Been a while since I last saw my own thread. Gotta say, it never ceases to amaze me of just how well-balanced the poll results always appear to be. Any druid would be proud of that.
So why call it Baldur's Gate 3? that's the contradiction, the company wants to bank on the name without doing any of the work to be a genuinely accepted successor for the people who do care, and it doesn't matter if it was 20 years ago, Citizen Kane was a lot longer ago, do you think people would just blink if someone decided to announced a sequel to that tomorrow?
If a Citizen Kane sequel was shot in color would that be seen as a "betrayal" of the original? Or if it employed some CGI, as many, even realistic movies now do? I don't think people would think this way.
Again, I see people asserting that Larian isn't doing the work for "the people" while failing to prove that they're actually exists a sizable groundswell of outrage over anything announced so far about BG3. I think if people had to be honest, and speak with more restraint, and thus said "it's not making me and a few others happy" they'd have to reckon with their complaints for what they truly were.
Again, I see people asserting that Larian isn't doing the work for "the people" while failing to prove that they're actually exists a sizable groundswell of outrage over anything announced so far about BG3. I think if people had to be honest, and speak with more restraint, and thus said "it's not making me and a few others happy" they'd have to reckon with their complaints for what they truly were.
Well, its a very small sample but I'd say the poll result is demonstrative that its at least a pretty decent chunk of the fanbase into the series enough that they post here.
And it just comes down to the point again; if it doesn't matter why its called Baldur's Gate 3, then why did they call it that? I think people on your side of the argument need to reckon with that fact, because it matters to us, and its what motivates us to feel the way we do, and it is perfectly reasonable a stance to have.
And to be honest there hasn't been a groundswell of rage here as it has been apathy, because really for anyone wanting a game that resembles the old ones in just about anyway, that futility became clear the moment they showed the game.
No, we actually don't have to reckon with any portion of the fanbase's particular tastes, because, and this is important, we're not the ones insisting that other people labor precisely to our tastes.
It's worth emphasizing than none of us are getting a BG3 exactly as we would like. The key difference is that some of us are okay with that.
It's worth emphasizing than none of us are getting a BG3 exactly as we would like. The key difference is that some of us are okay with that.
It may be 100% or 0% for very few, but there's a wide range of grey in between. As such, some of us are getting more than others. Getting 90% of what you want is hugely different from getting 10%, so the person getting 90% is going to be "ok" with it whereas the person getting only 10% is justifiably not "ok."
That was always meant to happen. No offense, but if BG3 was similar to PoE or P:K, I'd be much more negative about it, and would definitely be not ok with it.
Again, I see people asserting that Larian isn't doing the work for "the people" while failing to prove that they're actually exists a sizable groundswell of outrage over anything announced so far about BG3. I think if people had to be honest, and speak with more restraint, and thus said "it's not making me and a few others happy" they'd have to reckon with their complaints for what they truly were.
Well, its a very small sample but I'd say the poll result is demonstrative that its at least a pretty decent chunk of the fanbase into the series enough that they post here.
And it just comes down to the point again; if it doesn't matter why its called Baldur's Gate 3, then why did they call it that? I think people on your side of the argument need to reckon with that fact, because it matters to us, and its what motivates us to feel the way we do, and it is perfectly reasonable a stance to have.
And to be honest there hasn't been a groundswell of rage here as it has been apathy, because really for anyone wanting a game that resembles the old ones in just about anyway, that futility became clear the moment they showed the game.
Apathetic is not a word I'd use to describe this forum. Vitriolic? Sure - but we wouldnt have the exact same three discussions over and over and over if everyone was just apathetic about it.
It's worth emphasizing than none of us are getting a BG3 exactly as we would like. The key difference is that some of us are okay with that.
It may be 100% or 0% for very few, but there's a wide range of grey in between. As such, some of us are getting more than others. Getting 90% of what you want is hugely different from getting 10%, so the person getting 90% is going to be "ok" with it whereas the person getting only 10% is justifiably not "ok."
It's not a question of "getting more".
Let me put it this way. If you got ****exactly**** what you wanted from BG3 (Or whatever name you need it to be) - the chances are I'd still be very excited about the game.
You're apparently getting close to 0% of what you want (roughly, according to you) - and I'm still... very excited about the game.
