I'd rather the game mechanics of a sequel be an evolution of the previous entries'. If Larian is unable or unwilling to do so, they are the wrong choice.
Is not only Larian. WoTC would NEVER allow another 2e game. Don't get me wrong, I love 2e and think that 5e is too stramlined.
Look to Strahd on 2e, he had respectable stats for a Dark Lord of a Realm of Dread. He was a lv 16 necromancer with all vampire immunities and powers, takes no damage from +1 and bellow weapons, has mistform, contigency of nasty defensive spells and his undeads are far stronger than regular undeads. Could dominate with voice or glaze alone... His on 5e is a mid level enemy which a mob of peasants can probably kill.
And is not only vampires, Tiamat can be defeated by a lv 20 party on 5e. 2e was clear that Deities are far above human comprehension and deity avatars which are extremely weak compared to a deity was all far above epic level.
This is one aspect which I love OwlCat. They allowed Pathfinder Wrath of The Righteous to be PF1e not the 2e. And i din't liked much 2e...
It´s a company, they want to sell their latest product, you cannot blame them for that. Right now 5e seems to go really well.
That said, I do not think WoTC forbids to make games out of old editions, knights of the chalice 2 will be out this year, and they´re still using 3.5.
They allow anyone to use the SRD for their projects (in videogames, TT games, etc) but they are more selective when it comes to give their signature settings to make games; and they rarely do that with previous versions anymore.
It´s a company, they want to sell their latest product, you cannot blame them for that. Right now 5e seems to go really well.
That said, I do not think WoTC forbids to make games out of old editions, knights of the chalice 2 will be out this year, and they´re still using 3.5.
They allow anyone to use the SRD for their projects (in videogames, TT games, etc) but they are more selective when it comes to give their signature settings to make games; and they rarely do that with previous versions anymore.
Open Game License and a official D&D product are two different things. Knights of the Chalice is not a official D&D product.
I can't for eg, pick Ravenloft: Strahd's Possession remake it on cry engine and sell without a license from WoTC and other IP holders. And WoTC would probably require 5e to sell his 5e Strahd book. For me, 5e is too shallow. 3.5e has his problems, like number bloat but is a good edition. 4e is a "generic wow clone : tabletop edition" and 5e is dumbed down like skyrim... WoTC has no problem licensing mobile cashgrabs and awful adaptations like sword coast legends but 2e games they will never license.
@Cahir "True, but I'd rather they use game mechanics they feel confident doing, than try to do a good RTWP they don't really want to do."
I'd rather the game mechanics of a sequel be an evolution of the previous entries'. If Larian is unable or unwilling to do so, they are the wrong choice.
If this evolution looked like PoE1 in FR setting, then thank you, but no thank you Don't get me wrong I would gladly take new adventures in IE engine, but only as a DLC to BG1 or BG2, not as a new installment. Twenty years have passed since BG2, it's time for revolution not evolution.
@Cahir "True, but I'd rather they use game mechanics they feel confident doing, than try to do a good RTWP they don't really want to do."
I'd rather the game mechanics of a sequel be an evolution of the previous entries'. If Larian is unable or unwilling to do so, they are the wrong choice.
If this evolution looked like PoE1 in FR setting, then thank you, but no thank you Don't get me wrong I would gladly take new adventures in IE engine, but only as a DLC to BG1 or BG2, not as a new installment. Twenty years have passed since BG2, it's time for revolution not evolution.
What would be amazing is a Spin off where the Bhaalspawn has to manage his "divine realm", imagine being able to choose between many places to serve as ""basis"", like Shadowfell, Abyss, Hells(...) And sometimes, high level adventures goes to try to kill the lord of death and murder. That would be pretty amazing. Instead of invade a dungeon and killing a boss, you are now the boss of the dungeon and needs to protect your place on cosmos.
As for "revolution, not evolution", i partially agree. Would love to see modern graphics but honestly don't like much 5e.
And imagine the differences. Summon familiar now summons higher level monsters depending on the alingment. So, your lord of murder instead of having a imp, he can have a Efreet, Djinni or a Succubus as a familiar. He needs to manage prayers and his Godly influence on mortal realm and of course, his portifolio changes depending on the Bhaalspawn alignment. For eg, Chaotic Bhaalspawns become the God of REVENGE and REBELION, instead of the murder. That sequel can go up to crazy high levels since you are now playing as a deity.
