Out of the 13 non-anthology campaigns released for 5th edition (not counting the Rick and Morty and Stranger Things tie-ins), 10 takes place on the Sword Coast or Icewind Dale. Two or three might not count because they start there but go off. In the two anthology books there are 14 more adventures that I'm not sure where they take place but I'll admit them if you want. So it's 7-10 out of 13, or 7-10 out of 27.
Regardless I think the point that it's a lot is still made.
Also, Neverwinter and Waterdeep is both on the Sword Coast so I counted the ones taking place there too.
But this completely misses what @Kamigoroshi and I are saying. Whether or not a game uses a "non-European" setting is a separate issue. Within the Forgotten Realms, you have many areas that are of the "European" variety, and still WotC uses only the Sword Coast/Neverwinter/Icewind Dale. That's our point. Why not Waterdeep, or Silverymoon, or Cormyr, or the Dalelands? These are also "European," so why not them? I personally would indeed prefer going to more fundamentally different places like Mulhorand or Kara-Tur, but you can find different places to set the game and still have it be "European."
I have to say, this doesn't appear to be true. Maybe it's the case that what's most memorable is from those settings? In which case that seems to reinforce my arguments from before about what the target audience wants.
Just perusing thru this list and yes, we see some Icewind Dale stuff. But could anyone look at that list and that say "WotC uses only the Sword Coast/Neverwinter/Icewind Dale"? Doesn't seem like a fair characterization to me.
Things seem to be different in terms of recent video games. Although even there, the misleading "Tales from Candlekeep" title is actually set in Chult. And there's simply not a lot of recent titles anyways.
Oh come on, man! We were clearly discussing D&D/FR video games and not TT modules!!
Before the Infinity Engine games the mix in settings was somewhat biased towards the Forgotten Realms but plenty of variation was available.
Since the Infinity Engine it was pretty much only black isle and bioware that delivered the forgotten realms games with a lot of expansions and sequels. And then some obsidian and the beamdog resurrections.
I think the biggest mistake was to make some of those smaller DnD games that came in between also in the Forgotten realms rather than the other settings from before.
There were lots of adaptations of the D&D worlds all over the years after and before Black isle; some of them fitting like Pool of radiance or Temple of Elemental evil or the NWN games; some of them using a very different approach but since the 2000s, almost all of them uses the FR setting, bonus points if Drizzt is on the game.
@Kamigoroshi My personal list of choices would be the Moonshaes, Chult (the NWN2 expansion was too dungeon crawly for me), Ravenloft, or (pipe dream) the Feywild.
@WarChiefZeke I abused the heck out of a dancing bard, such a good support. My main killing machine was a Shiradori Dragoon. Nothing like a heavy knight that can reach you anywhere on map AND is nearly immune to all physical attacks.
But this completely misses what @Kamigoroshi and I are saying. Whether or not a game uses a "non-European" setting is a separate issue. Within the Forgotten Realms, you have many areas that are of the "European" variety, and still WotC uses only the Sword Coast/Neverwinter/Icewind Dale. That's our point. Why not Waterdeep, or Silverymoon, or Cormyr, or the Dalelands? These are also "European," so why not them? I personally would indeed prefer going to more fundamentally different places like Mulhorand or Kara-Tur, but you can find different places to set the game and still have it be "European."
I have to say, this doesn't appear to be true. Maybe it's the case that what's most memorable is from those settings? In which case that seems to reinforce my arguments from before about what the target audience wants.
Just perusing thru this list and yes, we see some Icewind Dale stuff. But could anyone look at that list and that say "WotC uses only the Sword Coast/Neverwinter/Icewind Dale"? Doesn't seem like a fair characterization to me.
Things seem to be different in terms of recent video games. Although even there, the misleading "Tales from Candlekeep" title is actually set in Chult. And there's simply not a lot of recent titles anyways.
Oh come on, man! We were clearly discussing D&D/FR video games and not TT modules!!
I understand this objection...
But WotC doesn't necessarily have a ton of control over the video game settings. They have greenlighting authority but they're not the ones actually making the call. So again, I think it's weird to lay this blame about setting restriction at the feet of WotC -- which was very much the initial complaint in this thread and then say we cannot bring into the discussion the one area where WotC has the most latitude.
