I feel like fans respond badly to innovation at first. But then it often cools off and the new norm becomes accepted. You see this with other things like operating systems or social media apps.
While I wouldn't go so far as to say I wouldn't play a BG2 clone (because I can't lie), I'd much prefer this game to branch out and fail than to just copy its predecessors and be OK.
@DinoDin
As someone who jumps from games, to comicss, to cartoons I can honestly/say there is a divide.
The majority respond badly if the innovation either made no sense, was change for political reasons, or didn't actually improve the enjoyment of the entity it was happening too.
Examples of this off the top of my head and avoiding comic book examples for... Reasons.
Dragon age series, or was a decent enough game that any innovation to it could have greatly improved the franchise or hurt it horribly. Dragon age 2 "innovations" made little to know sense and was the exact example of what can go wrong. While say Dragon Commander, it came from a lineage of action RPG games and did exactly what dragon age 2 did but on drugs and while there was a negative reaction it wasn't Anywhere near as bad as dragon age two and dragon commander went from action rpg to a hybrid of rts, tbs, card strategy. The change on a technical level made no sense, but it was still a fun game so it got more forgiveness.
The second is hardcore fans who hate even the slightest change to the thing they love. These people exist in everything and the more cliche it is the more vocal that group here. I mean just look here in these very forum to see this group of people. Things that were added to bgee that people modded into the original game like the ability to stack arrows have been complained about by this group.
This is part of the reason i find it interesting Larian Studios has BG3 they have a history of not being afraid to experiment, but i question how much different they will try to make it. This isn't one of their IP after all.
And here come a the most hated opinion in The forum...
The exact same stuff that was in bg, 1, 2, and throne of bhaal. Quite honestly, I won't even bother to play it if it's stIll following the same mechanic second edition rules. Call me whatever name you want but if I wanted to play the exact same game again I'd replay the trilogy. I careless about staying true to the original trilogy than I do in actually seeing an attempt at innovating the game something a lot of fans I've notice, hate.
I prefer to see it branch off and grow into it's own entity than see it be constrained.
this is how i feel about poe. it wanted to be baldurs gate and planescape torment to the point it did neither very well and i'd rather just replay the games it was inspired by instead of replaying pillars.
My understanding it that it becomes their IP now. I dunno how all the legal stuff about this works out, but I think they'll have rights to make sequels or spinoffs if they want. Just the same way Beamdog was able to make SoD (but not other D&D titles).
So I think they have the freedom to push some boundaries, carve out territory, and will able to make their own "series" of D&D CRPG's. Obviously that has to be what they're aiming for. Not just a good BG3, but one that makes fans absolutely crave a fourth.
I definitely very much agree with your sentiment here about some fans being too conservative in their tastes. I think a more open-minded, patient approach to games like the OS series reaps serious rewards. I was not the biggest fan OS at first, but once I got deeper into the game, you realize that a lot of systems like exploration/puzzles/traps and the leveling and skills system are designed pretty darn wonderfully. Hell, they even got the gold and economy right, which so few RPG's do. I find myself constantly having to think and make challenging (but fun) decisions within these systems.
Just thought about something I wouldn't like to see. Sliders without the option to enter number when shopping. It's frustrating when a shopkeeper has, let's say 50 potions for sale you want to buy 10 and the game just gives you a slider that stops anywhere from 9 to 30 but never in 10, for instance. Just let me type how many potions I want.
My understanding it that it becomes their IP now. I dunno how all the legal stuff about this works out, but I think they'll have rights to make sequels or spinoffs if they want. Just the same way Beamdog was able to make SoD (but not other D&D titles).
Honestly i need to hear this coming from the studios because there's a difference between owning the rights of an IP and owning the Distribution rights of the IP.
The first you actually own the franchise/series/ or w/e the later you own the distribution of it meaning everything you just mention can only be done by them or w/e studio they give the ok to making a sequel or spin-offs but they actually don't own the franchise. Kinda like the issue milestone comic has with DC right now, DC has distribution rights to basically all of their characters so Milestone themselves can't even make comics with their own characters so they can't make a comeback.
I'm also not sure if I mentioned it in this thread or another one, but I would be ecstatic if BG3 also had Psionic spell systems integrated. To my knowledge, the only D&D game to ever allow psionics for playable characters was the Darksun games by SSI back in the early 90's.