@SorcererV1ct0r "Wrong. RTwP is a decision made due a lot of factors and even if 99% of the community wanna RTwP, the game is too late on development to change."
Wrong, Sven literally made the decision while on a flight. There is one reason that Larian chose TB, and that's because they like it. No other reason.
Yes, Larian's own devs have said so in multiple interviews, that the combat system was the first decision they made and that there was no discussion or debate about it because they like TB and dislike RTwP. One dev literally said it took them 30 seconds to decide.
Good, the worst thing they could do is to debate weeks what game exactly they want to do. Since they are focused on one choice from the start, they will shape the game around this decision without any further distraction. I would have written the same if they had chosen RTWP.
Yes, and that's totally fine. The point here, though, is that there were no multiple reasons for their choice. It was simply a choice based on one (subjective) reason: we believe TB is superior to RTwP.
This seems like pretty baseless speculation on your part. One could just as easily say that they made the decision on the objective reality that they know how to program and design TB better than RTwP.
The game is TB though. I don't understand why people are continuing to complain about it. I have to say, I think it's a bit selfish to continue to fill the board with this grievance.
I'd rather the game mechanics of a sequel be an evolution of the previous entries'. If Larian is unable or unwilling to do so, they are the wrong choice.
Is not only Larian. WoTC would NEVER allow another 2e game. Don't get me wrong, I love 2e and think that 5e is too stramlined.
Look to Strahd on 2e, he had respectable stats for a Dark Lord of a Realm of Dread. He was a lv 16 necromancer with all vampire immunities and powers, takes no damage from +1 and bellow weapons, has mistform, contigency of nasty defensive spells and his undeads are far stronger than regular undeads. Could dominate with voice or glaze alone... His on 5e is a mid level enemy which a mob of peasants can probably kill.
And is not only vampires, Tiamat can be defeated by a lv 20 party on 5e. 2e was clear that Deities are far above human comprehension and deity avatars which are extremely weak compared to a deity was all far above epic level.
This is one aspect which I love OwlCat. They allowed Pathfinder Wrath of The Righteous to be PF1e not the 2e. And i din't liked much 2e...
I didn't say anything about the edition. You can make RTwP game in the 5th edition just as well.
@Cahir "True, but I'd rather they use game mechanics they feel confident doing, than try to do a good RTWP they don't really want to do."
I'd rather the game mechanics of a sequel be an evolution of the previous entries'. If Larian is unable or unwilling to do so, they are the wrong choice.
If this evolution looked like PoE1 in FR setting, then thank you, but no thank you Don't get me wrong I would gladly take new adventures in IE engine, but only as a DLC to BG1 or BG2, not as a new installment. Twenty years have passed since BG2, it's time for revolution not evolution.
Then why are they trying to market a sequel? You want revolution? Make a new game.
People keep saying that RTwP is old and tired, while TB is new thing, but turn based is waaaaaaaay older than RTwP. And despite "wanting something new" Larian fans are clamoring for a BG3? This is all kinds of contradictory logic. You can't have it both ways.
Larian is using the older mechanics here, that's a fact. There is nothing about RTwP that is somehow older or less inventive than TB. They are also cashing in on the name of a 20 year old franchise. So where's that "revolution" you claim to want?
I'd rather the game mechanics of a sequel be an evolution of the previous entries'. If Larian is unable or unwilling to do so, they are the wrong choice.
Is not only Larian. WoTC would NEVER allow another 2e game. Don't get me wrong, I love 2e and think that 5e is too stramlined.
Look to Strahd on 2e, he had respectable stats for a Dark Lord of a Realm of Dread. He was a lv 16 necromancer with all vampire immunities and powers, takes no damage from +1 and bellow weapons, has mistform, contigency of nasty defensive spells and his undeads are far stronger than regular undeads. Could dominate with voice or glaze alone... His on 5e is a mid level enemy which a mob of peasants can probably kill.
And is not only vampires, Tiamat can be defeated by a lv 20 party on 5e. 2e was clear that Deities are far above human comprehension and deity avatars which are extremely weak compared to a deity was all far above epic level.