If a video game using D&D fails commercially, it's not WotC who really loses out. They're not the ones investing majorly on the front end. It'd be a company like Larian in the case of BG3.
Again, it was said earlier in the thread that it's WotC who doesn't get it about their limited settings.
But this completely misses what @Kamigoroshi and I are saying. Whether or not a game uses a "non-European" setting is a separate issue. Within the Forgotten Realms, you have many areas that are of the "European" variety, and still WotC uses only the Sword Coast/Neverwinter/Icewind Dale. That's our point. Why not Waterdeep, or Silverymoon, or Cormyr, or the Dalelands? These are also "European," so why not them? I personally would indeed prefer going to more fundamentally different places like Mulhorand or Kara-Tur, but you can find different places to set the game and still have it be "European."
I have to say, this doesn't appear to be true. Maybe it's the case that what's most memorable is from those settings? In which case that seems to reinforce my arguments from before about what the target audience wants.
Just perusing thru this list and yes, we see some Icewind Dale stuff. But could anyone look at that list and that say "WotC uses only the Sword Coast/Neverwinter/Icewind Dale"? Doesn't seem like a fair characterization to me.
Things seem to be different in terms of recent video games. Although even there, the misleading "Tales from Candlekeep" title is actually set in Chult. And there's simply not a lot of recent titles anyways.
Oh come on, man! We were clearly discussing D&D/FR video games and not TT modules!!
I understand this objection...
But WotC doesn't necessarily have a ton of control over the video game settings. They have greenlighting authority but they're not the ones actually making the call. So again, I think it's weird to lay this blame about setting restriction at the feet of WotC -- which was very much the initial complaint in this thread and then say we cannot bring into the discussion the one area where WotC has the most latitude.
If a video game using D&D fails commercially, it's not WotC who really loses out. They're not the ones investing majorly on the front end. It'd be a company like Larian in the case of BG3.
Again, it was said earlier in the thread that it's WotC who doesn't get it about their limited settings.
Okay I get what you're trying to say here, but I personally don't buy this argument. If WotC were to say to the cRPG gaming world "Come to us with your idea for a D&D game and we will give it serious consideration," there would be literally dozens of studios that would jump on that. Heck, studios like Ceres and Tactical Adventures and GrapeOcean would surely have loved to place their upcoming cRPGs in the FR setting rather than go to the trouble and cost of creating their own settings. No, the problem is that the only way a studio can get a 'Yes" from WotC on a D&D game idea these days, especially for a cRPG, is to pitch a game that is part of an existing D&D videogame IP. Larian got BG3 precisely because they pitched BG3. Had Larian pitched a new IP D&D game set in Chult, or even worse a setting other than the FR, they would have been politely shown the door. I don't have any hard evidence to support this view, but I am quite sure of it. And my view will change only if I ever see a new D&D cRPG that is NOT set in the Sword Coast/Neverwinter/Icewind Dale.
My personal list of choices would be the Moonshaes, Chult (the NWN2 expansion was too dungeon crawly for me), Ravenloft, or (pipe dream) the Feywild.
While SoZ was (partly) staged on the Chultan Peninsula, it wasn't set in Chult itself. It took place in a neighbouring kindom called Samarach. If memories serve right, the only video game adaption that had Chult as its setting was Tales from Candlekeep: Tomb of Annihilation. That... wasn't exactly a good game in my book.
But WotC doesn't necessarily have a ton of control over the video game settings. They have greenlighting authority but they're not the ones actually making the call. So again, I think it's weird to lay this blame about setting restriction at the feet of WotC -- which was very much the initial complaint in this thread and then say we cannot bring into the discussion the one area where WotC has the most latitude.
If a video game using D&D fails commercially, it's not WotC who really loses out. They're not the ones investing majorly on the front end. It'd be a company like Larian in the case of BG3.
