- It being set in the city of Baldur's Gate is not enough. The story was never about the city (we never even set foot in the city in BG2) but about the internal struggle of a single individual, the Charname Bhaalspawn.
I'm sorry but this is just a factually incorrect retconning of the original game. It was very much about the city. The whole main plot of the original game is about wresting control of the city's government from a madman and preventing a devastating war between that city-state and its southern neighbor.
Yes the second game went off in a completely different direction, but the original game had a title for a reason. And none of SoA or ToB was likely thought of when that title was first chosen.
Edit to add: "Baldur's Gate" was the core main plot of the first game. Bhaalspawn stuff was a sequel hook.
funny you say this as i just played torment very recently. and it's one of the few modern crpgs where i don't mind the turn based combat. it helps there isnt as much combat in tides and it's not as slow as say dos.
thats really my issue with dos the combat is to slow. i did not mind the combat in shadow run either. so it's not like i hate turn based combat i just hate slow turnbased combat.
@megamike15 I agree about T:ToN, and I've said so previously in this subforum precisely to counter claims that I just don't like any TB game. T:ToN is a game I really like despite it being TB because, just like you, I loved that combat was not pervasive, almost every combat encounter including the final boss battle had a nice, meaningful, and viable alternative non-combat path, and when you did engage in combat it went by VERY fast. That's a well-made TB combat system.
Yeah, Numenera has different issues, combat is not one of them. It just looks like this project was too ambitious for In ile and turned out to be the poor cousin of PST. It's still a good game, but (except of combat) PST is better in every aspect. I still remember each and every NPC from PST, I doubt I'll remember any NPC from Numenera two years from now.
Agreed, but I would say that although they were indeed over-ambitious, and also did it too rushed, the main source of the game's problems was a woefully inadequate budget. So I am hopeful (and have posted this on the inXile website) that someday they will go back to that franchise and do it right with a T:ToN2 that gets properly resourced by MS. The game's setting is fantastic, and the concept of that game has tremendous potential.
Yeah, the problem is it's supposed to be complex with a lot of branching, but... it doesn't seem to be the case. In fact, it's very much linear in my opinion. Also I read every single wall of text in PST with open mouth, but in Numenera once in a while I just skipped it, it's just not that interesting. I always thought that Avellone and McComb are brilliant writers, but T:ToN showed me how good both really are. PST is still the pinnacle of RPG writing. Disco Elysium is a close second, but still *second*.
The linearity I agree with. But I found the lore text in the game to be interesting even as (don't kill me for saying this ) I was never that impressed with Ps:T. Btw, didn't McComb also write for T:ToN?
@byrne20 That's twice now that you have called me a liar. Cut that crap out. Need I remind you that insulting other forum users is against site rules?
@Sjerrie "How can the number '3' at the end of the title be any more of a fact that BG3 is marketed as a direct sequel, and not a loose sequel? There were multiple ways to play this, including ways that would still hark back the the glory days of the original games. They deliberately chose to include the '3' at the end, possibly in an attempt to capitalize on nostalgia (speculation)....- It is marketed as a direct sequel. Fact."
Sjerrie has it 100% right. Anything else is justification after the fact. AT BEST.
@DinoDin "I'm sorry but this is just a factually incorrect retconning of the original game. It was very much about the city. The whole main plot of the original game is about wresting control of the city's government from a madman and preventing a devastating war between that city-state and its southern neighbor."
Nope, you're factually incorrect (See? We can say it too.) The entire driving theme of the game is nature vs. nurture. Its about charname's struggle against his heritage. The politics of the city is just window dressing.
Its funny. I've never seen people claim that the city is somehow the entire point of the game UNTIL it turned out that its the only link Larian has given us to the series that BG3 is supposedly a direct sequel to. Just more justification after the fact.
If "BG"3s status as a sequel, and the number really doesn't matter, you'd think Larian supporters would have no problem just coming out and saying it has nothing to do with the original series.
Again with the direct sequel? Please do not take it wrong, but could you please create another thread for this so the people interested in discussing more this circular and very particular debate could express his opinion about the matter there?