This is one aspect which I love OwlCat. They allowed Pathfinder Wrath of The Righteous to be PF1e not the 2e. And i din't liked much 2e...
I didn't say anything about the edition. You can make RTwP game in the 5th edition just as well.
@Cahir "True, but I'd rather they use game mechanics they feel confident doing, than try to do a good RTWP they don't really want to do."
I'd rather the game mechanics of a sequel be an evolution of the previous entries'. If Larian is unable or unwilling to do so, they are the wrong choice.
If this evolution looked like PoE1 in FR setting, then thank you, but no thank you Don't get me wrong I would gladly take new adventures in IE engine, but only as a DLC to BG1 or BG2, not as a new installment. Twenty years have passed since BG2, it's time for revolution not evolution.
Then why are they trying to market a sequel? You want revolution? Make a new game.
People keep saying that RTwP is old and tired, while TB is new thing, but turn based is waaaaaaaay older than RTwP. And despite "wanting something new" Larian fans are clamoring for a BG3? This is all kinds of contradictory logic. You can't have it both ways.
Larian is using the older mechanics here, that's a fact. There is nothing about RTwP that is somehow older or less inventive than TB. They are also cashing in on the name of a 20 year old franchise. So where's that "revolution" you claim to want?
Why Fallout 3 was named Fallout 3? Why Fallout 4 was named Fallout 4? Neither of those games were sequel to previous installment. Different protagonists, different part of the US, the same setting. The same can be said about Dragon Age. It's not that Larian did something unorthodox here. It's a normal practice. We don't know at this point how much reference to BG1 and BG2 Larian will put in BG3. Your claims are purely because there will be different protagonist and there won't be a continuation of Bhaalspawn story.
Yeah, and final fantasy games are also not final fantasy games after the X, GTA V or Vice city are not GTA games because they´re not in 2d. Fifa games right now do not have isometric perspective and the camera moves, they have to wipe out the name already!. And please don´t let me start with Mortal combat.. what are they thinking with all those fancy moves?
...Because we all know that you could only have the same name only if you make the same game over and over again, like assassin´s creed.
@SorcererV1ct0r "Wrong. RTwP is a decision made due a lot of factors and even if 99% of the community wanna RTwP, the game is too late on development to change."
Wrong, Sven literally made the decision while on a flight. There is one reason that Larian chose TB, and that's because they like it. No other reason.
Yes, Larian's own devs have said so in multiple interviews, that the combat system was the first decision they made and that there was no discussion or debate about it because they like TB and dislike RTwP. One dev literally said it took them 30 seconds to decide.
Good, the worst thing they could do is to debate weeks what game exactly they want to do. Since they are focused on one choice from the start, they will shape the game around this decision without any further distraction. I would have written the same if they had chosen RTWP.
Yes, and that's totally fine. The point here, though, is that there were no multiple reasons for their choice. It was simply a choice based on one (subjective) reason: we believe TB is superior to RTwP.
This seems like pretty baseless speculation on your part. One could just as easily say that they made the decision on the objective reality that they know how to program and design TB better than RTwP.
This. I dont know why everyone feels compelled to get so upset about RtwP every few months, but Larian isnt even saying that TB is objectively better than RtwP. They're making a TB game most likely because they recently made DOS1 and 2, which were critically and commercially the most successful isometric CRPGs in probably a decade - and those games were TB.
Yeah, and final fantasy games are also not final fantasy games after the X, GTA V or Vice city are not GTA games because they´re not in 2d. Fifa games right now do not have isometric perspective and the camera moves, they have to wipe out the name already!. And please don´t let me start with Mortal combat.. what are they thinking with all those fancy moves?
...Because we all know that you could only have the same name only if you make the same game over and over again, like assassin´s creed.
no what i expect from a sequel is the same but better and improved. if you change it to much it feels like it's not part of the same series.
@SorcererV1ct0r "Wrong. RTwP is a decision made due a lot of factors and even if 99% of the community wanna RTwP, the game is too late on development to change."
Wrong, Sven literally made the decision while on a flight. There is one reason that Larian chose TB, and that's because they like it. No other reason.
Yes, Larian's own devs have said so in multiple interviews, that the combat system was the first decision they made and that there was no discussion or debate about it because they like TB and dislike RTwP. One dev literally said it took them 30 seconds to decide.
