1 - The lead designer thinks that something that worked on previous D&D games, on Morrowind/daggerfall, even in action focused games such as diablo 1/2 and on might & magic series can't work
2 - The game needs to be playable on Stadia(controller)
I can't have any hope. The last game that i had hope was pathfinder kingmaker and before i did pre ordered the game, i searched a lot before i did it.
To be fair @ThacoBell it has gone both ways. I had a guy swearing at me because I posted a positive opinion. But I get your point. And it’s a fair one. But like I say, it’s not one sided.
I disagree. I haven't seen any comments in this forum section that actually swore at anyone. Even if there is though, a single post does not even remotely make both sides equal in this regard.
@ThacoBell well obviously you’re gonna disagree. But fair enough, I won’t be drawn into a debate with you. You’re more than entitled to feel how you feel
Well solution is simple. Call this game like: "Baldur's Gate: XB", or "Baldur's Gate: YZ", or "Dark Clouds over BG", or any other title, but don't call it "Baldur's Gate 3" if you don't wanna continue BG 2 story (and Larian confirmed that they will not do so), or you will never deal with "BG 2" aftermath, otherwise this will be nothing other that intentional misleading or simple lie (white lie, but in the end still a lie), in order to create boost to its own glory, and free advertisement on the back, and foundations of previous titles.
Its truly elude me why you defend this little "cheat", like you will defend your own independence. Or you simply wanna live in illusion, and lies. After all, "BG" main story is NOT about city, but about Gorion Ward, and his adventures in "BG" areas.
About IWD and NWN. This is different. Both series are about regions, and one major city. Each time you create new character, even if some events, and some aftermaths from previous parts are present. You fallow footsteps of previous team/heroes to defeat evil/threat to peace and stability of certain regions. Baldur's Gate on the other hand follow strictly Gorion Ward, and nothing else. This is the difference.
Lets sum it up.
IWD, NWN - are games portraying the fates of regions by following group of heroes (multiple protagonists) and they adventures. Even if they contain some aftermaths from previous parts.
BG 1, BG 2 - are games that follow SINGLE hero from start of his adventure until its ending.
This is the difference, so i don't know why you are happy so much when someone lie straight to your face... or it is that what you like... duno, i don't dispute people tastes, and don't care. For me, if there is no Gorion Ward (or his children if he had ones, but if im correct, novel author killed almost all GW companions, and this novel [horribly written] is count as cannon in D&D lore), then there is no "BG 3", but a completely different title in Baldur's Gate city areas.
@ThacoBell - As you see people loves to live in a lie. Old saying is truly marvelous: "It is easier to cheat people, to make them admit they were cheated".
The same portrays the choice on the end of BG2. Most people chose Mortality as a synonymous of true freedom from prophecy clutches, but in the end, they only switched places from begin a King on prophecy chess board, to simple little unimportant pawn.
And what you expect ? This is modern society, walk, and talk, like a majority, if not, if you dare to hold your own opinion, then sorry, you will be branded as outcast and even a criminal.
@Rohen If for you there is no Baldur's Gate without Gorion's ward then that's fair enough. You're more than entitled to feel that way. And I am sure that you wont buy it when it does eventually release and that's fine. I on the other hand don't feel that strongly and am more than happy for Baldur's gate 3 to continue with an original story. I do hope there will be plenty of lore and some references to the previous games just for my own nostalgia. Unless I see gameplay and it really doesn't appeal to me, this is gonna be a day one purchase for me. I cant wait to go back to Galdur's Gate
I don't understand this need to police stories written by other people, enjoying something 20 years ago doesn't give me a deciding vote on creative decisions.
But more importantly -- Pathfinder: Kingmaker is goddamn fantastic and in good shape now with the DLC. If you guys want a traditional BG-like experience, it's going to be hard to top that one... tho I can't wait to see what they do with the followup. Hits all the right notes, best-in-class character creation, unpretentious and gloriously pulpy.
@Rohen If for you there is no Baldur's Gate without Gorion's ward then that's fair enough. You're more than entitled to feel that way. And I am sure that you wont buy it when it does eventually release and that's fine.