I feel this particular subject is cannibalizing a thread that could be used to discuss BG3 in a more general and varied way.
Nope, you're factually incorrect (See? We can say it too.) The entire driving theme of the game is nature vs. nurture. Its about charname's struggle against his heritage. The politics of the city is just window dressing.
Its funny. I've never seen people claim that the city is somehow the entire point of the game UNTIL it turned out that its the only link Larian has given us to the series that BG3 is supposedly a direct sequel to. Just more justification after the fact.
If "BG"3s status as a sequel, and the number really doesn't matter, you'd think Larian supporters would have no problem just coming out and saying it has nothing to do with the original series.
I don't know why you have to turn this discussion into a tribalist, us vs them argument, instead of basing it on facts, but it's not productive to good discussion. But since you've gone down this route, I'm just going to point out that I've only seen two forumers seriously object to this whole sequel-not-a-sequel issue you keep referencing. So, good luck with being mad about it.
funny you say this as i just played torment very recently. and it's one of the few modern crpgs where i don't mind the turn based combat. it helps there isnt as much combat in tides and it's not as slow as say dos.
thats really my issue with dos the combat is to slow. i did not mind the combat in shadow run either. so it's not like i hate turn based combat i just hate slow turnbased combat.
@megamike15 I agree about T:ToN, and I've said so previously in this subforum precisely to counter claims that I just don't like any TB game. T:ToN is a game I really like despite it being TB because, just like you, I loved that combat was not pervasive, almost every combat encounter including the final boss battle had a nice, meaningful, and viable alternative non-combat path, and when you did engage in combat it went by VERY fast. That's a well-made TB combat system.
Yeah, Numenera has different issues, combat is not one of them. It just looks like this project was too ambitious for In ile and turned out to be the poor cousin of PST. It's still a good game, but (except of combat) PST is better in every aspect. I still remember each and every NPC from PST, I doubt I'll remember any NPC from Numenera two years from now.
Agreed, but I would say that although they were indeed over-ambitious, and also did it too rushed, the main source of the game's problems was a woefully inadequate budget. So I am hopeful (and have posted this on the inXile website) that someday they will go back to that franchise and do it right with a T:ToN2 that gets properly resourced by MS. The game's setting is fantastic, and the concept of that game has tremendous potential.
Yeah, the problem is it's supposed to be complex with a lot of branching, but... it doesn't seem to be the case. In fact, it's very much linear in my opinion. Also I read every single wall of text in PST with open mouth, but in Numenera once in a while I just skipped it, it's just not that interesting. I always thought that Avellone and McComb are brilliant writers, but T:ToN showed me how good both really are. PST is still the pinnacle of RPG writing. Disco Elysium is a close second, but still *second*.
The linearity I agree with. But I found the lore text in the game to be interesting even as (don't kill me for saying this ) I was never that impressed with Ps:T. Btw, didn't McComb also write for T:ToN?
Heh, yes he did. I'll be damned, I didn't even realize. Well, he got rusty, then. ? And no, I'm not mad at you, but... this is blasphemy! ?)
If they allow loading a bg2 final save and kill off charname in the first five minutes in a 2D rendering, then fast forward a century, explain that the gods added a third dimension and enforced a code of engagement that makes everyone wait for their opponents to take an action.
Then you would be happy I assume?
If they allow loading a bg2 final save and kill off charname in the first five minutes in a 2D rendering, then fast forward a century, explain that the gods added a third dimension and enforced a code of engagement that makes everyone wait for their opponents to take an action.
Then you would be happy I assume?
I do not think that would work either
Because then you will have a flock of D&D fans coming stating that "The canon WOTC lore states that the baalspawn Abdel Adrian
dies or is killed by Viekang
in "Murder in baldurs gate" and saying "As Sven Vinke and Mike stated that MiBG and DiA are direct sequels and the BG3 is marketed as a direct sequel, so cash grab! fraud! disrespecting the legacy! , etc etc"
...and that would be starting the discussion again, like "groundhog day" movie, but not funny.
