strongly some specific aspects of the OS games.
But if we want to have a discussion forum free of insults, it's necessary to not have generalized insults of individuals or groups even if they don't appear to be present among the commenters. We've had a number of posts in here that have attacked Larian, Larian fans, game reviewers, without, imo, having any specific grievance or evidence to back them up.
EDIT: I hasten to add that I don't care about having a subtitle or not, and that it is not something I think people should care about. Just answering the question.
And my question was just out of curiosity
I never thought about it before but I would prefer BG3 to have a subtitle actualy.
Even the tabletop campain preceding the game has one (Baldur's Gate: Descent Into Avernus).
But maybe it would give out too much about the real plot (I think the ithillids will probably be only a trigger to put the protagonist in motion).
If that's the reason, there's still a little chance that's they add one juste before the final release...
We will see
EDIT: I hasten to add that I don't care about having a subtitle or not, and that it is not something I think people should care about. Just answering the question.
And my question was just out of curiosity
I never thought about it before but I would prefer BG3 to have a subtitle actualy.
Even the tabletop campain preceding the game has one (Baldur's Gate: Descent Into Avernus).
But maybe it would give out too much about the real plot (I think the ithillids will probably be only a trigger to put the protagonist in motion).
If that's the reason, there's still a little chance that's they add one juste before the final release...
We will see
I suspect Ammar is right that there won't be a subtitle, and you're probably correct as well that it would be spoilery, with the exception of some lame subtitle along the lines of "Return to the Sword Coast". OS2 didn't get a subtitle. I also share your suspicion that the game will take some hard turn away from the Illithids in the main plot, perhaps saving a confrontation with them for a sequel. Pure speculation of course.
Comments
What a strange thing to mention. Come on, I get you don't like BG3, but this is overboard. The last two Larian games are highly successful RPGs.
This is just insulting to people who would like to have seen a more faithful style. RtwP games barely resemble RTS's except at face value.
I can agree with people who prefer turn based or feel it fits DnD better but simply putting people down for wanting similar mechanics to a game that not only they love but is a benchmark for RtwP style is a bit rude.
See, this here is at the heart of the split between at least some of the people on the two sides of this debate (not looking to speak for everyone). I don't see it this way at all. Not even in the slightest. For me, whether this is true is still very much an open question the answer to which is yet to be determined (by the eventual form of their BG3 game).
It's not just the D:OS games but all Larian games that I have never had an interest in. As such, I had never even heard of Larian as a studio up until their successful D:OS1 KS. And I am someone who pays close attention to studios that I classify as cRPG studios. So for me, Larian has not yet done anything to earn my trust or faith or even respect.
Out of curiosity, which studio do you think would be most fitting to make the true faithful BG3 successor? Obsidian, Inxile, Beamdog, Owlcat...dunno CDProjetkt, Bioware, Bethesda?
Personally I would have said Obsidian, Inxile and Beamdog because their teams had fairly good connections to the old games.
That said if they had picked it up and say Inxile's version looked and played really similar to Wasteland 2 I think we'd be having the same discussion. Hell if Obsidian had grabbed it and it just looked like reskinned PoE I think people would be a bit annoyed even though some fans would be happy with it being an evolution of RtwP formula.
All in all nothing wrong with Larian getting the gig, I'm just a little dissapointed how it's being conceptualized. This is about as much Baldurs Gate 3 as Swords Coast Legends for me.
That's, the point. From all those studios I would say only Beamdog could produce the game that would be the most faithful to previous installments (but since SoD was hatefully review bombed, WoTC was not willing to risk this story to repeat). Obsidian won't do anything remotely in the spirit of BG1 or BG2 since their acquisition by MS. Inxile... Numenera and Wasteland 2 were both TB, so it seems Inxile is also no go for you guys. Owlcat is content to focus on Pathfinder brand and I would say, that's great. I don't even want to start with Bioware or Bethesda.... So, there is not much other choice to go for WoTC than Larian.
Ubisoft of course!
First off, I want to be clear given certain other people's posts, that I was not in any way saying - and did not say - Larian should not have got the contract. I only said that Larian doesn't get an automatic pass from me the way it does with some others.
That said, yes I would certainly have preferred Obsidian because they make games I generally like. However, as @spacejaws says, an Obsidian version could also have resulted in things I did not care for. Beamdog is a question mark for me. I agree they would have the potential for making the most faithfully represented game, but the fact that they haven't yet made a full, original cRPG would leave me skeptical about their ability to pull off a game like BG3 as their first game. But then again, Bioware was a relatively unknown studio at the time they made BG1.