Good, the worst thing they could do is to debate weeks what game exactly they want to do. Since they are focused on one choice from the start, they will shape the game around this decision without any further distraction. I would have written the same if they had chosen RTWP.
Yes, and that's totally fine. The point here, though, is that there were no multiple reasons for their choice. It was simply a choice based on one (subjective) reason: we believe TB is superior to RTwP.
This seems like pretty baseless speculation on your part. One could just as easily say that they made the decision on the objective reality that they know how to program and design TB better than RTwP.
The game is TB though. I don't understand why people are continuing to complain about it. I have to say, I think it's a bit selfish to continue to fill the board with this grievance.
Your characterization here is rather inaccurate and unfair. I was not in any way "complaining" about the TB choice. I was only commenting that trying to claim Larian went through some deep, multi-factor analysis of what would be the "best" combat system before making their decision is patently false. That is what this entire discussion is about. Larian devs themselves have openly stated that they did NOT undertake any such evaluation before making their choice of combat system. Furthermore, that French interview from February has the Larian dev at least implying that a subjective preference for TB over RTwP drove the decision.
Why Fallout 3 was named Fallout 3? Why Fallout 4 was named Fallout 4?
Because Bethesda bought the rights to the name and wanted to make money off of it, and were very willing to ignore a great deal of the artistic aspects of the first two games (which to be fair, was not the first time, Fallout Tactics and Brotherhood of Steel were definitely cash ins as well) and making products that fit their vision.
That's exactly what we're getting with Baldur's Gate 3, and I think nobody should be under any illusion that its anything else. What I'll think of it will come completely from the story, and really we'll only know how good that is when it comes out.
I'd rather the game mechanics of a sequel be an evolution of the previous entries'. If Larian is unable or unwilling to do so, they are the wrong choice.
Is not only Larian. WoTC would NEVER allow another 2e game. Don't get me wrong, I love 2e and think that 5e is too stramlined.
Look to Strahd on 2e, he had respectable stats for a Dark Lord of a Realm of Dread. He was a lv 16 necromancer with all vampire immunities and powers, takes no damage from +1 and bellow weapons, has mistform, contigency of nasty defensive spells and his undeads are far stronger than regular undeads. Could dominate with voice or glaze alone... His on 5e is a mid level enemy which a mob of peasants can probably kill.
And is not only vampires, Tiamat can be defeated by a lv 20 party on 5e. 2e was clear that Deities are far above human comprehension and deity avatars which are extremely weak compared to a deity was all far above epic level.
This is one aspect which I love OwlCat. They allowed Pathfinder Wrath of The Righteous to be PF1e not the 2e. And i din't liked much 2e...
I didn't say anything about the edition. You can make RTwP game in the 5th edition just as well.
@Cahir "True, but I'd rather they use game mechanics they feel confident doing, than try to do a good RTWP they don't really want to do."
I'd rather the game mechanics of a sequel be an evolution of the previous entries'. If Larian is unable or unwilling to do so, they are the wrong choice.
If this evolution looked like PoE1 in FR setting, then thank you, but no thank you Don't get me wrong I would gladly take new adventures in IE engine, but only as a DLC to BG1 or BG2, not as a new installment. Twenty years have passed since BG2, it's time for revolution not evolution.
Then why are they trying to market a sequel? You want revolution? Make a new game.
People keep saying that RTwP is old and tired, while TB is new thing, but turn based is waaaaaaaay older than RTwP. And despite "wanting something new" Larian fans are clamoring for a BG3? This is all kinds of contradictory logic. You can't have it both ways.
Larian is using the older mechanics here, that's a fact. There is nothing about RTwP that is somehow older or less inventive than TB. They are also cashing in on the name of a 20 year old franchise. So where's that "revolution" you claim to want?
Why Fallout 3 was named Fallout 3? Why Fallout 4 was named Fallout 4? Neither of those games were sequel to previous installment. Different protagonists, different part of the US, the same setting. The same can be said about Dragon Age. It's not that Larian did something unorthodox here. It's a normal practice. We don't know at this point how much reference to BG1 and BG2 Larian will put in BG3. Your claims are purely because there will be different protagonist and there won't be a continuation of Bhaalspawn story.