I bet to differ. It is no secret that WotC makes a lot of calls when it comes down to video game adaptions. Nowadays WotC only greenlights such games if they actively promote their TT adventure books. We saw this with the aforementioned Candlekeep: Tomb of Annihilation. As well as the Ravenloft expansions by both Neverwinter and D&D: Online by the time WotC "resurrected" the campaign setting for 5e. I dare to say that the only reason Larian was even able to get their hands on Baldur's Gate was the fact that Wizards previously published two adventure books set in Baldur's Gate. Sven even confirmed that BG3 will be a sequel to those 5e adventures. A coincidence? I doubt that. Chances are the same also happened with the recent NwN:EE module Dark Dreams of Furiae and its ties with Baldur's Gate: Descent into Avernus.
WotC itself is actively rearing various indie studios. The new Dark Alliance game set in Icewind Dale, a location 5e previously got an adventure for, being one of them. In a nutshell: all those recent and upcoming adaptions are a means to an end for WotC to sell more of their books.
Okay I get what you're trying to say here, but I personally don't buy this argument. If WotC were to say to the cRPG gaming world "Come to us with your idea for a D&D game and we will give it serious consideration," there would be literally dozens of studios that would jump on that. Heck, studios like Ceres and Tactical Adventures and GrapeOcean would surely have loved to place their upcoming cRPGs in the FR setting rather than go to the trouble and cost of creating their own settings. No, the problem is that the only way a studio can get a 'Yes" from WotC on a D&D game idea these days, especially for a cRPG, is to pitch a game that is part of an existing D&D videogame IP. Larian got BG3 precisely because they pitched BG3. Had Larian pitched a new IP D&D game set in Chult, or even worse a setting other than the FR, they would have been politely shown the door. I don't have any hard evidence to support this view, but I am quite sure of it. And my view will change only if I ever see a new D&D cRPG that is NOT set in the Sword Coast/Neverwinter/Icewind Dale.
It's a good post, and I largely agree with a lot of what you're saying. With the exception that you're making some assumptions that aren't in evidence. We don't know much about how the process goes with game companies pitching and getting rejected or accepted. I think the only thing we know well is the story of how Larian got BG3 when other companies were pitching to WotC. But all those companies were pitching BG3 -- and thus Sword Coast ideas. This, again, indicates to me that if a game company wants to make a D&D game, it's them, and not WotC that are gravitating towards the tried and true settings.
This other stuff about how maybe this other company would have preferred a D&D license for their peculiar setting? It's just speculation.
Again, I would like diverse settings too. I think a highly successful BG can make that happen. Icewind Dale wasn't *that familiar* of a setting pre-BG, iirc. Planescape Torment only happened because of BG. The more peculiar NWN modules also owe a debt to the base game's success.
To make an goofy analogy, it's sort of like Marvel movies. You needed something kind of basic and familiar like Ironman and Captain America to allow for something like Black Panther. I cannot imagine a movie with Black Panther's setting being made without the string of franchise successes that preceded it.
Again, these companies are investing a lot upfront. And failure is much much more consequential than success. One failure can wipe out the profitability of numerous successes. We've seen numerous legendary game developers, who have some of most heralded titles in the history of the genre go under.
Sure, let´s do the same game again and again, be conservative, do not look for new markets or innovate...what´s the worst that could happen? Ask Telltale games.
About the pannel from hell:
I seems we finally have a date: September 30th.
Random thoughts about the "Pannel from Hell" in no particular order.
-Amongst other things, they showed us some cool things you can do with the "Handle Animal" skill, one that is usually overlooked in most TT campaigns.
-Looks like you will have some interesting conversations with animals and your familiar. I think I´m vouching for a wiz or a bard for my first rodeo. Love it!
-It seems you can banter with all kinds of creatures, an intellect devoured included. Is it me or it has the voice of the sheep of Dos1?
-Sven, you really do not have to come up with excuses to don an armour. We know you love it.
-Hook horrors, ilithids, intellect devourers, Cambions, Myconids and now a bullette. You gotta love landsharks. It seems they want to try some interesting creatures for the campaign.
-I want a goblin companion, like Crusher. If only for the cool accent. XD
-It seems you get to decide if you accept the deal with the devil separately in MP. All players are the MC. Sounds nice.
-Chris Perkins forgot more about D&D that I will be able to learn in a lifetime.
Great pannel, lots of news. This seem to be going well.
