Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

Dark Dreams of Furiae - a new module for NWN:EE! Buy now
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

BG3: Yay or Nay?

1356719

Comments

  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 7,329
    semiticgod wrote: »
    Besides, if the SoD controversy couldn't kill Baldur's Gate, what possibly could? :smile:

    Turning it into a first person battle royal where the last person standing gets to claim the throne of bhaal?



    ThacoBellCrevsDaak
  • FlashburnFlashburn Member Posts: 1,770
    Yay!
    If it's Larian, I know it will at least be competent. I bet we'll see more of it at E3.

  • DrayenDrayen Member Posts: 127
    Yay!
    I don't even know how it can possibly be a Nay. It's not the same story, but if follows the same spirit as BG1/2 i'm good with that. Bonus points for similarities or references to the old game.

    GenderNihilismGirdleSjerrie
  • leeuxleeux Member Posts: 115
    edited June 2019
    This poll needs an extra option! I'm a bit indifferent atm, but also expectant, so I wouldn't say Yay! but also is not a straight Nay! for me :#

    For me, the name won't mean much if gameplay is not fun. Still, I have respect for Larian and I think they can pull it off, that's what keeps me expectant and mildly hopeful that the game can be good in the end :smile:

    I do hope it's Real-time, or, at the very least if it's turn based that all enemy actions can happen simultaneously (I personally hate thumb-fiddling while I wait for 15 enemies to slowly move until I can do stuff.)

    EDIT: extra word removed

    ZaramMaldovarSjerrie
  • CoM_SolaufeinCoM_Solaufein Member Posts: 2,600
    I don't know. I don't know much about Larian Studios, what game engine they're using, their reputation for quality, bug fixes, etc. This is using what, 5E rules? Don't know anything about that. I'm an old dinosaur that loves AD&D aka 2E rules. I'll vote when I have better information.

  • ArdanisArdanis Member Posts: 1,735
    Nay!
    I was told by @Ardanis that guys like Camdawg and Julius were contracted and had no idea what Phil, Trent and David were actually working on. They don't even know what the gameplay was. TB or RTwP. See the Baldur's Gate announcement thread for the conversation. Phil's posts were cryptic and didn't actually give a name. He did mention an Ilithid though and Knowledge that he would have to live with. Again, if It was planescapes torment then why did it get cancelled and then BG3 gets announced by another studio? Why did the BG3 web address owner become no longer listed as Trent during that time?

    Also Ardanis and Camdawg were directly addressing me about weather they knew about BG3 being turn based or not which would be pointless if they didn't think team Beam was working on it wouldn't it? Camdawg mentioned to me that he was asking around other Beamdog employees and none them knew if BG3 was going to be Turn based or not. Why would any of them ask each other or think someone would know if their employer was not involved somehow? Camdawg even showed suspicion that maybe some of them did know and wouldn't tell him.
    Frankly, I'm beginning to think I shouldn't have said anything at all, because instead of abandoning conspiracy theories people then start reading even more into it. Oh well, lesson learned :|

    ThacoBell
  • SorcererV1ct0rSorcererV1ct0r Member Posts: 1,882
    Nay!
    Nope. Why?
    “We started with a very rigorous port of the ruleset. Then we started looking at what worked and what didn’t work. Because obviously, it’s a video game, so not everything translates very well. We modified where it made sense to start modifying,” Vincke said.

    One of the modifications: Misses from dice rolls. “The very obvious one would be that you tend to miss a lot when you roll the dice, which is fine when you’re playing on the tabletop, but it’s not so cool when you’re playing a video game,” Vincke said. “We had to have solutions for that.”source : https://www.tatech.org/baldurs-gate-iii-is-coming-for-pc-and-stadia-when-its-ready-takes-place-after-dds-descent-into-avernus/

  • ArtonaArtona Member Posts: 1,073
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    @Artona "
    Star Wars were always about Luke Skywalker. Then prequels happened. Then Star Wars were always about Skywalker family. Then sequels happened."