How can both of those things be true at the same time? Because it's isnt a question of "getting what we want".
There is a philosophical difference in approach here. You're trying to get something in particular. Most of us who are excited are excited about the prospect of a good game using a good rule set, set somewhere in a universe we care about.
That was always meant to happen. No offense, but if BG3 was similar to PoE or P:K, I'd be much more negative about it, and would definitely be not ok with it.
I absolutely appreciate that. My point is that it's not accurate or fair to claim we are ALL in the SAME boat of not getting exactly what we want, and therefore it's just a difference of some of us are being "mature" and ok with not getting exactly what they want while others are being "immature/unreasonable/throwing tantrums" etc etc about not getting exactly what they want (this last part being implied - not accusing anyone specifically of having used these words, though a few individuals have reflected such sentiments).
It's worth emphasizing than none of us are getting a BG3 exactly as we would like. The key difference is that some of us are okay with that.
It may be 100% or 0% for very few, but there's a wide range of grey in between. As such, some of us are getting more than others. Getting 90% of what you want is hugely different from getting 10%, so the person getting 90% is going to be "ok" with it whereas the person getting only 10% is justifiably not "ok."
This isn't true imo and it's not a fair reading of what people have said on here. I have said, several times now, that I would prefer RTwP combat. That seems to be the most important design decision hangup that critics have mentioned. Again, the difference here is that I'm okay with Larian making a decision they are more comfortable with.
For others, this preference becomes a dealbreaker apparently. Sorry, but that's on them. Not on members of the fanbase with broader tastes.
There is a philosophical difference in approach here. You're trying to get something in particular. Most of us who are excited are excited about the prospect of a good game using a good rule set, set somewhere in a universe we care about.
This part here I fully agree with (which also shows we *can* have useful conversations here). Different people have different preferences, but in addition also hold those preferences to different degrees of intensity. So it is both a matter of different preferences and of intensity of preferences.
No offense, but if BG3 was similar to PoE or P:K, I'd be much more negative about it, and would definitely be not ok with it.
Funny. That's 100% the complete opposite of what I am feeling. Although these days I can't even muster enough emotional investment for Larian to feel negative about their games anymore.
If BG3 were anything like PoE or Kingmaker, I at the very least would care enough to be skeptical interested. But reality is sadly different. C'est la vie~
You're apparently getting close to 0% of what you want (roughly, according to you)
Forgot to say something about this bit, which is that it is quite a bit of an exaggeration. The Forgotten Realms is my most beloved RPG setting of all, and as such BG3 being set in the Realms automatically means there is something quite significant about the game for me to like.
Also, since this keeps coming up again and again, yes the game shifting from RTwP to TB is a significant issue for me, but the game reducing party size from six to four is actually a bigger issue believe it or not.
No offense, but if BG3 was similar to PoE or P:K, I'd be much more negative about it, and would definitely be not ok with it.
Funny. That's 100% the complete opposite of what I am feeling. Although these days I can't even muster enough emotional investment for Larian to feel negative about their games anymore.
If BG3 were anything like PoE or Kingmaker, I at the very least would care enough to be skeptical interested. But reality is sadly different. C'est la vie~
The fact that many of us are skeptical of different aspects of the game shows that it's incredibily difficult fo a game developer to meet all tastes. I for one doesn't really care if it's TB instead of RTwP (actually I only felt P:K playable after installing TB mod) or if it's called BG3 not BG: Something, but I'm really concerned with:
- abhorrent dialogue style (this can be a dealbreaker for me, really. It's that bad. )
- Larian's ability to provide the game that *feels* like BG not another Divinity. And I would be even OK if the game feel more of DAO, cause I loved this game, but I would not be happy it looks and plays like DoS. DoS2 is a great in its own regard, but its completely different game and it should stay like that. I'm more concerned if Larian devs are familiar enough with FR setting to do a good FR vibed game.
No, we actually don't have to reckon with any portion of the fanbase's particular tastes, because, and this is important, we're not the ones insisting that other people labor precisely to our tastes.