Do you have any idea the magnitude of fans that refuse to see any of those games (except New Vegas) as sequels? You're practically making my argument for me. This thread is so surreal, with a line of people staring at a bouncy horse and a slide and wondering why the other half thinks they are different.
I'm pretty excited for early access to come out, so we can finally have different arguments - rather than literally repeating the same few arguments dozens of times over the past 78 pages. We just did RtwP vs TB *and* 'what is a sequel' in two days, that means... the outrage at the bhaalspawn being Abdel Adrian is next, right?
i never thought i'd see the day where the baldurs gate community became as divided as the fallout one. but thanks bg 3 you did just that.
The community isn't divided. There are just ~5 or so high-volume posters voicing the same critiques without ceasing. I've seen no demonstrable groundswell of opposition to this title anywhere else.
And adults should take responsibility for their actions. If BG3 critics want to compare other fans of the series to easily-amused children, that is their fault, not the fault of BG3.
Yeah, this discussion is pointless. Larian is doing BG3. Period. Some of us are eagerly awaits for it, some don't. Period. We are all trying to persuade the others that our point of view is the only truth and others are practically blasphemers. We're going nowhere with this, repeating same old arguments.
i never thought i'd see the day where the baldurs gate community became as divided as the fallout one. but thanks bg 3 you did just that.
The community isn't divided. There are just ~5 or so high-volume posters voicing the same critiques without ceasing. I've seen no demonstrable groundswell of opposition to this title anywhere else.
And adults should take responsibility for their actions. If BG3 critics want to compare other fans of the series to easily-amused children, that is their fault, not the fault of BG3.
If by "~5" you mean about half the BG fans, sure. A lot of people aren't happy about the game.
@BallpointMan Probably because these points have never been fully refuted. The best anyone can come up with is "I'm happy about it, so you're crazy for not being happy." That or just ignoring it all together.
it just feels like you got one side that likes it. another side that does not. and the side that likes it is trying to force the side that does not to like it and when they won't just calls them nostalgic and be silent and let them enjoy the game.
Yeah, "the other side is doing bad things" because that what "the other side" always does.
(PD: A year ago when we first knew about the game I was vouching for the game to do the same as PF:WoTR, both playing modes, so I do not even have a "side" in this, i´m just tired of this)
Trying to talk about the game, add news about the game and make suggestions, etc without people hijacking the thread to talk about a pointless circular debate that lasts for almost a year now, always the roughly same people repeating the same arguments; when there are already threads about the discussion "rtwp vs tb" "BG 3e" etc... elsewhere; that´s not calling people anything nor asking them to be silent.
It´s just politely asking to continue the discussion in the proper thread, as any forum etiquette and manners dictate.
We already know for weeks that the game is going to be designed in a particular manner and it's not going to change. (Heck, I bet it was never going to be that way from the start). People have repeatedly voiced their concerns about that, they´re entitled to it, but interrupting the flow of a thread with impossible demands for an extended period of time and keep repeating the same things about some game design choices that are not going to change in the main thread about the game could be considered a little disrupting.
i never thought i'd see the day where the baldurs gate community became as divided as the fallout one. but thanks bg 3 you did just that.
The community isn't divided. There are just ~5 or so high-volume posters voicing the same critiques without ceasing. I've seen no demonstrable groundswell of opposition to this title anywhere else.
And adults should take responsibility for their actions. If BG3 critics want to compare other fans of the series to easily-amused children, that is their fault, not the fault of BG3.
If by "~5" you mean about half the BG fans, sure. A lot of people aren't happy about the game.
@BallpointMan Probably because these points have never been fully refuted. The best anyone can come up with is "I'm happy about it, so you're crazy for not being happy." That or just ignoring it all together.
They havent been refuted because there is nothing to refute. They're just opinions. The RtwP vs TB debate was a debate over opinion. The "Is it a sequel" debate was only based on opinion.
Also, can we stop trying so hard to be victims? I swear, it's like the default position in this thread some times.
i never thought i'd see the day where the baldurs gate community became as divided as the fallout one. but thanks bg 3 you did just that.
The community isn't divided. There are just ~5 or so high-volume posters voicing the same critiques without ceasing. I've seen no demonstrable groundswell of opposition to this title anywhere else.