    Yeah, those went over SO WELL.

    Well, TFA was one of the best Star Wars movies ever, so yeah. It wasn't all bad.
    But I'm not sure I get your point. Should BG games be about Gorion's Ward on principle, or as long as they are great, they can expand?

    I do hope, however, that the game will be tied somehow with previous titles. I think that Bhaal should be somehow prominent figure, or that the plot should be in some way connected to Bhaalspawn crisis. Just don't resurrect Irenicus, or something. That would be bad.
    Well, you'd think something being called the continuation to a respected series should attempt to be respectful of the series so many people love and you know, NOT piss off the old fans.

    Well, you already said that you hate the game because of... the title. If that's the case with old fans, then I don't see how there is anything Laran can do to appease them.
    And being "respectful" is about the worst thing you can do. Baldur's Gate it's not an older lady that you have to give up sit in the bus. It's not religious symbol. There isn't much to be "respectful" about. I'd rather have them be bold and creative, than just worship memory of game.

    @megamike15
    and the kotor games even if in 2 your playing as a different character are stilll about revan.
    I'm not sure if it's sarcasm or not, but I think that KOTOR games are about aftermath of Mandalorian Wars and Revan war, not just about him.

  • the_sexteinthe_sextein Member Posts: 711
    edited June 2019
    Ardanis wrote: »
    I was told by @Ardanis that guys like Camdawg and Julius were contracted and had no idea what Phil, Trent and David were actually working on. They don't even know what the gameplay was. TB or RTwP. See the Baldur's Gate announcement thread for the conversation. Phil's posts were cryptic and didn't actually give a name. He did mention an Ilithid though and Knowledge that he would have to live with. Again, if It was planescapes torment then why did it get cancelled and then BG3 gets announced by another studio? Why did the BG3 web address owner become no longer listed as Trent during that time?

    Also Ardanis and Camdawg were directly addressing me about weather they knew about BG3 being turn based or not which would be pointless if they didn't think team Beam was working on it wouldn't it? Camdawg mentioned to me that he was asking around other Beamdog employees and none them knew if BG3 was going to be Turn based or not. Why would any of them ask each other or think someone would know if their employer was not involved somehow? Camdawg even showed suspicion that maybe some of them did know and wouldn't tell him.
    Frankly, I'm beginning to think I shouldn't have said anything at all, because instead of abandoning conspiracy theories people then start reading even more into it. Oh well, lesson learned :|

    My post that you quoted is made up of hard facts and honest questions. I did state that I didn't know for certain what Beamdog was working on but that I was strongly leaning towards BG3. You indirectly insinuate that I am a conspiracy theorist but let me ask you this. If you don't actually know what Beamdog was working on like you stated in direct conversation with me earlier, then isn't it just as much of a conspiracy theory to assume that Beamdog was working on Plansecape 2 rather than Baldur's Gate 3?

    Instead of getting offended and threatening not to post anymore, why not just be straight with us? Was the project Baldur's Gate 3 or do you not know? If you know but are not allowed to talk about it then say so but don't get upset with fans for being interested in what is actually going on because posting theory is the only thing they can do when they don't have answers. I would love to have an explanation. If @JuliusBorisov was not doing damage control and he or someone with authority would like to reiterate that the game was Planescape 2 and that they know this as a fact then I won't have anything to conspire over and everyone is happy.

    Post edited by the_sextein on
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 10,596
    edited June 2019
    Nay!
    @semiticgod I new game that sells better causing WotC to put a mandate down requiring all new BG media to be linked to the new IP?

    @Artona
    My point, is that every previous title in the series followed the same story about the same character. So the new game not being connected in any wa, but still being called "BG3" is dishonest. I'd even go so far as to call it fraud. I am ethically not okay with that. That is the source of most of my illwill towards the game. CHange the title, I'll happily change my tune.