I never said i don't buy it. I said only that i don't like how they twist game title to promote a still unknown game. There is only trailer, and not actual game fotage or gameplay. So its still Nay for me. Never buy a cat in the bag, i done so 2 times in my life (The Guild 2, and Sacred 2), and i don't wanna make this mistake again, so for now im skeptical, and vote for Nay.
To be fair @ThacoBell it has gone both ways. I had a guy swearing at me because I posted a positive opinion. But I get your point. And it’s a fair one. But like I say, it’s not one sided.
I was admonished for the use of the profanity, because whilst it wasn't used to attack anyone, it was used to express the strength of what I felt, I forgot for a moment that this is a company's official forum and they'll have more stringent standards over what's acceptable on their public forum and I can fully understand that.
on BG3 I don't think there's anything more I can say, without seeing some actual game footage. And to be honest, depending on what is shown, it might make all the debate going on just now look like a birthday picnic. Should be fun.
As for Pathfinder Kingmaker, I have played it for a while, don't really know how I feel, but I think it's really failed to engage me much because of the tone and the pacing of the story. Also I liked the world map travelling stuff at first... then the realisation hits you that its going to be in play the whole game, and as much as its commendable to try and apply PnP rules to travelling and camping etc. it might be one of those things that really doesn't translate that well to a videogame. I certainly got tired of it fast and I'm fine with it not being in all the other CRPGs like that.
@hybridial I struggled a bit at first to get engaged with Pillars of Eternity like you did with Pathfinder I guess. But I gave it a chance and ended up really liking it. I haven’t played Pillars of Eternity 2 yet. I was gonna get that one on console as they said it was coming out on console but it never seemed to happen.
I might give Pathfinder Kingmaker a go at some point as I I’ve seen some gameplay videos and it does look pretty good. I will probably do some more research before I commit though.
@hybridial I struggled a bit at first to get engaged with Pillars of Eternity like you did with Pathfinder I guess. But I gave it a chance and ended up really liking it. I haven’t played Pillars of Eternity 2 yet. I was gonna get that one on console as they said it was coming out on console but it never seemed to happen.
I might give Pathfinder Kingmaker a go at some point as I I’ve seen some gameplay videos and it does look pretty good. I will probably do some more research before I commit though.
Personally, I'd recommend Pathfinder over Deadfire. It's the closest to a modern BG game of all the newer RPG's I've played. It was horrifically buggy at launch and even a decent amount post-launch. I had serious issues with my initial playthrough, but that's finally been fixed. So I think it's in a mostly bug free state now.
The character creation and combat are strong. The dungeon crawling is especially strong. Their twist on the journal is well done too.
@hybridial I struggled a bit at first to get engaged with Pillars of Eternity like you did with Pathfinder I guess. But I gave it a chance and ended up really liking it. I haven’t played Pillars of Eternity 2 yet. I was gonna get that one on console as they said it was coming out on console but it never seemed to happen.
I might give Pathfinder Kingmaker a go at some point as I I’ve seen some gameplay videos and it does look pretty good. I will probably do some more research before I commit though.
Personally, I'd recommend Pathfinder over Deadfire. It's the closest to a modern BG game of all the newer RPG's I've played. It was horrifically buggy at launch and even a decent amount post-launch. I had serious issues with my initial playthrough, but that's finally been fixed. So I think it's in a mostly bug free state now.
The character creation and combat are strong. The dungeon crawling is especially strong. Their twist on the journal is well done too.
I feel the other way around and strongly recommend Deadfire over Pathfinder, which I found pretty dull. But to each his or her own.
@hybridial I struggled a bit at first to get engaged with Pillars of Eternity like you did with Pathfinder I guess. But I gave it a chance and ended up really liking it. I haven’t played Pillars of Eternity 2 yet. I was gonna get that one on console as they said it was coming out on console but it never seemed to happen.
I might give Pathfinder Kingmaker a go at some point as I I’ve seen some gameplay videos and it does look pretty good. I will probably do some more research before I commit though.
Personally, I'd recommend Pathfinder over Deadfire. It's the closest to a modern BG game of all the newer RPG's I've played. It was horrifically buggy at launch and even a decent amount post-launch. I had serious issues with my initial playthrough, but that's finally been fixed. So I think it's in a mostly bug free state now.