And adults should take responsibility for their actions. If BG3 critics want to compare other fans of the series to easily-amused children, that is their fault, not the fault of BG3.
If by "~5" you mean about half the BG fans, sure. A lot of people aren't happy about the game.
@BallpointMan Probably because these points have never been fully refuted. The best anyone can come up with is "I'm happy about it, so you're crazy for not being happy." That or just ignoring it all together.
Honestly, no one cares about persuading the holdouts. Not at this stage anyways. I just wish you would do the reasonable thing and stop listing the same grievance in multiple discussion threads. As Psicovic explained, it's rude. Everyone knows your feelings on this topic. None of your kvetching is productive. And frankly, you've been the worst offender, imo, on using rhetoric that belittles those who don't see things your way.
I think it's tiresome that every time we get some new tidbit of news we have to sift through some posts resurrecting the same zombie grievances.
And again, I reiterate a point I made to you months ago. If the game is an absolute dealbreaker for you, why are you spending your time focused on it? As I said before about Fallout 4, its development showed me that it was not a game I was interested in. I didn't spend months telling fans in forums that they were dumb children because they felt otherwise. I didn't buy the game. And got on with my life. I strongly suggest you do the same.
Every time someone said "RTWP" - Chocolate!
Every time someone said "BG3 is DoS3" - Chocolate!
Every time someone said "Does not deserve the name Baldur's gate" - Chocolate!
Every time someone said "legacy" or "nostalgia" -Chocolate!
Every time someone said "Dark tone" - Chocolate!
I think that could be one of the few ways this debate would be less jarring.
We could all end up with Diabetes T2, tho.
i never thought i'd see the day where the baldurs gate community became as divided as the fallout one. but thanks bg 3 you did just that.
The community isn't divided. There are just ~5 or so high-volume posters voicing the same critiques without ceasing. I've seen no demonstrable groundswell of opposition to this title anywhere else.
Right back at you. There are just ~5 or so high-volume posters voicing the same adoration without ceasing. I've seen no demonstrable groundswell of excitement for this title anywhere.
I'm not sure anybody's trying to convince anybody of anything. Rather, I think people who are disappointed and even angry and frustrated about the direction of BG3, and about Larian's and WotC's attitudes about it, need a place to vent, and this forum has become that place.
I see a lot of responses that can be interpreted as "Stop feeling the way you feel. You don't have a right to feel and think that way. Your feelings and thoughts are invalid. How dare you think this?" Sometimes followed by some insulting ad hominem statements for good measure.
I've seen that coming from both sides.
Here's how you might learn to respond to an opinion you disagree with or an emotion you don't share that you might learn in Conflict Resolution 101: "I hear you. I understand you are very disappointed and maybe even angry. (Or, I understand you are excited by the previews and interviews you see and are looking forward to the new game.) I don't feel that way, myself. I feel this other way, and I have this other opinion."
As a rule, after acknowledging the other person's feelings, thoughts, opinions, or ideas, don't use "you" language, use "I" language instead.
I think people who need to vent their negative opinions and feelings deserve to be allowed to do so without being attacked or otherwise provoked. And I think that people who want to express and share their excitement and happiness deserve to be allowed to do so without figuratively having cold water thrown on them.
Comments
Is not only Larian. WoTC would NEVER allow another 2e game. Don't get me wrong, I love 2e and think that 5e is too stramlined.
Look to Strahd on 2e, he had respectable stats for a Dark Lord of a Realm of Dread. He was a lv 16 necromancer with all vampire immunities and powers, takes no damage from +1 and bellow weapons, has mistform, contigency of nasty defensive spells and his undeads are far stronger than regular undeads. Could dominate with voice or glaze alone... His on 5e is a mid level enemy which a mob of peasants can probably kill.
And is not only vampires, Tiamat can be defeated by a lv 20 party on 5e. 2e was clear that Deities are far above human comprehension and deity avatars which are extremely weak compared to a deity was all far above epic level.
This is one aspect which I love OwlCat. They allowed Pathfinder Wrath of The Righteous to be PF1e not the 2e. And i din't liked much 2e...
That said, I do not think WoTC forbids to make games out of old editions, knights of the chalice 2 will be out this year, and they´re still using 3.5.