    Though it is funny that ypou mentioned the often reviled Star Wars prequels in your example, AND the new movies are very divisive among fans. Yet somehow, you don't understand why I think they might not be good examples of faithful sequels?

  • the_sexteinthe_sextein Member Posts: 711
    edited June 2019
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    @semiticgod I new game that sells better causing WotC to put a mandate down requiring all new BG media to be linked to the new IP?

    @Artona
    My point, is that every previous title in the series followed the same story about the same character. So the new game not being connected in any wa, but still being called "BG3" is dishonest. I'd even go so far as to call it fraud. I am ethically not okay with that. That is the source of most of my illwill towards the game. CHange the title, I'll happily change my tune.

    Though it is funny that ypou mentioned the often reviled Star Wars prequels in your example, AND the new movies are very divisive among fans. Yet somehow, you don't understand why I think they might not be good examples of faithful sequels?

    I agree, Star Wars continues to tell a story from different perspectives either during the original story time line or a direct continuation of it. If Baldur's Gate 3 does not take place during the original game or continue the story from a point of view related to the original game in a meaningful way then it should not be called BG3. Anything else is a cash grab and dishonest. While I believe Beamdog would have used the same BG3 title, I apparently shouldn't state things like that or I am called out for being a conspiracy theorist. The new star wars movies have been milked dry to the point where Disney has cancelled them and even admitted that they pushed too much too fast. I won't even watch them anymore after the last one.

    If the new Baldur's Gate game has a new story with new characters unrelated to the original game with new gameplay then in my opinion, it is no different than Dark Alliance and should have a subtitle.

  • CrevsDaakCrevsDaak Member Posts: 7,145
    Yay!
    Unless they release the game explicitly as a sequel, it's just another entry in the saga that shares the name, location and hopefully, the enjoyment I get from it.

    I don't see why they would have to continue something simply because they've taken on the same name. While this is typically followed practice, I honestly don't care at all about that, and, while the game keeps a similar spirit to BG1 and let's you explore the city in full again, I wouldn't mind not having Bhaalspawn around in a Baldur's Gate game, as contradicting to the very core of the games as that is.
    BG2 wasn't even in the city of Baldur's Gate, it just used the name because it was a direct continuation. What's happening now is just the opposite of that. This isn't Dark Alliance, and I'm quite certain Larian knows that much.

    Also, my spying eye saw Divinity Original Sin 2 had some sort of toolset? I hope they're aware of how important modding is for BG, and thus provide something like it for BG3.

    StummvonBordwehrSjerrie
  • ArtonaArtona Member Posts: 1,073
    @ThacoBell
    Though it is funny that ypou mentioned the often reviled Star Wars prequels in your example, AND the new movies are very divisive among fans. Yet somehow, you don't understand why I think they might not be good examples of faithful sequels?

    Then take Two Towers. Or Terminator 2. Or Game of Thrones, where every book introduces dozen new plotlines and characters. Game of Thrones is about Lannisters, Starks and Targaryens. Main character
    dies at the end
    . So story should be over, right? Is Martin a fraud, because he expanded the story with other things, like Dorne plot?
    Are creators of Dragon Age frauds, because they moved from Ferelden and Blight to other things?

  • CrevsDaakCrevsDaak Member Posts: 7,145
    Yay!
    If the new Baldur's Gate game has a new story with new characters unrelated to the original game with new gameplay then in my opinion, it is no different than Dark Alliance and should have a subtitle.
    The problem with Dark Alliance is that it's a console hack n' slash. Using it as the token argument of why BG3 shouldn't be using the same name is rather incorrect; since BG3 is going to be (this is an assumption, and I hope a correct one) a rtwp using D&D rules, aimed at computer players, same as the original in that regard.