I think the 3.X Psionic system would have translated fairly well to a video game ruleset, owing to its spell point-style rules and the meta-psionic feat system (which could be easily copied over from the magic meta-magic system in games like NWN). The main problem would probably come from how magic and psionics interact with each other; I prefer the system where psionics and magic are totally different, so magic resistance wouldn't protect you against psionics and vice versa, but taking that route also increases the game's complexity exponentially because now you've got to put in items that specifically defend against psionics etc. You could always take the easy route and make psionics and magic interchangeable, but then you're essentially just treating psionics as another brand of magic, which I feel detracts from what gives psionics that unusual feel.
And here come a the most hated opinion in The forum...
The exact same stuff that was in bg, 1, 2, and throne of bhaal. Quite honestly, I won't even bother to play it if it's stIll following the same mechanic second edition rules. Call me whatever name you want but if I wanted to play the exact same game again I'd replay the trilogy. I careless about staying true to the original trilogy than I do in actually seeing an attempt at innovating the game something a lot of fans I've notice, hate.
I prefer to see it branch off and grow into it's own entity than see it be constrained.
Part of that is because if its something new, why should it be called Baldur's Gate 3? Thats a constraint that cannot be ignored. I think thats a very valid argument from people because otherwise its just cashing in on a name. Larian already has their own series that they've done their own thing with (which frankly I didn't like and found immensely disappointing in just about every way) and if they do that with BG3 chances are the game might do less well, because using that name carries with it expectations and if Larian just completely shrugs off that responsibility it might lose its audience, because no, I actually don't think this game will float purely off of OS2's success or Larian's success, it does need the old school fans who'll buy the game on the promise of what the title "Baldur's Gate 3" entails to at least form its initial sales momentum and if it alienates them it could in fact flop. This wouldn't be an issue if it weren't called Baldur's Gate 3.
I want Adrian's death to be explained satisfactorily. He defeated Demogorgon and all the Bhaalspawn only to refuse godhood.
I do not want him to have been slain by some noobs. It had better be a satisfactory explanation.
He was killed by Viekang, the scared bhaalspawn that teleports when he is scared. The game will follow the canon from Murder in Baldur's Gate.
That's unfortunate. I hope Larian will add something to that to make it a little more plausible. Perhaps Adrian was very old and weak at that point, and Viekang underwent some kind of transformation during the years that passed.
i just don't like mind flayers in general. so them being the big bad is already a turn off.
I actually LIKE mind flayers as a monster, but I agree that they aren't really a good "face villain" for an RPG. To me, they've always been the puppetmasters in the shadows, pulling strings from behind two or even three layers of slaves and unsuspecting dupes. Having them openly assault a surface city like what we see in the trailers feels... very unlike them. Of course, maybe that's the whole point since Larian have more or less stated that the mind flayers are not the TRUE villain in BG3, but still... I feel like it's doing the illithids a disservice using them in such a manner.
Of course, maybe that's the whole point since Larian have more or less stated that the mind flayers are not the TRUE villain in BG3, but still... I feel like it's doing the illithids a disservice using them in such a manner.
Something really drastic has to happen for illithids to accept being servants to anyone or anything...
Alongside Beholders they are one of the most emblematic and recognizable D&D monsters so I can understand the temptation to use them as face villains. But it would really suck to have them demoted to mooks you kill in scores with a low-level party...
Imagine Larian treating them like Bethesda treated dragons
Comments
While I wouldn't go so far as to say I wouldn't play a BG2 clone (because I can't lie), I'd much prefer this game to branch out and fail than to just copy its predecessors and be OK.
As someone who jumps from games, to comicss, to cartoons I can honestly/say there is a divide.
The majority respond badly if the innovation either made no sense, was change for political reasons, or didn't actually improve the enjoyment of the entity it was happening too.
Examples of this off the top of my head and avoiding comic book examples for... Reasons.
Dragon age series, or was a decent enough game that any innovation to it could have greatly improved the franchise or hurt it horribly. Dragon age 2 "innovations" made little to know sense and was the exact example of what can go wrong. While say Dragon Commander, it came from a lineage of action RPG games and did exactly what dragon age 2 did but on drugs and while there was a negative reaction it wasn't Anywhere near as bad as dragon age two and dragon commander went from action rpg to a hybrid of rts, tbs, card strategy. The change on a technical level made no sense, but it was still a fun game so it got more forgiveness.