But you can explain that in the cinematic or just keep the imported character anonymous as the bhaalspawn and state that the story of baldurs gate does not end here. A century later it is time for new heroes... Enter character creation screen.
- It being set in the city of Baldur's Gate is not enough. The story was never about the city (we never even set foot in the city in BG2) but about the internal struggle of a single individual, the Charname Bhaalspawn.
I'm sorry but this is just a factually incorrect retconning of the original game. It was very much about the city. The whole main plot of the original game is about wresting control of the city's government from a madman and preventing a devastating war between that city-state and its southern neighbor.
Yes the second game went off in a completely different direction, but the original game had a title for a reason. And none of SoA or ToB was likely thought of when that title was first chosen.
Edit to add: "Baldur's Gate" was the core main plot of the first game. Bhaalspawn stuff was a sequel hook.
I agree, and also add that in addition to this the game was nearly based wholesale on the campaign setting books of the BG region for 2nd ed.
Nope, you're factually incorrect (See? We can say it too.) The entire driving theme of the game is nature vs. nurture. Its about charname's struggle against his heritage. The politics of the city is just window dressing.
Its funny. I've never seen people claim that the city is somehow the entire point of the game UNTIL it turned out that its the only link Larian has given us to the series that BG3 is supposedly a direct sequel to. Just more justification after the fact.
If "BG"3s status as a sequel, and the number really doesn't matter, you'd think Larian supporters would have no problem just coming out and saying it has nothing to do with the original series.
I don't know why you have to turn this discussion into a tribalist, us vs them argument, instead of basing it on facts, but it's not productive to good discussion. But since you've gone down this route, I'm just going to point out that I've only seen two forumers seriously object to this whole sequel-not-a-sequel issue you keep referencing. So, good luck with being mad about it.
I AM basing it on facts. Larian apologists are just confusing after the fact justification for facts.
@scriver "I agree, and also add that in addition to this the game was nearly based wholesale on the campaign setting books of the BG region for 2nd ed."
Probably shouldn't market it as a direct sequel to the COMPUTER GAMES then.
@ThacoBell - You are correct, nobody marketed Baldur's Gate as a sequel to anything.
This is factually incorrect. Notice the big "3" in all of the marketing materials and logo of the game.
Wow, taking "factually" into every comment really makes posts look more confident. No wonder Larians have been doing it in all of these threads to boost their own opinions.
@Cahir i think I recall Sven stating that there will be more joinable NPC/origin characters on release but please don’t quote me on that as I may be mis remembering I don’t think he gave a specific number though. Just more than they have shown currently.
Sven said that the elven mage he was playing in the last gameplay was a custom character (Well he was mostly playing Lae`zel but you get my meaning) and in the banner of BG3 there are the 5 origin companions that we know of so as you said, right now there´s only Asterion, Shadowheart, Lae´zel, Gale and Wyll.
We do not even know anything about the latter besides he´s a warlock and one sentence of background about the "Blade of Frontiers"
I´ve been in the Larian forums to make some suggestion and it came to my attention the increasing number of threads asking to change some core game mechanics.
They asked for the spellpoints variant rule (Basically it´s turning the Vancian magic based in spell slots into the maná/Magicka/energy points to cast spells that is in any RPG and MMORPG in existence), the possibility to repeat the bad rolls or automatic success in rolls in lower difficulties, allow choosing the stats of your race, etc...
I sincerely hope that Larian will continue to be faithful to the main rules of D&D5e, even if they have to make some minor adjustments. I always found SCL abhorrent but it seems it has its fans too.
I do not think WOTC would let them do that anyway.
(The other threads were of people complaining about having magic missile too red, hands too big, animations too exaggerated, the need of sheaths and if such and such character has hands too big or nose too crooked and many things about minor graphic and design choices
Even tho so many people were terribly preoccupied about story and legacy and stuff during previous months I see that now the majority of suggestions are about the fire being too crimson or color palette too cartoony or some other accessory things and little about story and lore.
Instead of talking about the implications of the appearance of a Cambion and the implications of the offer they´re discussing the size of Raphael´s wings... )
@ThacoBell - You are correct, nobody marketed Baldur's Gate as a sequel to anything.