Please, do continue discussing BG3, both positively and negatively, and never hesitate to post criticism and concerns. From day 1 of the first announcement of BG3 I have been striving to have a balanced discussion here.
Sorry to all those affected on behalf of the moderation team.
My two cents on this, BG3 doesn't need to exist.
People on both sides of the argument have pointed out numerous times that the CHARNAME story was in the center of all the Baldur's Gate games, and that story has ended, so a direct story followup is not possible. Really as far as BG sequels go, the precedent is a direct story followup, and that's already not an option. So why even name the game BG3? (I mean, in any sense that transcends obvious marketing considerations.)
But okay, they wanted to make BG3. Since following the story followup precedent is out the window, they could have tried to follow the precedent that all BG games have similar (mostly identical, really) gameplay mechanics. Except, there's already a wrench thrown into the works of that plan, because Wizards prioritizes selling books and they monolithically deny all aims for new games to be released under older D&D rulesets, so some of the mechanics would already have to differ by necessity.
That said, I think it would be possible to create a Baldurlike under 5th edition that at least preserved most of the non-ruleset mechanics from the original games and still passed as a spiritual successor and therefore as a fairly faithful sequel—borked FR lore notwithstanding. Today, a Baldurlike wouldn't be nearly as massive of a gaming phenomenon as it used to be in the 90s, but it would certainly still have its niche and many fans would still appreciate it.
Now, on to the question at hand—I know, took me a while—who could make it? To me the first most obvious answer that comes to mind is Obsidian, but as others have pointed out Obsidian's Microsoft acquisition may have changed their MO. My actual answer is any studio could make it, as long as they approached it with the necessary respect and desire to preserve the identity of the franchise. It wouldn't need to be a big studio, BioWare wasn't big when they started out either. I wouldn't even need to have heard of them. If they did good work and were respectful, that'd be good enough for me.
Of course, Wizards has numerous considerations that would likely prevent my "faithful sequel" version of BG3 from ever being made, which directs me to my original answer at the top of this post: BG3 doesn't need to exist. Make it its own franchise, or even a spinoff if they want, but leave the BG franchise alone. Let it continue to represent what it's always represented.
Oh wow, I wasn't aware that the game was continuing the story of Gorion's Ward!
The thing is, I didn't insult anyone in my post or put anyone down. But it does seem people are attached to certain mechanics that aren't peculiar to RPG's. There's nothing wrong with this. I love RTS games and it's what made me love the BG series. But it's also not correct to assume that a game in a series changing its mechanics is a "betrayal" of the series. As I said before, Ultima4 and Ultima7 both represented pretty radical departures from some mechanics or aspects within the series. No one calls them unfaithful Ultimas. They're considered the best titles in the series. Taking risks is good!
Secondly, if people are bothered by insults or putting down, the record needs to show that it's actually Larian and "Larian fanboys" who have received the most abuse in these threads.
Also just to add, the BG games very much *do* resemble RTS games. Bioware themselves said they were inspired in part by their warcraft2 sessions, and the game was even originally going to be an RTS. The similarities are not at all superficial. Hell, kiting is as legit a tactic in BG as it is in Starcraft or Warcraft.
It's actually not a matter of opinion. No matter what someone wants do in their head-canon or whatever, the title is going to be sold in stores as Baldur's Gate 3. I see no benefit in continuing to protest that.
I had also never heard of Larian until Original Sin. As I suspect is true for a lot of gamers. It vastly outsold any of their previous titles. And it's a testament to how the game was able to dominate in the tactical CRPG market, despite it being their first entry into that subgenre and despite very few gamers knowing the company. So alot of fans were coming at OS with the perspective you have, don't know the company, no built up goodwill or trust. And it was a somewhat crowded market at the time. Nonetheless, they succeeded, surpassing (in sales at least) even what well established companies had done.
Obviously the game did something for fans of these types of games. I totally get that it's not everyone's fave--its worldbuilding and characterization is kind of weak, imo. But it's an extremely strong game in many other aspects.