The character creation and combat are strong. The dungeon crawling is especially strong. Their twist on the journal is well done too.
I feel the other way around and strongly recommend Deadfire over Pathfinder, which I found pretty dull. But to each his or her own.
Well I would very strongly recommend both PoE2 and P:K. I have found them both to be excellent games, each with its own unique style and feel.
I REALLY liked a lot of what PoE did, but I could never get into the rule set underneath it. Part of why I really love D&D settings is that the world fits into the rules rather than (what I perceived as) the rules fitting into the world.
Being a ranger in D&D means something. If means different things to different peoples/races. An elven Ranger vs a dwarven caver. They're different expressions of the same concept. It was an interesting cultural/societal spin on making a set of rules work because the world adapted to them.
Maybe I missed it, but the people I interacted with in PoE, and the characters of PoE didn't reflect the rule set to me except that the companions all seemed to be 1 off variants of different classes.
I will admit I only ever got to the endless dungeon part, which I understand not to be very far in
Well, I'm trying to install Kingmaker again, but gog galaxy is wanting to make my life difficult, refusing to install it because of a connection error and now I have to download it again. Joy.
I REALLY liked a lot of what PoE did, but I could never get into the rule set underneath it. Part of why I really love D&D settings is that the world fits into the rules rather than (what I perceived as) the rules fitting into the world.
Being a ranger in D&D means something. If means different things to different peoples/races. An elven Ranger vs a dwarven caver. They're different expressions of the same concept. It was an interesting cultural/societal spin on making a set of rules work because the world adapted to them.
Maybe I missed it, but the people I interacted with in PoE, and the characters of PoE didn't reflect the rule set to me except that the companions all seemed to be 1 off variants of different classes.
I will admit I only ever got to the endless dungeon part, which I understand not to be very far in
I share your criticism as well. It didn't end up effecting the strategy/tactics of the game overmuch. But yeah, Obsidian seemed torn between their own personal desire to have a class-less system and the clear fan desire to have DnD style classes.
So they made a game where every class can kind of do everything. You can make a fighter that can cast from scrolls and disarm traps! You can make a tanky wizard! You can beat the game with a party of six paladins! But that results in a kind of grey, less interesting game world. My big issue with Deadfire is that the started to lean even more heavily on this class-less philosophy, which ultimately did kill much of the strategic nature of combat.
Well, this is why we have all these strong debates.
For me, its rules system is the weak point of D&D. Finally, with 5e, the rules are 'ok', but the selling point of D&D for me is the world, the setting, the lore. The rules are something to be tolerated.
As I've said before, I loved the BG games in spite of the rules, not because of them. AD&D 2e was shit and I truly despise that rules system.
I found classes to be very meaningful in the PoE games, and especially in PoE2 with the addition of subclasses and multiclassing. By contrast, it's the D:OS games where everyone can do everything. Just give everyone the same set of the best spells and you're all set.
I found classes to be very meaningful in the PoE games, and especially in PoE2 with the addition of subclasses and multiclassing. By contrast, it's the D:OS games where everyone can do everything. Just give everyone the same set of the best spells and you're all set.
That's because OS is a class-less game, despite character creation being a tad misleading. I'm not saying one system is necessarily better. But what is better is to fully commit to one system.
I found classes to be very meaningful in the PoE games, and especially in PoE2 with the addition of subclasses and multiclassing. By contrast, it's the D:OS games where everyone can do everything. Just give everyone the same set of the best spells and you're all set.
Yeah, honestly the battle system in the Original Sin games is monstrously unsatisfying. The first game enforced more difficult encounter design (because element surfaces were often deadly) which mitigated it a little, but then that game was also bland and I lost all interest in it quickly. In OS2, the battle system is literally just get x books, spam x spells, rinse, repeat. As I've said, I'm less bothered by the use of real time or turn based, but Larian's only made a really, really terrible turn based battle system before now, so either way I'm worried for the combat.
I found classes to be very meaningful in the PoE games, and especially in PoE2 with the addition of subclasses and multiclassing. By contrast, it's the D:OS games where everyone can do everything. Just give everyone the same set of the best spells and you're all set.