That's your prerogative. But the problem is not what the game is, but what the game is called, because I knew what the game was going to be the moment they announced it. I find their use of the name they've chosen to be a marketing tactic and nothing more, and I have a low opinion of their lack of integrity, and I know, capitalism and all that, it still doesn't change that in my prerogative, they can go to hell for it, and they're not getting my money. You seem to be bound and determined to question people's reasons for not being lock step in opinion with you, and its patronising. I know I don't matter to Larian, and I don't matter to you, and I accept that, but my criticism of them is a principle thing, and aside from that and the fact their not getting a sniff of money from me ever again for anything, that's all there is to be said.
I haven't seen any patronising posts. But when you accuse another user of that, you're committing a personal attack, which is against the Site rules.
@DinoDin is one of the rare (on this subforum) voices of support for Larian and BG3. The comments provide a different perspective from negative remarks which are quite common here. And I noticed that sooner or later these comments get a personal reply where users start talking about the author of the comment instead of the game they're highly critical of. Don't.
I think ‘getting that Baldur’s Gate feeling’ as mentioned above can mean different things to different people. I think for me personally that feeling can come from many things and I recently rewatched the Baldur’s Gate 3 gameplay footage slowly to get more of a feel for it. Particularly the character generation screen which for me actually felt very good. I think as a person who played Baldur’s Gate when I was very young I have become very attached to D&D and the world it is set in. When watching the footage slowly one of the first things that jumped out to me was the attributes. Oh how I have missed the D&D attributes of Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma. It’s a great feeling seeing those again. Another thing I did was paused a lot on the races and read the descriptions and it is nice to see the familiar races along with the newly playable Githyanki. I actually think that the current version of the character generation gave me a very good feeling and felt very Baldur’s Gate/D&D as far as I am concerned.
I know Larian have obviously added their own origin characters that are playable but it’s important to remember that this is totally optional. As someone who played DOS 1&2 and very much enjoyed both I can honestly say I never once actually played as one of the origin characters. You could experience their stories in game by having them as party members anyway. And I never felt like I missed out on anything because of it. It’s also important to remember that Baldur’s Gate actually have pre generated characters that already had names. It feels to me like this is just more of a continuation of that idea and I actually think it fits in quite nicely.
I think another thing that always made Baldur’s Gate 1&2 so memorable was the party system and how the companions evolved over the two games. The first game didn’t have as much in terms of actual interaction but it set the stones in place and Baldur’s Gate 2 perfected the formula. It is a formula that again Larian make very good use of in the DOS games in my opinion. I know a lot of people are not keen on the writing style and the tone of the DOS games but from the small amount of gameplay we have seen I have got to say I like the dialogue so far for BG3 and feel it fits more in line with the originals. They were never 100% serious after all but they definitely had a more serious tone and I definitely felt that. I wasn’t to keen on the Vampire character that Sven used as I personally have never been a fan of vampires and always picked them as my racial enemy in BG2. I do however really like what I saw of Shadowheart and Gale. I especially liked @JuliusBorisov theory about Shadowheart on another thread and thought it was inspired lol
I think with regards to the real-time vs turn based debate people could argue for days on end and get no where fast. I’m of the opinion that it was the right call to go turn based for Baldur’s Gate 3. I believe it is one of the reasons (of many)that Larian was picked to create this game. They are proven to make great turn based games and I think the Wizards probably want Baldur’s Gate 3 to be a more accurate interpretation of a real D&D experience. I think it’s a good choice. Do I prefer turn based? No! Definitely not. But I think it works better for what they want this game to be mechanics wise and for that reason I am on board.
With regards to being a real sequel to the originals it really boils down to what you want from a sequel and no one is really wrong on this subject. Some people are totally set on the idea that the series cannot continue without Charname and that it ended with TOB and that’s fine to feel that way.
Personally to me Baldur’s Gate was not just the sum of charname. Bhaal was a huge part of that story. Bhaal is now alive again and I can’t help but feel Bhaal will play a big part in the story. The cult that follows the dead three has been mentioned a lot. We can’t really comment on the story to much at this point as we just do not know enough but I trust Larian when they say that it will have links to the previous games. Is that enough to warrant making this a sequel? In my opinion yes. As long as they do it right and provide enough material that links and makes this feel like there is a connection which I trust they will do.
One of the massive themes of the original games was about the inner struggle with controlling your true nature as a Bhaal spawn and one of the things I really like that Larian have done with BG3 is made a link to this theme with the tadpole being inside you and the struggle you will face.