This is factually incorrect. Notice the big "3" in all of the marketing materials and logo of the game.
Wow, taking "factually" into every comment really makes posts look more confident. No wonder Larians have been doing it in all of these threads to boost their own opinions.
I'm talking about Baldur's Gate, dude. The first game.
Sven said that the elven mage he was playing in the last gameplay was a custom character (Well he was mostly playing Lae`zel but you get my meaning) and in the banner of BG3 there are the 5 origin companions that we know of so as you said, right now there´s only Asterion, Shadowheart, Lae´zel, Gale and Wyll.
We do not even know anything about the latter besides he´s a warlock and one sentence of background about the "Blade of Frontiers"
If those trailer ones are in fact origin character that makes at least 3 and a half elves, counting the vampiric one. 2-swords-elf is quite possibly a rogue, while scimitar-elf a druid. IMO, that wouldn't give them a lot of points for diversity, or the breaking of stereotypes.
Yeah. I do hope the roster of NPC companions/origins characters is fairly large/robust. I dont necessarily need there to be a "one of everything" as it relates to races/classes/alignments per se, but I would like there to be enough choices for a lot of party customization, ideally with some attention paid to having enough evil or good aligned characters to make a party most out of them.
It is worth considering that because party size is only 4, maybe the number of companions can be a bit smaller than in BG1 or 2. That's not necessarily an issue for me, as I'd much rather have fewer more fleshed out companions than a lot of companions lacking significant distinction (BG1's NPC roster, for example).
S
(The other threads were of people complaining about having magic missile too red, hands too big, *snip*
Haha, I gotta admit that when watching the streaming last time, when I saw that svirfneblin with his barn door sized hands I laughed out loud. It looked quite cartoony and silly, more Paizo-esque.
EDIT: Oh wait, or maybe it was the goblin? Don't remember.
But I'm standing (probably) very alone in that boring opinion corner where we dislike pointy ears on 90% of all races and exaggerated body features (add glowing/burning eyes there too). It's more interesting if each race have their own distinct features instead of many races having similar ones IMHO.
Btw, he was a svirfneblin right? Do they really talk about themselves as deep gnomes and not svirfneblin? I recall he introduced himself as such.
I am kinda worried about the companions size. I remember them being kinda cagey when asked about how many companions there are outside of the origin characters and the answer was you can recruit mercenaries.
Kinda made it sound like Origin characters are the true companions and we'll have blank merceneries we can recruit ala something like Shadowrun Returns?
Not sure if more has been said about that and to be fair the origin characters seem like they have a lot of depth but I love having a large amount of great characters to pick from.
I kinda think that the number of joinable NPCs we have in BG2 is a perfect sweet spot. BG1 has too many if you ask me. It's really hard to choose from abundance of characters.
S
(The other threads were of people complaining about having magic missile too red, hands too big, *snip*
Haha, I gotta admit that when watching the streaming last time, when I saw that svirfneblin with his barn door sized hands I laughed out loud. It looked quite cartoony and silly, more Paizo-esque.
EDIT: Oh wait, or maybe it was the goblin? Don't remember.
But I'm standing (probably) very alone in that boring opinion corner where we dislike pointy ears on 90% of all races and exaggerated body features (add glowing/burning eyes there too). It's more interesting if each race have their own distinct features instead of many races having similar ones IMHO.
Btw, he was a svirfneblin right? Do they really talk about themselves as deep gnomes and not svirfneblin? I recall he introduced himself as such.
If you meant the guy tied to the windmill yeah, he said he is a svirvneblin. And we´re supposed to meet him later (and possibly help him find his friend)
Yeah, 5e designers of the core manuals made some weird (IMHO) choices in design and proportions of some races (PHB Dragonborn, for instance, or halflings) that were translated to the videogame, and some of the things in the gameplay needs refinement, like the fall of the statue after an arrow shot.