While I disagree about PoE (in my somewhat limited playtime) I totally agree about D:OS. Despite really enjoying the games, I did not like the anyone could do anything approach. He fact that the characters were in no way constrained by their abilities made it harder for me to invest in them (To Larian's credit, the fact that invested anyways speaks to their story telling prowess, in my opinion).
This is the difference, so i don't know why you are happy so much when someone lie straight to your face... or it is that what you like... duno, i don't dispute people tastes, and don't care. For me, if there is no Gorion Ward (or his children if he had ones, but if im correct, novel author killed almost all GW companions, and this novel [horribly written] is count as cannon in D&D lore), then there is no "BG 3", but a completely different title in Baldur's Gate city areas
And like that my respect from you went from 0, that being neutral, to negative value. There is nothing better than making assumptions about people coming from random guy who just joined tha community and is pretending to have any kind of highground.
True, two first Baldur's Gate games followed one particular story, that being Gorion's ward's. It is also true, however, that only the first game's title has anything to do with story. Sequel was just named Baldur's Gate for, guess, what, marketing. It is easier to convey it being a direct sequel if it's shared a name, even if the title has nothing to do with actual content of the game.
IWD, NWN - are games portraying the fates of regions by following group of heroes (multiple protagonists) and they adventures. Even if they contain some aftermaths from previous parts.
Thank you for stating this. If you are okay with this, then for the sake of consistency you will acknowledge BG3 as a sequel if it turns out that it will adress the aftermatch from Gorion's Ward actions from long ago, in a similar way IWD2 does to IWD. Likewise I am willing to admit if I am the one that will be ultimately mistaken.
But, we will have to wait to see if its the case. As I said, we have no sufficient ammount of information to judge whether it could actually be considered a sequel or not.
Finally, stop assuming things about people you know nothing about.
Its amazing how many people seem to be outright offended that some of us dare be skeptical. Pretty every post that is skeptical have limited themselves to stating their opinion and defending their stance when other people get upset at them. Meanwhile, a distressing number of people hyped for the game have been pretty casually throwing around "entitled fanboy", "Toxic", "petty", "extremist". It really quite distressing. Like skepticism is some kind of grave sin.
Sorry for double posting, but for the note, negative stance based on hardly anything is not skepticism. Likewise with positive stance on the topic.
Skeptic would hold his judge until he/she has enough information to work with and then make a judgement. Skeptic would need a viable reason to hold a stance.
Skeptic would hold his judge until he/she has enough information to work with and then make a judgement. Skeptic would need a viable reason to hold a stance.
Yeah but people here have said "why assume this game won't be good based on things Larian have already made" as if that's unreasonable. Its not particularly an unreasonable stance, because that's exactly the most relevant information to forming a basis for speculation, and honestly based on past experience, it usually does logically follow through. Sounds like healthy Scepticism to me.
Skeptic would hold his judge until he/she has enough information to work with and then make a judgement. Skeptic would need a viable reason to hold a stance.
Yeah but people here have said "why assume this game won't be good based on things Larian have already made" as if that's unreasonable. Its not particularly an unreasonable stance, because that's exactly the most relevant information to forming a basis for speculation, and honestly based on past experience, it usually does logically follow through. Sounds like healthy Scepticism to me.
That'd be a fair point, but in this particular case Thaco said he hadn't even heard of Larian, much less knew what their games were like. So I think Bruce's pushback here is justified. Skepticism is only a virtue if you also apply it to yourself! I.e. inform yourself before forming an opinion
Comments
1 - The lead designer thinks that something that worked on previous D&D games, on Morrowind/daggerfall, even in action focused games such as diablo 1/2 and on might & magic series can't work
2 - The game needs to be playable on Stadia(controller)
I can't have any hope. The last game that i had hope was pathfinder kingmaker and before i did pre ordered the game, i searched a lot before i did it.
I disagree. I haven't seen any comments in this forum section that actually swore at anyone. Even if there is though, a single post does not even remotely make both sides equal in this regard.