They allow anyone to use the SRD for their projects (in videogames, TT games, etc) but they are more selective when it comes to give their signature settings to make games; and they rarely do that with previous versions anymore.
Open Game License and a official D&D product are two different things. Knights of the Chalice is not a official D&D product.
I can't for eg, pick Ravenloft: Strahd's Possession remake it on cry engine and sell without a license from WoTC and other IP holders. And WoTC would probably require 5e to sell his 5e Strahd book. For me, 5e is too shallow. 3.5e has his problems, like number bloat but is a good edition. 4e is a "generic wow clone : tabletop edition" and 5e is dumbed down like skyrim... WoTC has no problem licensing mobile cashgrabs and awful adaptations like sword coast legends but 2e games they will never license.
If this evolution looked like PoE1 in FR setting, then thank you, but no thank you
What would be amazing is a Spin off where the Bhaalspawn has to manage his "divine realm", imagine being able to choose between many places to serve as ""basis"", like Shadowfell, Abyss, Hells(...) And sometimes, high level adventures goes to try to kill the lord of death and murder. That would be pretty amazing. Instead of invade a dungeon and killing a boss, you are now the boss of the dungeon and needs to protect your place on cosmos.
As for "revolution, not evolution", i partially agree. Would love to see modern graphics but honestly don't like much 5e.
And imagine the differences. Summon familiar now summons higher level monsters depending on the alingment. So, your lord of murder instead of having a imp, he can have a Efreet, Djinni or a Succubus as a familiar. He needs to manage prayers and his Godly influence on mortal realm and of course, his portifolio changes depending on the Bhaalspawn alignment. For eg, Chaotic Bhaalspawns become the God of REVENGE and REBELION, instead of the murder. That sequel can go up to crazy high levels since you are now playing as a deity.
This seems like pretty baseless speculation on your part. One could just as easily say that they made the decision on the objective reality that they know how to program and design TB better than RTwP.
The game is TB though. I don't understand why people are continuing to complain about it. I have to say, I think it's a bit selfish to continue to fill the board with this grievance.
I didn't say anything about the edition. You can make RTwP game in the 5th edition just as well.
Then why are they trying to market a sequel? You want revolution? Make a new game.
People keep saying that RTwP is old and tired, while TB is new thing, but turn based is waaaaaaaay older than RTwP. And despite "wanting something new" Larian fans are clamoring for a BG3? This is all kinds of contradictory logic. You can't have it both ways.
Larian is using the older mechanics here, that's a fact. There is nothing about RTwP that is somehow older or less inventive than TB. They are also cashing in on the name of a 20 year old franchise. So where's that "revolution" you claim to want?
Why Fallout 3 was named Fallout 3? Why Fallout 4 was named Fallout 4? Neither of those games were sequel to previous installment. Different protagonists, different part of the US, the same setting. The same can be said about Dragon Age. It's not that Larian did something unorthodox here. It's a normal practice. We don't know at this point how much reference to BG1 and BG2 Larian will put in BG3. Your claims are purely because there will be different protagonist and there won't be a continuation of Bhaalspawn story.
...Because we all know that you could only have the same name only if you make the same game over and over again, like assassin´s creed.
WotC holds the licence, and have decided it is BG3 in canon. You're free to call it whatever you want.
This. I dont know why everyone feels compelled to get so upset about RtwP every few months, but Larian isnt even saying that TB is objectively better than RtwP. They're making a TB game most likely because they recently made DOS1 and 2, which were critically and commercially the most successful isometric CRPGs in probably a decade - and those games were TB.
There's no reason to change the formula.
no what i expect from a sequel is the same but better and improved. if you change it to much it feels like it's not part of the same series.
Because Bethesda bought the rights to the name and wanted to make money off of it, and were very willing to ignore a great deal of the artistic aspects of the first two games (which to be fair, was not the first time, Fallout Tactics and Brotherhood of Steel were definitely cash ins as well) and making products that fit their vision.
That's exactly what we're getting with Baldur's Gate 3, and I think nobody should be under any illusion that its anything else. What I'll think of it will come completely from the story, and really we'll only know how good that is when it comes out.