The game is still in alpha version. It´s ok to point those things out. They´re still changing things, listening to the feedback (Like the side initiative or the past-tense narration)
(Still find strange all the myriad of threads about bigger heads for X race or Tieflings too red or Cambion wings too small and the few threads about narrative, story and lore in Larian´s forum after months of people asking incessantly for "Darker tone" "Meaningful ties with BG trilogy" "Larian´s silliness" "Memorable companions", etc)
I kinda think that the number of joinable NPCs we have in BG2 is a perfect sweet spot. BG1 has too many if you ask me. It's really hard to choose from abundance of characters.
BG2 EE or BG2? I always felt one the weaker aspects of the original BG2 was the lack of companion choice. In fact, I could have gone for a few, little backstory, no sidequest additions. There's a pretty strong lack of options from a strategic, party building perspective, imo. Consider for example that your only thief options are mage/thieves, for the full playthrough at least.
Comments
I'm sorry but this is just a factually incorrect retconning of the original game. It was very much about the city. The whole main plot of the original game is about wresting control of the city's government from a madman and preventing a devastating war between that city-state and its southern neighbor.
Yes the second game went off in a completely different direction, but the original game had a title for a reason. And none of SoA or ToB was likely thought of when that title was first chosen.
Edit to add: "Baldur's Gate" was the core main plot of the first game. Bhaalspawn stuff was a sequel hook.
The linearity I agree with. But I found the lore text in the game to be interesting even as (don't kill me for saying this
@Sjerrie "How can the number '3' at the end of the title be any more of a fact that BG3 is marketed as a direct sequel, and not a loose sequel? There were multiple ways to play this, including ways that would still hark back the the glory days of the original games. They deliberately chose to include the '3' at the end, possibly in an attempt to capitalize on nostalgia (speculation)....- It is marketed as a direct sequel. Fact."
Sjerrie has it 100% right. Anything else is justification after the fact. AT BEST.
@DinoDin "I'm sorry but this is just a factually incorrect retconning of the original game. It was very much about the city. The whole main plot of the original game is about wresting control of the city's government from a madman and preventing a devastating war between that city-state and its southern neighbor."
Nope, you're factually incorrect (See? We can say it too.) The entire driving theme of the game is nature vs. nurture. Its about charname's struggle against his heritage. The politics of the city is just window dressing.
Its funny. I've never seen people claim that the city is somehow the entire point of the game UNTIL it turned out that its the only link Larian has given us to the series that BG3 is supposedly a direct sequel to. Just more justification after the fact.
If "BG"3s status as a sequel, and the number really doesn't matter, you'd think Larian supporters would have no problem just coming out and saying it has nothing to do with the original series.
I feel this particular subject is cannibalizing a thread that could be used to discuss BG3 in a more general and varied way.
I don't know why you have to turn this discussion into a tribalist, us vs them argument, instead of basing it on facts, but it's not productive to good discussion. But since you've gone down this route, I'm just going to point out that I've only seen two forumers seriously object to this whole sequel-not-a-sequel issue you keep referencing. So, good luck with being mad about it.
Heh, yes he did. I'll be damned, I didn't even realize. Well, he got rusty, then. ? And no, I'm not mad at you, but... this is blasphemy! ?)
Then you would be happy I assume?
I do not think that would work either
Because then you will have a flock of D&D fans coming stating that "The canon WOTC lore states that the baalspawn Abdel Adrian
...and that would be starting the discussion again, like "groundhog day" movie, but not funny.
I agree, and also add that in addition to this the game was nearly based wholesale on the campaign setting books of the BG region for 2nd ed.
I AM basing it on facts. Larian apologists are just confusing after the fact justification for facts.
@scriver "I agree, and also add that in addition to this the game was nearly based wholesale on the campaign setting books of the BG region for 2nd ed."
Probably shouldn't market it as a direct sequel to the COMPUTER GAMES then.
This is factually incorrect. Notice the big "3" in all of the marketing materials and logo of the game.
Wow, taking "factually" into every comment really makes posts look more confident. No wonder Larians have been doing it in all of these threads to boost their own opinions.
No, the final number hasn't been announced. For now, we have that trailer sequence:
Astarion
Shadowheart
Lae'zel
Gale
Wyll
an elf with 2 swords
a tiefling with a mace
an elf with a scimitar
another character
Most likely, the final number will be available only at full release.