I mean I dunno, I never finished Ultima8 because it was boring, and never picked up 9 based on its terrible reviews. But I don't exclude them as the final titles of the series. Not to get too deep on this, but words, names and phrases need to have a shared understanding in order for a conversation to take place. I just hope when the game comes out for example, we're not interjecting critiques/reviews/discussions of our experiences of the game with reminders from some people that they still don't consider it BG3, despite the fact that it is in fact BG3.
Don't pretend he has to toe to your rationale, 'tis unflattering.
I strongly disagree. Being critical of companies and products are not "insults or putting down".
I'm as tired as anyone else of this argument being had over and over again ad infinitum but fact is that no, it is a valid reason for disliking the product and no, there's no reason they should stop feeling that way just because the game is released.
There is definitely potential for it to be a great game. Every sign points to it being a sequel.
If it has the potential to be a GREAT sequel, that is most definitely a matter of opinion.
Ultima reinvented the engine & parts of the gameplay every iteration, but kept the protagonist (even if this was partially a retcon).
Icewind Dale kept the setting, but changed the protagonist(s).
D:OS kept most of the gameplay and the setting.
Jedi Knight kept the protagonist, except for Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy, which was specifically not named Jedi Knight 3.
BG 2 switched the location, but kept the protagonist. It also established a naming scheme, where expansion packs and sequels had subtitles (Tales of the Sword Coast, Shadows of Amn, Throne of Bhaal, Siege of Dragonspear). So saying that the Baldur's Gate series was about the Bhaalspawn is a fair take, especially as Larian breaks the naming convention. Opinions will differ.
As stated multiple times, I am not bothered about naming it BG 3 as I never expected a sequel to the Bhaalspawn story anyway. It's nicely concluded and since they did in two titles they managed to do without releasing a disappointing successor.
I just think it would improve cRPGs if we had a few less sequels and more fresh settings. Even if it had been (original!) Bioware I would have much preferred a new D&D game with a different setting than Baldur's Gate 3. I don't think Baldur's Gate is an especially interesting city in any DnD edition.
Well. Let's just say if someone were to remake Throne of Bhaal and add an amount of side content to it befitting of a 'proper' Baldur's Gate game, I wouldn't mind.
Maybe Larian will add a subtitle prior to the release ? Or is it unlikely ?
Maybe, but I doubt it. Usually games are announced with subtitle, if they have one. And one fair point that has been made is that if you look at game design decisions beyond using D&D as a ruleset, is that in all places where there is a design difference between previous BG and D:OS games, Larian went with the D:OS design.
Examples include origin stories, party size and dialogue style. Not counting interface yet, as that will be at least partially placeholders. Not using a subtitle would be just one more example.
EDIT: I hasten to add that I don't care about having a subtitle or not, and that it is not something I think people should care about. Just answering the question.
Unlikely as I think it is, if they did that and also removed the "III", I'd be fully behind Larian releasing their game under the Baldur's Gate title.
After all, there's previous precedence for BG spinoffs with the Dark Alliance games. And Beamdog also released their BG-inspired expansion with the title Baldur's Gate: Siege of Dragonspear, which on certain platforms is actually a standalone game. (Likely for technical reasons, but still.)
The funny thing is that Larian spun off their own Divine Divinity franchise multiple times, so I think they understand when it's more appropriate to spin off than to create a sequel. I suspect Wizards might have a different mindset about it, though.
Totally agreed actually. I'm not against anyone voicing criticism of specific things done by a company. Even harsh criticism where it is merited. I've criticized pretty strongly some specific aspects of the OS games.
But if we want to have a discussion forum free of insults, it's necessary to not have generalized insults of individuals or groups even if they don't appear to be present among the commenters. We've had a number of posts in here that have attacked Larian, Larian fans, game reviewers, without, imo, having any specific grievance or evidence to back them up.
And my question was just out of curiosity
I never thought about it before but I would prefer BG3 to have a subtitle actualy.
Even the tabletop campain preceding the game has one (Baldur's Gate: Descent Into Avernus).
But maybe it would give out too much about the real plot (I think the ithillids will probably be only a trigger to put the protagonist in motion).
If that's the reason, there's still a little chance that's they add one juste before the final release...
We will see
I suspect Ammar is right that there won't be a subtitle, and you're probably correct as well that it would be spoilery, with the exception of some lame subtitle along the lines of "Return to the Sword Coast". OS2 didn't get a subtitle. I also share your suspicion that the game will take some hard turn away from the Illithids in the main plot, perhaps saving a confrontation with them for a sequel. Pure speculation of course.