I feel that if I had to make a criticism of anything so far that my only real concern is that the party size is down to 4. I guess it’s not so much a criticism so much as just me feeling nostalgic but I do miss having a party of 6 when I play DOS but at the same time I do understand that the decision was probably made as a decision around Mechanics.
I would highly recommend watching the gameplay footage again and like I did pause and take some time to read everything you see on screen. It really helped me. Please also remember that this is all just my point of view and I am in no way telling people how they should feel. Just thought I would put it out there. Sorry for the long post I hope everyone is healthy in these trying times.
One of the massive themes of the original games was about the inner struggle with controlling your true nature as a Bhaal spawn and one of the things I really like that Larian have done with BG3 is made a link to this theme with the tadpole being inside you and the struggle you will face.
I can't say I see much of a link there, not based on the lore. The tadpole isn't some kind of metaphor for identity and inner conflict, they are an invasive parasite designed to convert one organism into another, and destroying the previous identity utterly. If the characters haven't got that dealt with in the story fairly quickly, well, nothing else would make any sense.
Though in my general experience, and no, I'm not even singling out Larian here, just on the basis of a lot of writing in things I've seen lately, making sense seems to be of secondary concern for some. I don't think Larian have shown anything substantial that we can assume anything from though for the long term direction of the story, I'm just leery based on the quality of their prior work.
"And to be honest there hasn't been a groundswell of rage here as it has been apathy, because really for anyone wanting a game that resembles the old ones in just about anyway, that futility became clear the moment they showed the game."
"That was always meant to happen."
But how BIZARRE that BG3 is skewing away from BG and towards Divinity. That's the exact opposite of what one would think of a direct sequel.
I mean, just imagine if a Star Wars movie came out that was all about politics and trade disputes, rather than space adventure.
Appreciate the defense Julius, though don't worry about the attacks. I get that you guys have rules, and that's what you're about. I'm not bothered by anyone coming at me though, I get that what I'm saying here faces some strong disagreement with people.
I want to reiterate one thing that these critics still haven't addressed. I don't understand why you feel entitled to dictate how someone else labors.
Look, it's one thing to say "BG3 looks pretty disappointing to me, I don't think I'll buy it". I haven't taken issue with that subset of comments here. I can easily imagine a version of BG3 that would make me react the same way. If Larian decided to make a Skyrim style action RPG out of BG3, I don't think I'd buy it. But I also would not say "Larian can go to hell". I think that kind of attitude is uncalled for, and I don't think anyone can rightly argue that Larian has done anything as a gaming company that's remotely predatory.
I want to reiterate one thing that these critics still haven't addressed. I don't understand why you feel entitled to dictate how someone else labors.
This is putting words in people's mouths, and is merely your assumption of intent.
The game is being made to make money. At the end of the day, that's what dictates labour.
If I want to be disappointed in the direction of the project and wish it were otherwise, that is not being entitled, that's just a very human reaction, and disappointment can breed different levels of bitterness. Now is that bitterness productive? Not particularly, but people have to vent it sometimes.
And it is rather early to judge what would matter most for me, the storytelling. What I'll say on that is I do plan to pay attention to that, because the writing maybe would save this game as a product if its good enough, for me. Like even if I didn't really want to play it for other reasons, if the storytelling is on point, that would be a real positive to take.
Guess we will just need to wait and see on that. Prejudging it is unfair, but just hard not to do when you think the last piece of writing these guys did wasn't of particularly high calibre.
On the writing/story, there's two points. One, the team is much, much bigger now than it was for OS2. So there's plenty of opportunity for new voices in there. Second, it's clear from the gameplay demonstration that the tone was markedly different from the OS games. No fourth-wall humor, for example.
I'm also not putting words into people's mouths. Some folks want to seem to have it both ways, that they can be viciously critical of Larian but that no one can be even slightly critical of them. I've certainly not come close to telling you to "go to hell". If you're going to use language that impugns the character of Larian because they aren't making the game you want, you are saying much much more than simply "I don't want to buy this game". Either don't use that language, or own up to the logical consequences of using it, imo.
I will agree what I said about Larian was unwarranted and motivated by needless anger, and I'll temper that and wait and see on how the product as a whole shapes up.