It's also worth pointing out that the unnamed ones could possibly be player avatars and/or hired mercenaries.
We do not even know anything about the latter besides he´s a warlock and one sentence of background about the "Blade of Frontiers"
I´ve been in the Larian forums to make some suggestion and it came to my attention the increasing number of threads asking to change some core game mechanics.
They asked for the spellpoints variant rule (Basically it´s turning the Vancian magic based in spell slots into the maná/Magicka/energy points to cast spells that is in any RPG and MMORPG in existence), the possibility to repeat the bad rolls or automatic success in rolls in lower difficulties, allow choosing the stats of your race, etc...
I sincerely hope that Larian will continue to be faithful to the main rules of D&D5e, even if they have to make some minor adjustments. I always found SCL abhorrent but it seems it has its fans too.
I do not think WOTC would let them do that anyway.
(The other threads were of people complaining about having magic missile too red, hands too big, animations too exaggerated, the need of sheaths and if such and such character has hands too big or nose too crooked and many things about minor graphic and design choices
Even tho so many people were terribly preoccupied about story and legacy and stuff during previous months I see that now the majority of suggestions are about the fire being too crimson or color palette too cartoony or some other accessory things and little about story and lore.
Instead of talking about the implications of the appearance of a Cambion and the implications of the offer they´re discussing the size of Raphael´s wings... )
I'm talking about Baldur's Gate, dude. The first game.
If those trailer ones are in fact origin character that makes at least 3 and a half elves, counting the vampiric one. 2-swords-elf is quite possibly a rogue, while scimitar-elf a druid. IMO, that wouldn't give them a lot of points for diversity, or the breaking of stereotypes.
At least I hope so (Because for me those were some of the least interesting of the core races)
It is worth considering that because party size is only 4, maybe the number of companions can be a bit smaller than in BG1 or 2. That's not necessarily an issue for me, as I'd much rather have fewer more fleshed out companions than a lot of companions lacking significant distinction (BG1's NPC roster, for example).
Haha, I gotta admit that when watching the streaming last time, when I saw that svirfneblin with his barn door sized hands I laughed out loud. It looked quite cartoony and silly, more Paizo-esque.
EDIT: Oh wait, or maybe it was the goblin? Don't remember.
But I'm standing (probably) very alone in that boring opinion corner where we dislike pointy ears on 90% of all races and exaggerated body features (add glowing/burning eyes there too). It's more interesting if each race have their own distinct features instead of many races having similar ones IMHO.
Btw, he was a svirfneblin right? Do they really talk about themselves as deep gnomes and not svirfneblin? I recall he introduced himself as such.
Kinda made it sound like Origin characters are the true companions and we'll have blank merceneries we can recruit ala something like Shadowrun Returns?
Not sure if more has been said about that and to be fair the origin characters seem like they have a lot of depth but I love having a large amount of great characters to pick from.
If you meant the guy tied to the windmill yeah, he said he is a svirvneblin. And we´re supposed to meet him later (and possibly help him find his friend)
Yeah, 5e designers of the core manuals made some weird (IMHO) choices in design and proportions of some races (PHB Dragonborn, for instance, or halflings) that were translated to the videogame, and some of the things in the gameplay needs refinement, like the fall of the statue after an arrow shot.
The game is still in alpha version. It´s ok to point those things out. They´re still changing things, listening to the feedback (Like the side initiative or the past-tense narration)
(Still find strange all the myriad of threads about bigger heads for X race or Tieflings too red or Cambion wings too small and the few threads about narrative, story and lore in Larian´s forum after months of people asking incessantly for "Darker tone" "Meaningful ties with BG trilogy" "Larian´s silliness" "Memorable companions", etc)
BG2 EE or BG2? I always felt one the weaker aspects of the original BG2 was the lack of companion choice. In fact, I could have gone for a few, little backstory, no sidequest additions. There's a pretty strong lack of options from a strategic, party building perspective, imo. Consider for example that your only thief options are mage/thieves, for the full playthrough at least.