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 strongly disagree. It is fundamentally different to say something personal against an inanimate entity (Larian) versus saying something personal against another person on this forum. They are two completely different things. And yes, I am very angry at Larian. What they have chosen to do with BG3 is personal to me. And I won't apologize for my strong feelings.
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.
No they did not. There is at least one interview out there in which a senior Larian dev stated very clearly that the combat system was the first thing they decided on, and it was decided instantly with no discussion or debate because TB was the "obvious choice."
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 strongly disagree. It is fundamentally different to say something personal against an inanimate entity (Larian) versus saying something personal against another person on this forum. They are two completely different things. And yes, I am very angry at Larian. What they have chosen to do with BG3 is personal to me. And I won't apologize for my strong feelings.
And what have they done? They haven't even released the damn game. All they did is they have shown pre-alfa gameplay which can be very different from what we will get on release. Besides c'mon, it's just a video game, don't act like it's the end of the world, if it won't meet your expectations. There are still plenty of games to choose from. I myself am very far from being impressed by what I have seen so far, so I chose to see BG3 as just another game that I might be interested in after release. This way I make room for Larian to impress me.
"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.
@ThacoBell , Is that a dig at "Phantom Menace"?
Well played, sir.
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 strongly disagree. It is fundamentally different to say something personal against an inanimate entity (Larian) versus saying something personal against another person on this forum. They are two completely different things. And yes, I am very angry at Larian. What they have chosen to do with BG3 is personal to me. And I won't apologize for my strong feelings.
And what have they done? They haven't even released the damn game. All they did is they have shown pre-alfa gameplay which can be very different from what we will get on release. Besides c'mon, it's just a video game, don't act like it's the end of the world, if it won't meet your expectations. There are still plenty of games to choose from. I myself am very far from being impressed by what I have seen so far, so I chose to see BG3 as just another game that I might be interested in after release. This way I make room for Larian to impress me.
I mean, Larian has impressed 80-90% of the people who have played their last two games according to any place you can buy them or any reviewer. The people who don't like them are the extreme minority.
@DinoDin , on that point you made about "fourth wall humor", I just wanted to point out that BG has a lot of that.
"Yes, oh omnipresent authority figure."
"Stop touching me!"
"One day, Tiax will point and click."
"You point, I punch."
"What is this mouse magic where you point and I must obey?" (I don't remember the exact wording on that one since I don't use Edwin.)
Icewind Dale also has "irritated responses" in all the voice sets if you click on one character too many times.
"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.
@ThacoBell , Is that a dig at "Phantom Menace"?
Well played, sir.
I finally watched "Rise of Skywalker" on Disney+ and.......let's just say the Phantom Menace is no longer the worst of the nine films. Movie left me dumbfounded and saying "this is what happens when you make a film to cater to the people who thought the last one was bad". I suppose "Rise of Skywalker" was about space adventure far more then Episode 1, but none of those adventures made a lick of sense, nor did they even take 5 seconds to explain why any of them were taking place. I think I'd rather watch Chancellor Valorum take roll calls in the Senate for two hours than whatever the hell was going on in Episode 9.
@DinoDin , on that point you made about "fourth wall humor", I just wanted to point out that BG has a lot of that.
"Yes, oh omnipresent authority figure."
"Stop touching me!"
"One day, Tiax will point and click."
"You point, I punch."
"What is this mouse magic where you point and I must obey." (I don't remember the exact wording on that one since I don't use Edwin.)
Icewind Dale also has "irritated responses" in all the voice sets if you click on one character too many times.
This started in Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness, where half the fun for a little kid playing a fairly demanding strategy game was clicking on each unit about 10 times to see all their "annoyed" dialogue. I also believe that when Jan Jansen dies, he says something like "don't forget to raise me" as his final words.
@jjstraka34 , Eh, I enjoyed "Rise of Skywalker". I'll admit it's got plotholes like a swiss cheese if you analyze it to death, but it caught me in a good mood and willing to give liberal suspension of disbelief. I just went with it, for fun. (He can raise a huge fleet of star destroyers out of the ground, and they all have planet-destroying canons, he can come back from the dead, he can shoot an enemy fleet out of the sky with his hands, somewhere during all those previous years of empire building he found time to father a kid and know he had an important grandchild, even though he never mentioned her when he was grooming his apprentice, sure, why not?)
To bring this back on topic, I'll probably give BG3 the same chance to be fun for me by "just going with it." As I get older, I'm learning that life is a lot more enjoyable when I don't hate on other people's creative efforts in genres I love, whether I personally like the end result or not. Doing that just discourages anybody creative from starting new projects in the various genres I enjoy, in whatever mediums, and winds up causing me to not enjoy things I could enjoy by working a little bit on my own attitude.
Doing that just discourages anybody creative from starting new projects in the various genres I enjoy, in whatever mediums, and winds up causing me to not enjoy things I could enjoy by working a little bit on my own attitude.