But I will maintain you were putting words in people's mouths with that statement, because I don't believe anybody I've read here has behaved in the manner you claim.
One thing that I think is worth mentioning is some justification for why Larian made the choices that some are taking strong opposition to. While I can't prove it, I suspect they debated long and hard about TB v RtwP v including both.
It's worth checking out this demonstration of the Gamemaster mode in OS2 that allows for custom modules, and even on-the-fly creation of game worlds. Skipping ahead a few minutes is probably worth it, to skip character creation and item buying. The group of players is a bit insufferable to watch for me (lol), but there's no denying that Larian created something quite compelling, and something that simply doesn't exist at this level with their product. I suspect there are similar ambitions with BG3 (iirc they said they want to include multiplayer) and while it's probably not a game mode I'll ever play myself, I respect them alot for giving players the tools to have this kind of unique gaming experience.
I suspect there are similar ambitions with BG3 (iirc they said they want to include multiplayer) and while it's probably not a game mode I'll ever play myself, I respect them alot for giving players the tools to have this kind of unique gaming experience.
And I feel cornered because how can I really say any of that is a bad idea? It's not, but it's not in the spirit of the prior Baldur's Gate games really. In the realms of videogames, its really a continuation of the Neverwinter Nights model. I saw Baldur's Gate as a heavily story centric campaign and that's more where the focus was. It showed, because it was huge, robust, memorable, and generally larger in scope than any of the campaigns made for Neverwinter Nights.
And I do think the multiplayer of Original Sin 2 was a big part of its success because it was well executed technically. But I was playing the game with someone. We played it for 30 hours, before I just stopped because I was really not very engaged with the game's content and I was exhausted by its battle system which I think got tedious.
But I imagine the pack in campaign here will be more developed than the original Neverwinter Nights campaign, at least.
While customization was certainly not something that was included in BG (tho multiplayer was, just poorly executed), I think it's obvious that the fanbase of BG diehards absolutely loved custom mods and even the spirit of some things like NWN. I'd argue that without the modding scene there never would have been EE's or perhaps even BG3. I'd say the modding scene is a big contributor to why BG was able to grow its legacy.
Personally, I never really had interest in the custom content mods, but clearly some fans did. I never moved beyond the basics like Tutu and SCS. And it's impossible to call any of them casual fans of the series. I don't think there's anything wrong with having ambitions for BG3 that go beyond what was in the original games. As I said before, this argument that the game has adhere to "the spirit" of the prior games could extend to the absurd lengths of saying it has to be a clone of the prior games. Ironically, imo, this is a conservative philosophy of game design that actually produces a lot of the EA-style, unimaginative and forgettable cashgrab titles.
I think there are some parameters that could be reasonable. As I said above, if this was an action RPG, that would be a pretty major departure. But it's not. TB types of these game are still within the same sub genre. Tons of market overlap for OS, PoE and Pathfinder. And what Larian is shooting for with the multiplayer accessibility and customization possibilities *is* something that people who played BG for decades enjoyed.
I don't think there's anything wrong with having ambitions for BG3 that go beyond what was in the original games.
I just kind of hope its not entirely at the cost of providing an indepth, quality, storytelling experience. I do think no matter what else they do with it, if it just doesn't provide something of a high quality with the storytelling they would have failed at the part of it that matters most for me. Not even as a Baldur's gate game, either, that's what I look for in RPGs in general.
I share your issues with the OS writing, while I don't think it was a bad overall story, it seems like the dialogues needed some major editing. There's alot of redundancy and boring lines. And the odd tone that drifted between off-the-wall humor and gruesome plot elements didn't always work for me.
Comments
If a Citizen Kane sequel was shot in color would that be seen as a "betrayal" of the original? Or if it employed some CGI, as many, even realistic movies now do? I don't think people would think this way.
Again, I see people asserting that Larian isn't doing the work for "the people" while failing to prove that they're actually exists a sizable groundswell of outrage over anything announced so far about BG3. I think if people had to be honest, and speak with more restraint, and thus said "it's not making me and a few others happy" they'd have to reckon with their complaints for what they truly were.
Well, its a very small sample but I'd say the poll result is demonstrative that its at least a pretty decent chunk of the fanbase into the series enough that they post here.