    If Dark Alliance is disjointed from the BG saga because the gameplay has absolutely nothing to do with the one found in the original. Baldur's Gate is a D&D rtwp video-game, Dark Alliance is not, and not only that, but it's story is unrelated as well. We can only presume BG3 will be unrelated to the BG saga as we already know it, since there's many ways to associate a game into a saga without it being a direct continuation of the characters found in the originals (KotOR).

  • the_sexteinthe_sextein Member Posts: 711
    edited June 2019
    CrevsDaak wrote: »
    If the new Baldur's Gate game has a new story with new characters unrelated to the original game with new gameplay then in my opinion, it is no different than Dark Alliance and should have a subtitle.
    The problem with Dark Alliance is that it's a console hack n' slash. Using it as the token argument of why BG3 shouldn't be using the same name is rather incorrect; since BG3 is going to be (this is an assumption, and I hope a correct one) a rtwp using D&D rules, aimed at computer players, same as the original in that regard.

    If Dark Alliance is disjointed from the BG saga because the gameplay has absolutely nothing to do with the one found in the original. Baldur's Gate is a D&D rtwp video-game, Dark Alliance is not, and not only that, but it's story is unrelated as well. We can only presume BG3 will be unrelated to the BG saga as we already know it, since there's many ways to associate a game into a saga without it being a direct continuation of the characters found in the originals (KotOR).

    Baldur's Gate 2 could have been called Amn. The only thing about it that connected it to the original game was the protagonist and his soul. I agree with you there. I'm not trying to say that Larian's BG3 is going to have gameplay like Dark Alliance. I'm saying that the game takes place in the forgotten realms around the city of Baldur's gate like dark alliance did. If it has nothing to do with the original protagonist or the characters in his or her party and is not a prequel or direct sequal to the bhallspawn saga then it should have a subtitle.

    As for gameplay, we don't know yet but I doubt Larian is going to make a game this expensive aimed at the mainstream masses without using turn based combat rather than RTwP. I hope I'm wrong but the entire reason why DOS outsold POE and got them rich was because the turn based combat is more popular, especially on console where the majority of money is going to come from. You can't make an AAA game without making a game for AAA audiences and RTwP is not what AAA audiences want. It's been my main worry and point of argument since this game was announced. The only RTwP party based games that have come out have been low budget or crowdfunded and most of them have undersold TB games like DOS.

    If the game is later confirmed to have RTwP gameplay then I will vote Yea! Despite my feelings about the title. However, if they abandon the gameplay that makes Baldur's gate and tell an unrelated tale in the forgotten realms then I see no reason why it is any different than any other RPG and it will be a hard sell for me. My interest in 5E and the forgotten realms may be enough for me to buy it anyway but it won't be because of the Baldur's Gate IP. If it's a TB game then it will be like all TB games for me, one and done with no lasting legacy.

    EDIT:
    Larian has intentionally not mentioned consoles to try and keep them away from the initial announcement. (Probably because of the PC fanbase). They have mentioned that they will not be playing exclusives. There would be no point in saying that if was a PC game. This will most likely launch on all consoles and that is where they will make the money to pay back all of the royalty fees associated with the game's AAA development. Larion's previous games were TB and sold to consoles where most gamers reside. That doesn't mean this one will be but it does give me pause.

    Post edited by the_sextein on
  • CrevsDaakCrevsDaak Member Posts: 7,145
    Yay!
    I think they should have enough selling point with the Baldur's Gate title to try use Turn-based combat as a marketing method as they've done with Divinity. And they're probably aware that Baldur's Gate fans represent basically the entirety of the rtwp crpg fanbase, so it wouldn't be odd if they aimed to please us and went with rtwp.

    the_sextein
  • the_sexteinthe_sextein Member Posts: 711
    I hope so! I'm more of a fan of Baldur's Gate the game, not Baldur's Gate the city.

    [Deleted User]
  • elminsterelminster Member, Developer Posts: 16,009
    edited June 2019
    Yay!
    If BioWare was able to create BG1 with a small team it doesn't mean a game of such magnitude can be created with a team of the same size.