Again, I would like diverse settings too. I think a highly successful BG can make that happen. Icewind Dale wasn't *that familiar* of a setting pre-BG, iirc. .
There´s the renowned books of the IWD trilogy of Drizzt from R.A Salvatore prior the games, but that´s the usual, it´s another place of the Forgotten realms, like Neverwinter, Waterdeep, Moonshae, the underdark, etc.
Sure, let´s do the same game again and again, be conservative, do not look for new markets or innovate...what´s the worst that could happen? Ask Telltale games.(...)
Is not WoTC/Larian's fault. TSR made a lot of games on a lot of settings because people was interested on Planescape, Dark Sun, etc. Nowadays, most people who play 5e wanna low level kobold slaying on sword coast. If BG3 was a Spelljammer game, it would be innovative? No. But It would be unique and cool. To Innovate, you need to bring something new. I love all African influences on Morrowind, but Morrowind din't innovated. They just picked ideas which almost no one was using.
I loved the heavy influence of feyworld in PFKM but most people hated it...
"There´s the renowned books of the IWD trilogy of Drizzt from R.A Salvatore prior the games, but that´s the usual, it´s another place of the Forgotten realms, like Neverwinter, Waterdeep, Moonshae, the underdark, etc."
Oh yes. IWD was the probably the most identifiable location in D&D before the release and success of BG.
There is a bit of evidence (circumstantial) that WotC keeps a tight reign on what they allow games to be made of/in. R.A. Salvatore spent an entire forward to one of his books complaining that he wasn't allowed to make a series starring a Monk, because Monks were not included in the current edition of D&D. The Cleric Quintet would have been a VERY different series if Salvatore got his way.
There's also the fact that authors were required to kill off all their Assassin characters in the switch to 3e because of a storyline WotC was running in P&P. Oh, and the Spellplague that had a lot of author's characters killed off without them having any say....
Random thoughts about the "Pannel from Hell" in no particular order.
-Amongst other things, they showed us some cool things you can do with the "Handle Animal" skill, one that is usually overlooked in most TT campaigns.
-Looks like you will have some interesting conversations with animals and your familiar. I think I´m vouching for a wiz or a bard for my first rodeo. Love it!
-It seems you can banter with all kinds of creatures, an intellect devoured included.
Yes this presentation was the best so far for me. And I liked it precisely because it included all of these bits of the game outside of combat.
I absolutely hate the combat in this game, and that's not going to change. So for me to buy into this game, I need to know more about those aspects of the game outside of combat. Is there enough content to this game outside of combat to make it worth my time to play it? Are those elements of the game outside of combat interesting enough and fun enough and meaningful enough to justify buying and playing the game despite its terrible combat? These are the questions for which I need answers, and don't yet have the answers. Today's stream helped a bit, and for that I am glad.
well even if i wanted to play bg 3. 70gb is a no go for me. thats the main reason i don't play alot of modern games and just stick to indies. they are just to big.
It's going to be in early access for probably at least 6 months so it's not something I need to worry about much, I'll probably have the time to make an upgrade if I think it's really worth it, and honestly it might ride on if I feel I want to play this game in particular, otherwise I just might not bother.
I've no interest in the beta but thankful there are lots of enthusiastic people who will help make this game better. I've no PC anymore and it could be a long time before its out on console/Mac if it can even run well enough on them.
same. if anything lore wise i only enjoy 2nd and 3rd edition.
As I've noted before, I'm a huge FR novels fan. I own and and have read almost all of the FR novels. And absolutely, yes, the 2e and 3e novels are the best. The novels that came after the Spellplague RSE were mostly crap, and so no wonder people stopped buying them and the novels line sadly died out. The one exception I remember of a 4e series of novels being good was the one on the Spellplague-related upheavals and consequences in Thay. That was a fun read.
same. if anything lore wise i only enjoy 2nd and 3rd edition.
Yeah, 4th and 5th edition killed the lore for me, and I was highly enthusiastic about the Planes before then. This disappointment is probably going to trickle down into any games that have to deal with the world of DnD post-Spellplague. It's hard to avoid how badly they mangled many beloved things, even when you want to tell a separate story entirely.