And it just comes down to the point again; if it doesn't matter why its called Baldur's Gate 3, then why did they call it that? I think people on your side of the argument need to reckon with that fact, because it matters to us, and its what motivates us to feel the way we do, and it is perfectly reasonable a stance to have.
And to be honest there hasn't been a groundswell of rage here as it has been apathy, because really for anyone wanting a game that resembles the old ones in just about anyway, that futility became clear the moment they showed the game.
It's worth emphasizing than none of us are getting a BG3 exactly as we would like. The key difference is that some of us are okay with that.
It may be 100% or 0% for very few, but there's a wide range of grey in between. As such, some of us are getting more than others. Getting 90% of what you want is hugely different from getting 10%, so the person getting 90% is going to be "ok" with it whereas the person getting only 10% is justifiably not "ok."
Apathetic is not a word I'd use to describe this forum. Vitriolic? Sure - but we wouldnt have the exact same three discussions over and over and over if everyone was just apathetic about it.
It's not a question of "getting more".
Let me put it this way. If you got ****exactly**** what you wanted from BG3 (Or whatever name you need it to be) - the chances are I'd still be very excited about the game.
You're apparently getting close to 0% of what you want (roughly, according to you) - and I'm still... very excited about the game.
How can both of those things be true at the same time? Because it's isnt a question of "getting what we want".
There is a philosophical difference in approach here. You're trying to get something in particular. Most of us who are excited are excited about the prospect of a good game using a good rule set, set somewhere in a universe we care about.
I absolutely appreciate that. My point is that it's not accurate or fair to claim we are ALL in the SAME boat of not getting exactly what we want, and therefore it's just a difference of some of us are being "mature" and ok with not getting exactly what they want while others are being "immature/unreasonable/throwing tantrums" etc etc about not getting exactly what they want (this last part being implied - not accusing anyone specifically of having used these words, though a few individuals have reflected such sentiments).
This isn't true imo and it's not a fair reading of what people have said on here. I have said, several times now, that I would prefer RTwP combat. That seems to be the most important design decision hangup that critics have mentioned. Again, the difference here is that I'm okay with Larian making a decision they are more comfortable with.
For others, this preference becomes a dealbreaker apparently. Sorry, but that's on them. Not on members of the fanbase with broader tastes.
This part here I fully agree with (which also shows we *can* have useful conversations here). Different people have different preferences, but in addition also hold those preferences to different degrees of intensity. So it is both a matter of different preferences and of intensity of preferences.
If BG3 were anything like PoE or Kingmaker, I at the very least would care enough to be skeptical interested. But reality is sadly different. C'est la vie~
Forgot to say something about this bit, which is that it is quite a bit of an exaggeration. The Forgotten Realms is my most beloved RPG setting of all, and as such BG3 being set in the Realms automatically means there is something quite significant about the game for me to like.
Also, since this keeps coming up again and again, yes the game shifting from RTwP to TB is a significant issue for me, but the game reducing party size from six to four is actually a bigger issue believe it or not.
Oh man... this... is exactly what I'm feeling.
- abhorrent dialogue style (this can be a dealbreaker for me, really. It's that bad. )
- Larian's ability to provide the game that *feels* like BG not another Divinity. And I would be even OK if the game feel more of DAO, cause I loved this game, but I would not be happy it looks and plays like DoS. DoS2 is a great in its own regard, but its completely different game and it should stay like that. I'm more concerned if Larian devs are familiar enough with FR setting to do a good FR vibed game.
That's your prerogative. But the problem is not what the game is, but what the game is called, because I knew what the game was going to be the moment they announced it. I find their use of the name they've chosen to be a marketing tactic and nothing more, and I have a low opinion of their lack of integrity, and I know, capitalism and all that, it still doesn't change that in my prerogative, they can go to hell for it, and they're not getting my money. You seem to be bound and determined to question people's reasons for not being lock step in opinion with you, and its patronising. I know I don't matter to Larian, and I don't matter to you, and I accept that, but my criticism of them is a principle thing, and aside from that and the fact their not getting a sniff of money from me ever again for anything, that's all there is to be said.
@DinoDin is one of the rare (on this subforum) voices of support for Larian and BG3. The comments provide a different perspective from negative remarks which are quite common here. And I noticed that sooner or later these comments get a personal reply where users start talking about the author of the comment instead of the game they're highly critical of. Don't.