Well solution is simple. Call this game like: "Baldur's Gate: XB", or "Baldur's Gate: YZ", or "Dark Clouds over BG", or any other title, but don't call it "Baldur's Gate 3" if you don't wanna continue BG 2 story (and Larian confirmed that they will not do so), or you will never deal with "BG 2" aftermath, otherwise this will be nothing other that intentional misleading or simple lie (white lie, but in the end still a lie), in order to create boost to its own glory, and free advertisement on the back, and foundations of previous titles.
Its truly elude me why you defend this little "cheat", like you will defend your own independence. Or you simply wanna live in illusion, and lies. After all, "BG" main story is NOT about city, but about Gorion Ward, and his adventures in "BG" areas.
About IWD and NWN. This is different. Both series are about regions, and one major city. Each time you create new character, even if some events, and some aftermaths from previous parts are present. You fallow footsteps of previous team/heroes to defeat evil/threat to peace and stability of certain regions. Baldur's Gate on the other hand follow strictly Gorion Ward, and nothing else. This is the difference.
Lets sum it up.
IWD, NWN - are games portraying the fates of regions by following group of heroes (multiple protagonists) and they adventures. Even if they contain some aftermaths from previous parts.
BG 1, BG 2 - are games that follow SINGLE hero from start of his adventure until its ending.
This is the difference, so i don't know why you are happy so much when someone lie straight to your face... or it is that what you like... duno, i don't dispute people tastes, and don't care. For me, if there is no Gorion Ward (or his children if he had ones, but if im correct, novel author killed almost all GW companions, and this novel [horribly written] is count as cannon in D&D lore), then there is no "BG 3", but a completely different title in Baldur's Gate city areas.
@ThacoBell - As you see people loves to live in a lie. Old saying is truly marvelous: "It is easier to cheat people, to make them admit they were cheated".
The same portrays the choice on the end of BG2. Most people chose Mortality as a synonymous of true freedom from prophecy clutches, but in the end, they only switched places from begin a King on prophecy chess board, to simple little unimportant pawn.
And what you expect ? This is modern society, walk, and talk, like a majority, if not, if you dare to hold your own opinion, then sorry, you will be branded as outcast and even a criminal.
But more importantly -- Pathfinder: Kingmaker is goddamn fantastic and in good shape now with the DLC. If you guys want a traditional BG-like experience, it's going to be hard to top that one... tho I can't wait to see what they do with the followup. Hits all the right notes, best-in-class character creation, unpretentious and gloriously pulpy.
I never said i don't buy it. I said only that i don't like how they twist game title to promote a still unknown game. There is only trailer, and not actual game fotage or gameplay. So its still Nay for me. Never buy a cat in the bag, i done so 2 times in my life (The Guild 2, and Sacred 2), and i don't wanna make this mistake again, so for now im skeptical, and vote for Nay.
Ps: You are not a Jedi to read other minds
I was admonished for the use of the profanity, because whilst it wasn't used to attack anyone, it was used to express the strength of what I felt, I forgot for a moment that this is a company's official forum and they'll have more stringent standards over what's acceptable on their public forum and I can fully understand that.
on BG3 I don't think there's anything more I can say, without seeing some actual game footage. And to be honest, depending on what is shown, it might make all the debate going on just now look like a birthday picnic. Should be fun.
As for Pathfinder Kingmaker, I have played it for a while, don't really know how I feel, but I think it's really failed to engage me much because of the tone and the pacing of the story. Also I liked the world map travelling stuff at first... then the realisation hits you that its going to be in play the whole game, and as much as its commendable to try and apply PnP rules to travelling and camping etc. it might be one of those things that really doesn't translate that well to a videogame. I certainly got tired of it fast and I'm fine with it not being in all the other CRPGs like that.
I might give Pathfinder Kingmaker a go at some point as I I’ve seen some gameplay videos and it does look pretty good. I will probably do some more research before I commit though.
Personally, I'd recommend Pathfinder over Deadfire. It's the closest to a modern BG game of all the newer RPG's I've played. It was horrifically buggy at launch and even a decent amount post-launch. I had serious issues with my initial playthrough, but that's finally been fixed. So I think it's in a mostly bug free state now.
The character creation and combat are strong. The dungeon crawling is especially strong. Their twist on the journal is well done too.