Baldurs Gate doesn't need to be 70gb to be a good game. This tells me resources and focus are being put on standard AAA graphics and the like when the game would be much better served by gameplay and story.
I can't imagine that being only part of the game size, that must be the size they've planned for the full game.
For comparison, Pillars of Eternity 2 and Pathfinder Kingmaker are both half of that size. Red Dead Redemption 2 is 105 GB big.
Yeah, looking at my copy of Deadfire, probably the most comparable game, it's 50 GB, but that's with all the DLC's. I think 70 GB seems reasonable for the full game size for BG3, considering it's going for some higher end graphics than Deadfire.
Baldurs Gate doesn't need to be 70gb to be a good game. This tells me resources and focus are being put on standard AAA graphics and the like when the game would be much better served by gameplay and story.
Seems like a false choice to me. As I say above, it's not out of line with a game like Deadfire. A game that clearly put a lot of effort into story (even if you maybe didn't like the end result). The OS games also show a strong commitment to gameplay that, imo, is unarguable (again even if the final product doesn't quite match your tastes).
Again, seems like people are jumping on the slightest pre-text, in order to assert that their priors about the game were always right. I mean the game size? Seriously?
Edit: FWIW, I just checked and Skyrim special edition requires about 12.5 GB of space. Contrasted to Deadfire's 50 GB. Imo, one game was clearly made with a strong emphasis on graphics and being as "epic" as possible with broad, AAA-style appeal. The other game was made with a heavy focus on story, characters, world-building and targeting a niche audience. Size doesn't tell you much! As Victor says too, audio takes up a lot of space.
same. if anything lore wise i only enjoy 2nd and 3rd edition.
Yeah, 4th and 5th edition killed the lore for me, and I was highly enthusiastic about the Planes before then. This disappointment is probably going to trickle down into any games that have to deal with the world of DnD post-Spellplague. It's hard to avoid how badly they mangled many beloved things, even when you want to tell a separate story entirely.
You do not have to worry too much about it. When the time came to write the Lore of 5e they basically wiped out 95% of the changes of 4e and left all like it was before 4e.
Abeir and Toril together? Nope, separated again. Maztica in other plane? Nope, It´s back Spellplague? Gone for good. Gods that disappeared or became unimportant like Mystra, the entire Mulhorand Pantheon, Amaunator, Cyric, Helm,Mask, Lathander,Bhaal, all the previously lost Drow gods, Leira,Myrkul, Gilgeam, Enlil, and Nanna-Sin;Azuth? Made a comeback
The majority of the earthmotes had fallen, the Sea of the Fallen Stars had returned to its pre-Spellplague volume, the Underchasm had been filled in, and nations and most of the lands that were sent to Abeir during the Spellplague had returned to Toril.Halruaa, Lantan and Nimbral had returned to the Realms, Anauroch is a desert again, etc, etc etc...
Comments
Regardless I think the point that it's a lot is still made.
Also, Neverwinter and Waterdeep is both on the Sword Coast so I counted the ones taking place there too.
Since the Infinity Engine it was pretty much only black isle and bioware that delivered the forgotten realms games with a lot of expansions and sequels. And then some obsidian and the beamdog resurrections.
I think the biggest mistake was to make some of those smaller DnD games that came in between also in the Forgotten realms rather than the other settings from before.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dungeons_&_Dragons_video_games
And so it begins... Beware the panel from hell!
@WarChiefZeke I abused the heck out of a dancing bard, such a good support. My main killing machine was a Shiradori Dragoon. Nothing like a heavy knight that can reach you anywhere on map AND is nearly immune to all physical attacks.
I understand this objection...
But WotC doesn't necessarily have a ton of control over the video game settings. They have greenlighting authority but they're not the ones actually making the call. So again, I think it's weird to lay this blame about setting restriction at the feet of WotC -- which was very much the initial complaint in this thread and then say we cannot bring into the discussion the one area where WotC has the most latitude.
If a video game using D&D fails commercially, it's not WotC who really loses out. They're not the ones investing majorly on the front end. It'd be a company like Larian in the case of BG3.
Again, it was said earlier in the thread that it's WotC who doesn't get it about their limited settings.