I know Larian have obviously added their own origin characters that are playable but it’s important to remember that this is totally optional. As someone who played DOS 1&2 and very much enjoyed both I can honestly say I never once actually played as one of the origin characters. You could experience their stories in game by having them as party members anyway. And I never felt like I missed out on anything because of it. It’s also important to remember that Baldur’s Gate actually have pre generated characters that already had names. It feels to me like this is just more of a continuation of that idea and I actually think it fits in quite nicely.
I think another thing that always made Baldur’s Gate 1&2 so memorable was the party system and how the companions evolved over the two games. The first game didn’t have as much in terms of actual interaction but it set the stones in place and Baldur’s Gate 2 perfected the formula. It is a formula that again Larian make very good use of in the DOS games in my opinion. I know a lot of people are not keen on the writing style and the tone of the DOS games but from the small amount of gameplay we have seen I have got to say I like the dialogue so far for BG3 and feel it fits more in line with the originals. They were never 100% serious after all but they definitely had a more serious tone and I definitely felt that. I wasn’t to keen on the Vampire character that Sven used as I personally have never been a fan of vampires and always picked them as my racial enemy in BG2. I do however really like what I saw of Shadowheart and Gale. I especially liked @JuliusBorisov theory about Shadowheart on another thread and thought it was inspired lol
I think with regards to the real-time vs turn based debate people could argue for days on end and get no where fast. I’m of the opinion that it was the right call to go turn based for Baldur’s Gate 3. I believe it is one of the reasons (of many)that Larian was picked to create this game. They are proven to make great turn based games and I think the Wizards probably want Baldur’s Gate 3 to be a more accurate interpretation of a real D&D experience. I think it’s a good choice. Do I prefer turn based? No! Definitely not. But I think it works better for what they want this game to be mechanics wise and for that reason I am on board.
With regards to being a real sequel to the originals it really boils down to what you want from a sequel and no one is really wrong on this subject. Some people are totally set on the idea that the series cannot continue without Charname and that it ended with TOB and that’s fine to feel that way.
Personally to me Baldur’s Gate was not just the sum of charname. Bhaal was a huge part of that story. Bhaal is now alive again and I can’t help but feel Bhaal will play a big part in the story. The cult that follows the dead three has been mentioned a lot. We can’t really comment on the story to much at this point as we just do not know enough but I trust Larian when they say that it will have links to the previous games. Is that enough to warrant making this a sequel? In my opinion yes. As long as they do it right and provide enough material that links and makes this feel like there is a connection which I trust they will do.
One of the massive themes of the original games was about the inner struggle with controlling your true nature as a Bhaal spawn and one of the things I really like that Larian have done with BG3 is made a link to this theme with the tadpole being inside you and the struggle you will face.
I feel that if I had to make a criticism of anything so far that my only real concern is that the party size is down to 4. I guess it’s not so much a criticism so much as just me feeling nostalgic but I do miss having a party of 6 when I play DOS but at the same time I do understand that the decision was probably made as a decision around Mechanics.
I would highly recommend watching the gameplay footage again and like I did pause and take some time to read everything you see on screen. It really helped me. Please also remember that this is all just my point of view and I am in no way telling people how they should feel. Just thought I would put it out there. Sorry for the long post
I can't say I see much of a link there, not based on the lore. The tadpole isn't some kind of metaphor for identity and inner conflict, they are an invasive parasite designed to convert one organism into another, and destroying the previous identity utterly. If the characters haven't got that dealt with in the story fairly quickly, well, nothing else would make any sense.
Though in my general experience, and no, I'm not even singling out Larian here, just on the basis of a lot of writing in things I've seen lately, making sense seems to be of secondary concern for some. I don't think Larian have shown anything substantial that we can assume anything from though for the long term direction of the story, I'm just leery based on the quality of their prior work.
"That was always meant to happen."
But how BIZARRE that BG3 is skewing away from BG and towards Divinity. That's the exact opposite of what one would think of a direct sequel.
I mean, just imagine if a Star Wars movie came out that was all about politics and trade disputes, rather than space adventure.
I want to reiterate one thing that these critics still haven't addressed. I don't understand why you feel entitled to dictate how someone else labors.