    Also I'm not really convinced that BG1's team was that small. At one point I added up all the non-marketing, non-voice actors, and (after excluding duplicates) came up with about 160 people mentioned in the original credits. Like, I'm sure they all weren't working full time on the game, and many were coming from Black Isle or Interplay, but it was a sizeable number of people.

    Aduldeltago
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 10,596
    Nay!
    Artona wrote: »
    @ThacoBell
    Though it is funny that ypou mentioned the often reviled Star Wars prequels in your example, AND the new movies are very divisive among fans. Yet somehow, you don't understand why I think they might not be good examples of faithful sequels?

    Then take Two Towers. Or Terminator 2. Or Game of Thrones, where every book introduces dozen new plotlines and characters. Game of Thrones is about Lannisters, Starks and Targaryens. Main character
    dies at the end
    . So story should be over, right? Is Martin a fraud, because he expanded the story with other things, like Dorne plot?
    Are creators of Dragon Age frauds, because they moved from Ferelden and Blight to other things?

    1. Lord of the Rings was a single book, not a series. It was only separated because printing was so expensive.
    2. Game of Thrones sucks.
    3. Terminator 2 continued the story of the first movie. So I have no idea why you think its an example here.
    4. Dragin Age, at no point, established a pattern of a continuous main character. Each game featured a different protagonist, so its not eqivalent. But EVEN THEN, it carried over the themes of the previous games and the events of each games story lead directly into the next. So even then, Dragon Age has far deeper connections between each game in its series than BG3.

    megamike15Sjerrie
  • the_sexteinthe_sextein Member Posts: 711
    When I say something, there's no need to find extra meaning.

    Trent said back in 2012 about a "bg3" as an eventual target, but the gaming world is evolving. If BioWare was able to create BG1 with a small team it doesn't mean a game of such magnitude can be created with a team of the same size.

    Larian started working on BG3 in 2017, and that was the year we released PST:EE. The year before that we released SoD. So BG3 has never been in development at Beamdog.



    The game of that magnitude is currently being developed by 300 people, by a team who had 2 massive Kickstarter successes, by a team whose games are on top of the Metacritic list.

    What Beamdog worked on was a concept of a Planescape game (apparently the work on PST:EE played a part in this).

    Thank You. You will have to excuse my inability to just mindlessly believe things that are said and follow the hype train to it's conclusion.

    JuliusBorisovPokota
  • ArtonaArtona Member Posts: 1,073
    @ThacoBell
    1. Lord of the Rings was a single book, not a series. It was only separated because printing was so expensive.
    2. Game of Thrones sucks.
    3. Terminator 2 continued the story of the first movie. So I have no idea why you think its an example here.
    4. Dragin Age, at no point, established a pattern of a continuous main character. Each game featured a different protagonist, so its not eqivalent. But EVEN THEN, it carried over the themes of the previous games and the events of each games story lead directly into the next. So even then, Dragon Age has far deeper connections between each game in its series than BG3.

    Why can Terminator 2 continue clearly finished story of Terminator, but BG 3 can't do the same with BG1 and BG2? It has different hero, new robots, new plot. Terminator 3 goes even further. Are those also Not-Terminators?
    And I'm not talking about GoT, but aSoIaF.

    But I really see no point, because I can raise as many examples as I like, but you keep shooting them down, never adressing my point:
    - X is story about This and it can never be about This + That!
    - Well, Y did that...
    - Y was awful!
    - Z did that...
    - Z sucked!
    - W did that...
    - W was a single story so it doesn't count!
    - R did that...
    - R countinued the story, so it doesn't count!