The second is hardcore fans who hate even the slightest change to the thing they love. These people exist in everything and the more cliche it is the more vocal that group here. I mean just look here in these very forum to see this group of people. Things that were added to bgee that people modded into the original game like the ability to stack arrows have been complained about by this group.
This is part of the reason i find it interesting Larian Studios has BG3 they have a history of not being afraid to experiment, but i question how much different they will try to make it. This isn't one of their IP after all.
this is how i feel about poe. it wanted to be baldurs gate and planescape torment to the point it did neither very well and i'd rather just replay the games it was inspired by instead of replaying pillars.
My understanding it that it becomes their IP now. I dunno how all the legal stuff about this works out, but I think they'll have rights to make sequels or spinoffs if they want. Just the same way Beamdog was able to make SoD (but not other D&D titles).
So I think they have the freedom to push some boundaries, carve out territory, and will able to make their own "series" of D&D CRPG's. Obviously that has to be what they're aiming for. Not just a good BG3, but one that makes fans absolutely crave a fourth.
I definitely very much agree with your sentiment here about some fans being too conservative in their tastes. I think a more open-minded, patient approach to games like the OS series reaps serious rewards. I was not the biggest fan OS at first, but once I got deeper into the game, you realize that a lot of systems like exploration/puzzles/traps and the leveling and skills system are designed pretty darn wonderfully. Hell, they even got the gold and economy right, which so few RPG's do. I find myself constantly having to think and make challenging (but fun) decisions within these systems.
The first you actually own the franchise/series/ or w/e the later you own the distribution of it meaning everything you just mention can only be done by them or w/e studio they give the ok to making a sequel or spin-offs but they actually don't own the franchise. Kinda like the issue milestone comic has with DC right now, DC has distribution rights to basically all of their characters so Milestone themselves can't even make comics with their own characters so they can't make a comeback.
Oh man, if you could be a minotaur PC in BG3, I would love that SO much.
Aren't all psionic implementations broken and incomplete?
They've been playable in every edition
Part of that is because if its something new, why should it be called Baldur's Gate 3? Thats a constraint that cannot be ignored. I think thats a very valid argument from people because otherwise its just cashing in on a name. Larian already has their own series that they've done their own thing with (which frankly I didn't like and found immensely disappointing in just about every way) and if they do that with BG3 chances are the game might do less well, because using that name carries with it expectations and if Larian just completely shrugs off that responsibility it might lose its audience, because no, I actually don't think this game will float purely off of OS2's success or Larian's success, it does need the old school fans who'll buy the game on the promise of what the title "Baldur's Gate 3" entails to at least form its initial sales momentum and if it alienates them it could in fact flop. This wouldn't be an issue if it weren't called Baldur's Gate 3.
I do not want him to have been slain by some noobs. It had better be a satisfactory explanation.
He was killed by Viekang, the scared bhaalspawn that teleports when he is scared. The game will follow the canon from Murder in Baldur's Gate.
That's unfortunate. I hope Larian will add something to that to make it a little more plausible. Perhaps Adrian was very old and weak at that point, and Viekang underwent some kind of transformation during the years that passed.
and if it's not him that kills him it's the low level adventurers playing the module. murder in baldurs gate is dumb.
I think both are possible, but considering that WotC hates its players, Viekang will be the "canon" charname killer.
Adrian and a d10 for Viekang each round.
Eeeh... Ahem. I think you'll be disappointed then.
I actually LIKE mind flayers as a monster, but I agree that they aren't really a good "face villain" for an RPG. To me, they've always been the puppetmasters in the shadows, pulling strings from behind two or even three layers of slaves and unsuspecting dupes. Having them openly assault a surface city like what we see in the trailers feels... very unlike them. Of course, maybe that's the whole point since Larian have more or less stated that the mind flayers are not the TRUE villain in BG3, but still... I feel like it's doing the illithids a disservice using them in such a manner.
Something really drastic has to happen for illithids to accept being servants to anyone or anything...
Imagine Larian treating them like Bethesda treated dragons