I feel the other way around and strongly recommend Deadfire over Pathfinder, which I found pretty dull. But to each his or her own.
Well I would very strongly recommend both PoE2 and P:K. I have found them both to be excellent games, each with its own unique style and feel.
Being a ranger in D&D means something. If means different things to different peoples/races. An elven Ranger vs a dwarven caver. They're different expressions of the same concept. It was an interesting cultural/societal spin on making a set of rules work because the world adapted to them.
Maybe I missed it, but the people I interacted with in PoE, and the characters of PoE didn't reflect the rule set to me except that the companions all seemed to be 1 off variants of different classes.
I will admit I only ever got to the endless dungeon part, which I understand not to be very far in
I share your criticism as well. It didn't end up effecting the strategy/tactics of the game overmuch. But yeah, Obsidian seemed torn between their own personal desire to have a class-less system and the clear fan desire to have DnD style classes.
So they made a game where every class can kind of do everything. You can make a fighter that can cast from scrolls and disarm traps! You can make a tanky wizard! You can beat the game with a party of six paladins! But that results in a kind of grey, less interesting game world. My big issue with Deadfire is that the started to lean even more heavily on this class-less philosophy, which ultimately did kill much of the strategic nature of combat.
For me, its rules system is the weak point of D&D. Finally, with 5e, the rules are 'ok', but the selling point of D&D for me is the world, the setting, the lore. The rules are something to be tolerated.
As I've said before, I loved the BG games in spite of the rules, not because of them. AD&D 2e was shit and I truly despise that rules system.
That's because OS is a class-less game, despite character creation being a tad misleading. I'm not saying one system is necessarily better. But what is better is to fully commit to one system.
Yeah, honestly the battle system in the Original Sin games is monstrously unsatisfying. The first game enforced more difficult encounter design (because element surfaces were often deadly) which mitigated it a little, but then that game was also bland and I lost all interest in it quickly. In OS2, the battle system is literally just get x books, spam x spells, rinse, repeat. As I've said, I'm less bothered by the use of real time or turn based, but Larian's only made a really, really terrible turn based battle system before now, so either way I'm worried for the combat.
While I disagree about PoE (in my somewhat limited playtime) I totally agree about D:OS. Despite really enjoying the games, I did not like the anyone could do anything approach. He fact that the characters were in no way constrained by their abilities made it harder for me to invest in them (To Larian's credit, the fact that invested anyways speaks to their story telling prowess, in my opinion).
And like that my respect from you went from 0, that being neutral, to negative value. There is nothing better than making assumptions about people coming from random guy who just joined tha community and is pretending to have any kind of highground.
True, two first Baldur's Gate games followed one particular story, that being Gorion's ward's. It is also true, however, that only the first game's title has anything to do with story. Sequel was just named Baldur's Gate for, guess, what, marketing. It is easier to convey it being a direct sequel if it's shared a name, even if the title has nothing to do with actual content of the game.
Thank you for stating this. If you are okay with this, then for the sake of consistency you will acknowledge BG3 as a sequel if it turns out that it will adress the aftermatch from Gorion's Ward actions from long ago, in a similar way IWD2 does to IWD. Likewise I am willing to admit if I am the one that will be ultimately mistaken.
But, we will have to wait to see if its the case. As I said, we have no sufficient ammount of information to judge whether it could actually be considered a sequel or not.
Finally, stop assuming things about people you know nothing about.
Sorry for double posting, but for the note, negative stance based on hardly anything is not skepticism. Likewise with positive stance on the topic.
Skeptic would hold his judge until he/she has enough information to work with and then make a judgement. Skeptic would need a viable reason to hold a stance.
Yeah but people here have said "why assume this game won't be good based on things Larian have already made" as if that's unreasonable. Its not particularly an unreasonable stance, because that's exactly the most relevant information to forming a basis for speculation, and honestly based on past experience, it usually does logically follow through. Sounds like healthy Scepticism to me.
That'd be a fair point, but in this particular case Thaco said he hadn't even heard of Larian, much less knew what their games were like. So I think Bruce's pushback here is justified. Skepticism is only a virtue if you also apply it to yourself! I.e. inform yourself before forming an opinion