PC Gamer Article
Adul
Member Posts: 2,002
There's a PC Gamer article where the CEO of Larian talks a bit about BG3. He talks a little bit about their communications with Wizards, as well as the upcoming game's story and combat system.
Here's the link:
https://www.pcgamer.com/baldurs-gate-3-will-combine-the-best-of-divinity-and-dandd-5th-edition/
Here's the link:
https://www.pcgamer.com/baldurs-gate-3-will-combine-the-best-of-divinity-and-dandd-5th-edition/
3
Comments
Maybe it's not too late, and if there's a chance my armchair-game-designer input could help make the game a more faithful sequel to BG, I'm willing to write a few strongly opinionated posts. It's what I do best, after all.
For all we know it could be first person turn based combat. :P
Well that's already impossible. Larian has confirmed that its not a sequel to the existing BG story. Despite their clickbait title.
And I'm not deluding myself thinking I'm definitely changing their minds. But if they face a backlash or actually do change their minds, the game mechanics could still possibly be reworked. We know nothing about how it's implemented right now, so we can't definitely state either way whether or not a change on that level is possible.
It's not like every computer adaptation of D&D ever hasn't altered and adapted the rules to make them work better as games.
Hmm, I'm not sure that they did imply that. The article used the term "put on the chopping block" when referring to adapting D&D mechanics, specifically attacks missing. But maybe you're right, as it's possible that it's the writer's fault for misconveying the message. I guess we'll have to wait for them to clarify or show more of their combat mechanics.
...and think this is going to be a horrible butchery of our adolescence complete with midi-chlorians. Then again, it's not like Wizards hasn't made some damn goofy licensing decisions in the past. Should be interesting finding out!
The focus on party mechanics makes me wonder what they have cooking.
For the most part, I agree with this. But for the love of all that is holy, DON'T CALL IT BG3. Its not a sequel, it has no connection to the previous saga. Stop lying to all your potential customers and stop marketing it as the next game in the saga. What even is it supposed to be the "Third" game to?
I have no doubt that despite not being a continuation of the Bhaalspawn saga we'll still see lots of references and nods and details from BG I and II, I mean elven and dwarven NPCs could still be alive and around, y'know? The games are Baldur's Gate I and II, not Bhaalspawn I and II, so I personally don't have the problem I see some people stuck on here. Like if Black Isle had never died and kept making BG games and eventually moved off the Bhaalspawn arc but kept the setting of the city of Baldur's Gate I wouldn't have faulted them for keeping the name, and that's how I feel about it here. I understand the problem people are stuck on with it having to be a direct continuation of the Bhaalspawn saga for them to be comfortable, I just don't have that need for that particular security blanket (and in fact would've probably been less sure Larian were going to do a good job if they were continuing the Bhaalspawn saga rather than doing new stories they could build from the ground up in the city of Baldur's Gate).
Yep. I don't understand why people are obsessed with details that truly will not matter in terms of this being a good RPG or not.
That's a pretty nice strawman you've made there. NOBODY has complained that the game will be bad because it's called BG3. I've seen people complain it will be bad because they didn't like Larian's previous games, which is a valid worry for those people.
And I've seen (and am one) people say this game shouldn't be called BG3 because, well, its not. The issue here isn't that game is bad, its that labelling a game as a sequel to a series, but making the game have nothing to do with the previous series, is dishonest. Its simply that such a beloved and respected series has been reduced to nothing more than a click bait title, and it just feels gross and wrong. It like somebody is offering me my favorite ice cream flavor, handing me a completely different flavor, and saying I am being petty that I am unhappy with it. It has nothing to do with how good that icecream is, its that I was initially told that I was getting something different than what I was actually given.
Ethics aside, this could potentially kill BG as we know it. If it does well, WotC will probably block any new content that isn't directly related to the new game. And if the game does poorly, WotC will probably block all BG content for the forseeable future.
And it speaks to you obsessing about things that don't matter. At the end of the day, all that matters is if it's a quality game or not. You have already previously laid out your framework where a BG3 can't be made because you can't continue the original protagonist's journey and you also can't make a "3" that doesn't continue that protagonist's journey.
Good luck with that kind of outlook dude. It's not going to serve you well.
If it turns out it has nothing to do with BG1 & BG2, it could still be a decent game. Personally I might even play and love it. But it would still be dishonest marketing, which would be a bad look for both Larian and Wizards.
I think its hilarious that people keep brining up unrelated franchises as examples that somehow exhonerate BG3. Wasteland and Fallout never had an established pattern of following the same story. Baldur's Gate DID. They are not equivalent. We have two games and two epansions now that are about the same character and tell a singular story. Its BECAUSE this pattern has been established (for 25 years!) that the new games title is so problematic.
But yeah, if you don't think honesty in the games industry is important, well, that's all on you.
if anything thing the Bethesda fallouts should be a better example. 3 and 4 are so disconnected from both themselves and the west coast games they may as well be reboots.
If the game did very poorly, I agree that might dissuade WotC from licensing new material. However, I don't think that the outlook if it does well would be bad. It would seem more likely to me that a successful game would lead to more ventures both by Larian and others. Other companies would be keen to take advantage of a growing genre, while WotC would see the potential benefits to them of wider recognition for D&D. There's a huge amount of material available for WotC to exploit and plenty of room to try out variations on whatever Larian do.
If you're thinking more narrowly about the future of the existing BG franchise based on the 2nd edition, I agree not much can be expected there - but then that's been the case for quite a few years. WotC have taken the line for a long time that they don't want to develop material based on older D&D editions. Beamdog did well to find a niche where they did allow that, but I don't think that niche was ever likely to grow ...
There's nothing dishonest here though. You're just insisting that game companies follow some personal rule of yours. They said -- at launch -- that it's a new adventure. That's not dishonesty.
There's nothing dishonest here though. You're just insisting that game companies follow some personal rule of yours. They said -- at launch -- that it's a new adventure. That's not dishonesty."
NOW RELEASING BALDUR'S GATE 3!!!*
*this game isn't actually baldur's gate 3. in fact, its not related to the previous games at all.
No, that's textbook false marketing and dishonesty.