Look, it's one thing to say "BG3 looks pretty disappointing to me, I don't think I'll buy it". I haven't taken issue with that subset of comments here. I can easily imagine a version of BG3 that would make me react the same way. If Larian decided to make a Skyrim style action RPG out of BG3, I don't think I'd buy it. But I also would not say "Larian can go to hell". I think that kind of attitude is uncalled for, and I don't think anyone can rightly argue that Larian has done anything as a gaming company that's remotely predatory.
This is putting words in people's mouths, and is merely your assumption of intent.
The game is being made to make money. At the end of the day, that's what dictates labour.
If I want to be disappointed in the direction of the project and wish it were otherwise, that is not being entitled, that's just a very human reaction, and disappointment can breed different levels of bitterness. Now is that bitterness productive? Not particularly, but people have to vent it sometimes.
And it is rather early to judge what would matter most for me, the storytelling. What I'll say on that is I do plan to pay attention to that, because the writing maybe would save this game as a product if its good enough, for me. Like even if I didn't really want to play it for other reasons, if the storytelling is on point, that would be a real positive to take.
Guess we will just need to wait and see on that. Prejudging it is unfair, but just hard not to do when you think the last piece of writing these guys did wasn't of particularly high calibre.
I'm also not putting words into people's mouths. Some folks want to seem to have it both ways, that they can be viciously critical of Larian but that no one can be even slightly critical of them. I've certainly not come close to telling you to "go to hell". If you're going to use language that impugns the character of Larian because they aren't making the game you want, you are saying much much more than simply "I don't want to buy this game". Either don't use that language, or own up to the logical consequences of using it, imo.
But I will maintain you were putting words in people's mouths with that statement, because I don't believe anybody I've read here has behaved in the manner you claim.
It's worth checking out this demonstration of the Gamemaster mode in OS2 that allows for custom modules, and even on-the-fly creation of game worlds. Skipping ahead a few minutes is probably worth it, to skip character creation and item buying. The group of players is a bit insufferable to watch for me (lol), but there's no denying that Larian created something quite compelling, and something that simply doesn't exist at this level with their product. I suspect there are similar ambitions with BG3 (iirc they said they want to include multiplayer) and while it's probably not a game mode I'll ever play myself, I respect them alot for giving players the tools to have this kind of unique gaming experience.
And I feel cornered because how can I really say any of that is a bad idea? It's not, but it's not in the spirit of the prior Baldur's Gate games really. In the realms of videogames, its really a continuation of the Neverwinter Nights model. I saw Baldur's Gate as a heavily story centric campaign and that's more where the focus was. It showed, because it was huge, robust, memorable, and generally larger in scope than any of the campaigns made for Neverwinter Nights.
And I do think the multiplayer of Original Sin 2 was a big part of its success because it was well executed technically. But I was playing the game with someone. We played it for 30 hours, before I just stopped because I was really not very engaged with the game's content and I was exhausted by its battle system which I think got tedious.
But I imagine the pack in campaign here will be more developed than the original Neverwinter Nights campaign, at least.
Personally, I never really had interest in the custom content mods, but clearly some fans did. I never moved beyond the basics like Tutu and SCS. And it's impossible to call any of them casual fans of the series. I don't think there's anything wrong with having ambitions for BG3 that go beyond what was in the original games. As I said before, this argument that the game has adhere to "the spirit" of the prior games could extend to the absurd lengths of saying it has to be a clone of the prior games. Ironically, imo, this is a conservative philosophy of game design that actually produces a lot of the EA-style, unimaginative and forgettable cashgrab titles.
I think there are some parameters that could be reasonable. As I said above, if this was an action RPG, that would be a pretty major departure. But it's not. TB types of these game are still within the same sub genre. Tons of market overlap for OS, PoE and Pathfinder. And what Larian is shooting for with the multiplayer accessibility and customization possibilities *is* something that people who played BG for decades enjoyed.
I just kind of hope its not entirely at the cost of providing an indepth, quality, storytelling experience. I do think no matter what else they do with it, if it just doesn't provide something of a high quality with the storytelling they would have failed at the part of it that matters most for me. Not even as a Baldur's gate game, either, that's what I look for in RPGs in general.