Doing that too much and withholding criticism can deny somebody the motivation to improve however. And my attitude to this point for things like The Rise of Skywalker is Disney are out to make money, they really don't care much about the quality of the material they're putting out, and they're banking on people going easy on them if they put enough hyperactive nonsense on the screen. I care about craft, and things having a creative soul.
I can sum up why The Rise of Skywalker is terrible without going into any detail on it anyway, its done as meaningful as soon as "Emperor Palpatine" appears on the text crawl. So oh, the sacrifice of Darth Vader has had the meaning ripped from it, that's how much you care about any meaning this thing has.
If your argument amounts to "that kind of thing doesn't matter", I think your attitude is harmful to culture, and just because you don't think you see the immediate consequence of it doesn't mean its not there. I think its harmful to kids most of all to be honest, there's so little respect for them in the media supposedly aimed at them these days.
For Larian, well, lets hope they took criticism on their writing at least in Original Sin 2 to heart and try to become better from it.
I mean, Larian has impressed 80-90% of the people who have played their last two games according to any place you can buy them or any reviewer. The people who don't like them are the extreme minority.
On what basis can you say that? Yes we know how many people liked their games based on sales and reviews, but we have no data on the number of people who actively, consciously rejected their games. So there's no way to ascertain a percentage because we cannot identify the whole population.
For what's worth: D:OS had a retirement rate of 32%, D:OS:EE a rate of 8% and D:OS2's retirement rate was at least 5%. Seems like folks who ragequit the non-EE D:OS didn't return to the later installments.
Amount of sales doesn't reflect the amount of people who enjoyed a game. You only enjoy a game after you've already bought it. Sales reflect amount of hype.
See Rome: Imperator by Paradox, a game released last year that I myself looked forward to and was excited about. It was a financial success, lots of sales (me among them). It's just that the game was shit. Worst game purchase I've done in years. And I wasn't alone to think that. It's players/day numbers dropped like a traitorous senator off the Tarpeian Rock. In just a few weeks it fell below the user base of Paradox games that had been out for 7-8 years. The sales were good, but people hated the game.
Of course, it's probably not that way with the DOS. I'm not trying to argue that. I just get tired of the sales=enjoyment argument. It doesn't follow. It's a fallacy.
Imperator is released at the end of April 2019. By the 9th of May it has fallen below the number of people playing of Crusader Kings 2, a game released in 2012.
Literally just there I was reading some Original Sin 2 reviews on Steam. And I came across one statement, that just clicked for me. There was something woefully off about that game and it's one of those things where I couldn't consolidate my feelings to grasp what the game was lacking, but then someone else pointing it out just makes it all fall into place.
"Level ups give exponential bonuses, so your level 10s are probably going to get curb-stomped by level 11's, but they will steamroll level 9's. "
Original Sin 2's role playing wanted to encourage exploration. It's gameplay wanted to punish you for it.
And its such a clearly bad way to design a CRPG of all things I can't say I understand how anyone could enjoy that game, it really screws up one of the most basic things an RPG shouldn't mess up.
Now, Baldur's Gate 3 is D&D so it should be spared this horrible, horrible design approach. I really hope so anyway.
Oh I don't know, let's just look at everything we can go by:
Divinity: Original Sin- 90% positive reviews on Steam, 4.4/5 on GOG, 94% professional review score and 82% user review score on Meta Critic.
Divinity: Original Sin II- 96% positive reviews on Steam, 4.6/5 on GOG, 93% professional review score and 88% user review score on Meta Critic.
You wanna argue with those numbers across multiple platforms, go ahead. It's a ridiculous argument to make. There is an absolute consensus among anyone who cared enough to comment on the game that it was a smashing success. I didn't say a damn word about sales. Your argument that "we don't know how many people hated it so much they never said anything" could be said about ANY game ever released. Check out the Steam achievement percentages for the amount of people who have finished either Baldur's Gate EE game. For the first, it's about 7%. For the second, it's about 8%.
One of the great things about the Infinity Engine games is that everyone is generally playing by the same rules. In many ways, it's an immersive sim in the Forgotten Realms. The Divinity: Original Sin games reward ingenuity and smarts in combat in a way NO game since BGII has really done. You'd think the elemental and weather effects, and the way you can use the objects surrounding you would be amazing to people who claim to love RPGs, but I'm convinced that most people haven't even played the games at this point.
@jjstraka34 "Divinity: Original Sin- 90% positive reviews on Steam, 4.4/5 on GOG, 94% professional review score and 82% user review score on Meta Critic.
Divinity: Original Sin II- 96% positive reviews on Steam, 4.6/5 on GOG, 93% professional review score and 88% user review score on Meta Critic.
You wanna argue with those numbers across multiple platforms, go ahead. "
Okay, I'll bite. There isn't a single person who doesn't care about DOS, not hate but apathy, who would bother posting a review. The same would go for people who looked at the turnbased mechanics and passed on it altogether.
The only thing the reviews tell us is how many people REALLY liked it (I've played many game I've thoroughly enjoyed, but never reviewed) or REALLY hated it. All the people in between would not be represented by the numbers.