    I mean, listen. If you somehow decreed for yourself that Baldur's Gate can only be about Gorion's Ward, then fine, whatever you like. But it won't stop the thing from expanding, and as long as expansion makes sense, I'm cool.

    lefreutbyrne20BelgarathMTH
  • the_sexteinthe_sextein Member Posts: 711
    edited June 2019
    I just hope they don't make a Baldru's Gate 4 rise of the machines. That uses two prolific IP's at the same time to explore the linage of John conner in the forgotten realms with first person shooter gameplay.

    ArtonaAdulleeux
  • ArtonaArtona Member Posts: 1,073
    @the_sextein - I would play the heck out of The Rise of the Planet of the Shadow of Baldur's Gate: Resurgence: Resurrection: Salvation.

    the_sexteinAdulBelgarathMTHPokota
  • the_sexteinthe_sextein Member Posts: 711
    I think Oblivian should be added before Salvation just to give it that extra edge. It might make some Elder Scrolls fans interested.

    Artona
  • elminsterelminster Member, Developer Posts: 16,009
    edited June 2019
    Yay!
    Artona wrote: »
    @the_sextein - I would play the heck out of The Rise of the Planet of the Shadow of Baldur's Gate: Resurgence: Resurrection: Salvation.

    *Takes down for notes*

    :)

    Grond0Artonathe_sexteinPokota
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 10,596
    Nay!
    @Arona

    How is Terminator 2 not a continuation? The main character from the previous film comes back in a major role. The person who was previously the most important person for stopping the machines is now center stage. It's also directly concerned with the same threat as the previous movie. How is it not a continuation.

    Some food for thought. If all of your arguments and examples are so easy to shoot down, maybe the issue is with your arguments.

    megamike15
  • kanisathakanisatha Member Posts: 839
    Nay!
    Hey @ThacoBell, you know I agree with you quite a lot on this issue, but I'm just going to throw this out here as something that could be a possibility. I feel it is possible that Larian would've wanted to go with 'Baldur's Gate: subtitle.' They did this exact thing with the D:OS games, after all. But I can see WotC being the one that insisted the game be titled BG3 to (inappropriately) take advantage of nostalgia for the original games.

    Anyway, I don't have a problem with the use of "Baldur's Gate." I do have a concern, at the very least, by the inclusion of the "III."

    semiticgodSjerrie
  • ArviaArvia Member Posts: 1,103
    Nay!
    If there's gore like in the trailer, then it's not a game for me. Though that transformation is cool, and it makes me wonder what the story is about. But I don't need so many disturbing and disgusting details.

    AmmarBelgarathMTHJairyannaRavenslight
  • ArtonaArtona Member Posts: 1,073
    @ThacoBell
    How is Terminator 2 not a continuation? The main character from the previous film comes back in a major role. The person who was previously the most important person for stopping the machines is now center stage. It's also directly concerned with the same threat as the previous movie. How is it not a continuation.

    The guy who went back in time doesn't come back. So there is different hero. The villain is changed to helpful sidekick. The effects of previous movie are rendered moot (it doesn't matter that Arnold was stopped, because Skynet can keep sending machines back in time).
    I see no reason why we accept Terminator 2 as continuation, but assume that BG 3 cannot be "continuation". Terminator 3 changes the game even further by stating that Judgement Day cannot be stopped. It entail drastic shift in themes - it's no longer about avoiding the future, but preparing of inevitable. Is Terminator 3 worthy the name of continuation?

    Some food for thought. If all of your arguments and examples are so easy to shoot down, maybe the issue is with your arguments.

    The issue is that you keep talking about examples instead of the issue:
    - You can introduce new heroes and stories to the franchise and expand upon it. Game of Thrones did that.
    - Game of Thrones suck.
    - Star Wars did that.
    - Star Wars suck.
    - Lord of the Rings did that.
    - It was one book.

    If you are against changing protagonist and story as a principle, then say so, but then it won't matter if Star Wars were good or not. It's not about example, but about change of protagonist as a concept. Chronicles of Amber did that, but I'm taking wild guess that there is also something wrong with that example. ;)

Sign In or Register to comment.