I bet to differ. It is no secret that WotC makes a lot of calls when it comes down to video game adaptions. Nowadays WotC only greenlights such games if they actively promote their TT adventure books. We saw this with the aforementioned Candlekeep: Tomb of Annihilation. As well as the Ravenloft expansions by both Neverwinter and D&D: Online by the time WotC "resurrected" the campaign setting for 5e. I dare to say that the only reason Larian was even able to get their hands on Baldur's Gate was the fact that Wizards previously published two adventure books set in Baldur's Gate. Sven even confirmed that BG3 will be a sequel to those 5e adventures. A coincidence? I doubt that. Chances are the same also happened with the recent NwN:EE module Dark Dreams of Furiae and its ties with Baldur's Gate: Descent into Avernus.
WotC itself is actively rearing various indie studios. The new Dark Alliance game set in Icewind Dale, a location 5e previously got an adventure for, being one of them. In a nutshell: all those recent and upcoming adaptions are a means to an end for WotC to sell more of their books.
It's a good post, and I largely agree with a lot of what you're saying. With the exception that you're making some assumptions that aren't in evidence. We don't know much about how the process goes with game companies pitching and getting rejected or accepted. I think the only thing we know well is the story of how Larian got BG3 when other companies were pitching to WotC. But all those companies were pitching BG3 -- and thus Sword Coast ideas. This, again, indicates to me that if a game company wants to make a D&D game, it's them, and not WotC that are gravitating towards the tried and true settings.
This other stuff about how maybe this other company would have preferred a D&D license for their peculiar setting? It's just speculation.
Again, I would like diverse settings too. I think a highly successful BG can make that happen. Icewind Dale wasn't *that familiar* of a setting pre-BG, iirc. Planescape Torment only happened because of BG. The more peculiar NWN modules also owe a debt to the base game's success.
Again, these companies are investing a lot upfront. And failure is much much more consequential than success. One failure can wipe out the profitability of numerous successes. We've seen numerous legendary game developers, who have some of most heralded titles in the history of the genre go under.
About the pannel from hell:
I seems we finally have a date: September 30th.
Random thoughts about the "Pannel from Hell" in no particular order.
-Amongst other things, they showed us some cool things you can do with the "Handle Animal" skill, one that is usually overlooked in most TT campaigns.
-Looks like you will have some interesting conversations with animals and your familiar. I think I´m vouching for a wiz or a bard for my first rodeo. Love it!
-It seems you can banter with all kinds of creatures, an intellect devoured included. Is it me or it has the voice of the sheep of Dos1?
-Sven, you really do not have to come up with excuses to don an armour. We know you love it.
-Hook horrors, ilithids, intellect devourers, Cambions, Myconids and now a bullette. You gotta love landsharks. It seems they want to try some interesting creatures for the campaign.
-I want a goblin companion, like Crusher. If only for the cool accent. XD
-It seems you get to decide if you accept the deal with the devil separately in MP. All players are the MC. Sounds nice.
-Chris Perkins forgot more about D&D that I will be able to learn in a lifetime.
Great pannel, lots of news. This seem to be going well.
There´s the renowned books of the IWD trilogy of Drizzt from R.A Salvatore prior the games, but that´s the usual, it´s another place of the Forgotten realms, like Neverwinter, Waterdeep, Moonshae, the underdark, etc.
Is not WoTC/Larian's fault. TSR made a lot of games on a lot of settings because people was interested on Planescape, Dark Sun, etc. Nowadays, most people who play 5e wanna low level kobold slaying on sword coast. If BG3 was a Spelljammer game, it would be innovative? No. But It would be unique and cool. To Innovate, you need to bring something new. I love all African influences on Morrowind, but Morrowind din't innovated. They just picked ideas which almost no one was using.
I loved the heavy influence of feyworld in PFKM but most people hated it...
Oh yes. IWD was the probably the most identifiable location in D&D before the release and success of BG.
There is a bit of evidence (circumstantial) that WotC keeps a tight reign on what they allow games to be made of/in. R.A. Salvatore spent an entire forward to one of his books complaining that he wasn't allowed to make a series starring a Monk, because Monks were not included in the current edition of D&D. The Cleric Quintet would have been a VERY different series if Salvatore got his way.