Do you have any idea the magnitude of fans that refuse to see any of those games (except New Vegas) as sequels? You're practically making my argument for me. This thread is so surreal, with a line of people staring at a bouncy horse and a slide and wondering why the other half thinks they are different.
The community isn't divided. There are just ~5 or so high-volume posters voicing the same critiques without ceasing. I've seen no demonstrable groundswell of opposition to this title anywhere else.
And adults should take responsibility for their actions. If BG3 critics want to compare other fans of the series to easily-amused children, that is their fault, not the fault of BG3.
If by "~5" you mean about half the BG fans, sure. A lot of people aren't happy about the game.
@BallpointMan Probably because these points have never been fully refuted. The best anyone can come up with is "I'm happy about it, so you're crazy for not being happy." That or just ignoring it all together.
(PD: A year ago when we first knew about the game I was vouching for the game to do the same as PF:WoTR, both playing modes, so I do not even have a "side" in this, i´m just tired of this)
Trying to talk about the game, add news about the game and make suggestions, etc without people hijacking the thread to talk about a pointless circular debate that lasts for almost a year now, always the roughly same people repeating the same arguments; when there are already threads about the discussion "rtwp vs tb" "BG 3e" etc... elsewhere; that´s not calling people anything nor asking them to be silent.
It´s just politely asking to continue the discussion in the proper thread, as any forum etiquette and manners dictate.
We already know for weeks that the game is going to be designed in a particular manner and it's not going to change. (Heck, I bet it was never going to be that way from the start). People have repeatedly voiced their concerns about that, they´re entitled to it, but interrupting the flow of a thread with impossible demands for an extended period of time and keep repeating the same things about some game design choices that are not going to change in the main thread about the game could be considered a little disrupting.
They havent been refuted because there is nothing to refute. They're just opinions. The RtwP vs TB debate was a debate over opinion. The "Is it a sequel" debate was only based on opinion.
Also, can we stop trying so hard to be victims? I swear, it's like the default position in this thread some times.
Honestly, no one cares about persuading the holdouts. Not at this stage anyways. I just wish you would do the reasonable thing and stop listing the same grievance in multiple discussion threads. As Psicovic explained, it's rude. Everyone knows your feelings on this topic. None of your kvetching is productive. And frankly, you've been the worst offender, imo, on using rhetoric that belittles those who don't see things your way.
I think it's tiresome that every time we get some new tidbit of news we have to sift through some posts resurrecting the same zombie grievances.
And again, I reiterate a point I made to you months ago. If the game is an absolute dealbreaker for you, why are you spending your time focused on it? As I said before about Fallout 4, its development showed me that it was not a game I was interested in. I didn't spend months telling fans in forums that they were dumb children because they felt otherwise. I didn't buy the game. And got on with my life. I strongly suggest you do the same.
whatever i'm done. i'm just gonna ignore this sub forum for the time being this is really getting tiresome.
Five words, "Real time with pause Jihad." You have a VERY selective memory.
Every time someone said "RTWP" - Chocolate!
Every time someone said "BG3 is DoS3" - Chocolate!
Every time someone said "Does not deserve the name Baldur's gate" - Chocolate!
Every time someone said "legacy" or "nostalgia" -Chocolate!
Every time someone said "Dark tone" - Chocolate!
I think that could be one of the few ways this debate would be less jarring.
We could all end up with Diabetes T2, tho.
I see a lot of responses that can be interpreted as "Stop feeling the way you feel. You don't have a right to feel and think that way. Your feelings and thoughts are invalid. How dare you think this?" Sometimes followed by some insulting ad hominem statements for good measure.
I've seen that coming from both sides.
Here's how you might learn to respond to an opinion you disagree with or an emotion you don't share that you might learn in Conflict Resolution 101: "I hear you. I understand you are very disappointed and maybe even angry. (Or, I understand you are excited by the previews and interviews you see and are looking forward to the new game.) I don't feel that way, myself. I feel this other way, and I have this other opinion."
As a rule, after acknowledging the other person's feelings, thoughts, opinions, or ideas, don't use "you" language, use "I" language instead.
I think people who need to vent their negative opinions and feelings deserve to be allowed to do so without being attacked or otherwise provoked. And I think that people who want to express and share their excitement and happiness deserve to be allowed to do so without figuratively having cold water thrown on them.