There's also the fact that authors were required to kill off all their Assassin characters in the switch to 3e because of a storyline WotC was running in P&P. Oh, and the Spellplague that had a lot of author's characters killed off without them having any say....
Great books.
I absolutely hate the combat in this game, and that's not going to change. So for me to buy into this game, I need to know more about those aspects of the game outside of combat. Is there enough content to this game outside of combat to make it worth my time to play it? Are those elements of the game outside of combat interesting enough and fun enough and meaningful enough to justify buying and playing the game despite its terrible combat? These are the questions for which I need answers, and don't yet have the answers. Today's stream helped a bit, and for that I am glad.
The Cleric Quintet is the best series Salvatore ever wrote.
Minimum:
OS: Windows 10 64-bit
Processor: Intel i5-4690 / AMD FX 4350
Memory: 8 GB RAM
Graphics: Nvidia GTX 780 / AMD Radeon R9 280X
DirectX: Version 11
Storage: 70 GB available space
Ideal:
OS: Windows 10 64-bit
Processor: Intel i7 4770k / AMD Ryzen 5 1500X
Memory: 16 GB RAM
Graphics: Nvidia GTX 1060 6GB / AMD RX580
DirectX: Version 11
Storage: 70 GB available space
The article says requirements for the actual game may come down.
That time jump killed my interest in DnD novels and the setting.
There was some fun stuff in 1e as well with some of the gods that I feel ended up watered down a bit too much in 2e. Mostly with minor deities.
*edit*
Oh, I do have to give some credit to 4e. It did do some good things with the planes. The Feywild might be one of my favorite settings.
Yeah, 4th and 5th edition killed the lore for me, and I was highly enthusiastic about the Planes before then. This disappointment is probably going to trickle down into any games that have to deal with the world of DnD post-Spellplague. It's hard to avoid how badly they mangled many beloved things, even when you want to tell a separate story entirely.
Baldurs Gate doesn't need to be 70gb to be a good game. This tells me resources and focus are being put on standard AAA graphics and the like when the game would be much better served by gameplay and story.
For comparison, Pillars of Eternity 2 and Pathfinder Kingmaker are both half of that size. Red Dead Redemption 2 is 105 GB big.
Yeah, looking at my copy of Deadfire, probably the most comparable game, it's 50 GB, but that's with all the DLC's. I think 70 GB seems reasonable for the full game size for BG3, considering it's going for some higher end graphics than Deadfire.
Seems like a false choice to me. As I say above, it's not out of line with a game like Deadfire. A game that clearly put a lot of effort into story (even if you maybe didn't like the end result). The OS games also show a strong commitment to gameplay that, imo, is unarguable (again even if the final product doesn't quite match your tastes).
Again, seems like people are jumping on the slightest pre-text, in order to assert that their priors about the game were always right. I mean the game size? Seriously?
Edit: FWIW, I just checked and Skyrim special edition requires about 12.5 GB of space. Contrasted to Deadfire's 50 GB. Imo, one game was clearly made with a strong emphasis on graphics and being as "epic" as possible with broad, AAA-style appeal. The other game was made with a heavy focus on story, characters, world-building and targeting a niche audience. Size doesn't tell you much! As Victor says too, audio takes up a lot of space.
You do not have to worry too much about it. When the time came to write the Lore of 5e they basically wiped out 95% of the changes of 4e and left all like it was before 4e.
Abeir and Toril together? Nope, separated again. Maztica in other plane? Nope, It´s back Spellplague? Gone for good. Gods that disappeared or became unimportant like Mystra, the entire Mulhorand Pantheon, Amaunator, Cyric, Helm,Mask, Lathander,Bhaal, all the previously lost Drow gods, Leira,Myrkul, Gilgeam, Enlil, and Nanna-Sin;Azuth? Made a comeback
The majority of the earthmotes had fallen, the Sea of the Fallen Stars had returned to its pre-Spellplague volume, the Underchasm had been filled in, and nations and most of the lands that were sent to Abeir during the Spellplague had returned to Toril.Halruaa, Lantan and Nimbral had returned to the Realms, Anauroch is a desert again, etc, etc etc...