One of the great things about the Infinity Engine games is that everyone is generally playing by the same rules. In many ways, it's an immersive sim in the Forgotten Realms. The Divinity: Original Sin games reward ingenuity and smarts in combat in a way NO game since BGII has really done. You'd think the elemental and weather effects, and the way you can use the objects surrounding you would be amazing to people who claim to love RPGs, but I'm convinced that most people haven't even played the games at this point.
No the surface element thing is just another system on top of systems already there. It's somewhat novel but simple, it's not some really super creative addition that will change your approach much.
There's not much changing of approach at all in them, I have to say, and the encounter design and placement is horrendously restrictive, moreso than anything else in the CRPG genre that I can think of.
I can grasp why a very combat-centric person who loves min maxing would like the Original Sin design. I think its awful for those into it more for the role playing, narrative and exploration, if the Baldur's Gate games had this kind of brickwalling I don't think we'd be talking about them now with reverence.
And my conclusion is I don't think Larian learned much of anything from Ultima, Baldur's Gate or Fallout. They don't really demonstrate that they did.
Which, eh, I have to also say is the issue with Beamdog. Siege of Dragonspear just didn't demonstrate much of an understanding what made the other games tick.
@jjstraka34 "Divinity: Original Sin- 90% positive reviews on Steam, 4.4/5 on GOG, 94% professional review score and 82% user review score on Meta Critic.
Divinity: Original Sin II- 96% positive reviews on Steam, 4.6/5 on GOG, 93% professional review score and 88% user review score on Meta Critic.
You wanna argue with those numbers across multiple platforms, go ahead. "
Okay, I'll bite. There isn't a single person who doesn't care about DOS, not hate but apathy, who would bother posting a review. The same would go for people who looked at the turnbased mechanics and passed on it altogether.
The only thing the reviews tell us is how many people REALLY liked it (I've played many game I've thoroughly enjoyed, but never reviewed) or REALLY hated it. All the people in between would not be represented by the numbers.
All Larian can go on is the feeback of people who actually participate in giving it. That being, reviews of players, reviews of critics, their kickstarter backers, and their sales numbers. Every one of those (along with getting Wizards of the Coast to select them for this project) would indicate to them they are doing something right. This is no different than a politician who doesn't care what someone who doesn't vote thinks.
One of the great things about the Infinity Engine games is that everyone is generally playing by the same rules. In many ways, it's an immersive sim in the Forgotten Realms. The Divinity: Original Sin games reward ingenuity and smarts in combat in a way NO game since BGII has really done. You'd think the elemental and weather effects, and the way you can use the objects surrounding you would be amazing to people who claim to love RPGs, but I'm convinced that most people haven't even played the games at this point.
No the surface element thing is just another system on top of systems already there. It's somewhat novel but simple, it's not some really super creative addition that will change your approach much.
There's not much changing of approach at all in them, I have to say, and the encounter design and placement is horrendously restrictive, moreso than anything else in the CRPG genre that I can think of.
I can grasp why a very combat-centric person who loves min maxing would like the Original Sin design. I think its awful for those into it more for the role playing, narrative and exploration, if the Baldur's Gate games had this kind of brickwalling I don't think we'd be talking about them now with reverence.
And my conclusion is I don't think Larian learned much of anything from Ultima, Baldur's Gate or Fallout. They don't really demonstrate that they did.
Which, eh, I have to also say is the issue with Beamdog. Siege of Dragonspear just didn't demonstrate much of an understanding what made the other games tick.
I don't think anyone understands the Ultima element better than Larian. Divine Divinity is basically Diablo meets Ultima 7. The first Original Sin game likewise. The entire opening segment is like an homage to the murder mystery at the beginning of Ultima VII.
This constant comparison to BG 1 & 2 as the bar that must be met is also beyond tiresome. It's like expecting every movie I watch to be Citizen Kane or The Seventh Seal or it's an automatic failure because it isn't the ABSOLUTE BEST thing that has ever been done in it's medium.
I don't think anyone understands the Ultima element better than Larian. Divine Divinity is basically Diablo meets Ultima 7. The first Original Sin game likewise. The entire opening segment is like an homage to the murder mystery at the beginning of Ultima VII. .
Imitation is often the least qualified form of understanding, however, the issue is whilst that particular segment works out alright, it's an isolated part of a game that completely fails to live up to that model in most other ways. Because the escape Fort Joy part of Original Sin 2 also works alright, it falls apart after that.
Their understanding of the Ultima concept of freeform role playing (and Baldur's gate is only relevant here because it did it well too and much, much better than the Original Sin games) is incredibly questionable based on their decision of employing such a restrictive, linear grind to the progression.
Which is worse in 2 than it is in 1 but it's still very much a problem in 1.
Seems to me people want nothing less than a game in the Infinity Engine itself, AND to have it capture the lighting in a bottle from 1998-2000 all over again. That isn't happening. Beambog did a dry run for what might happen if you try, and a certain segment of people showed us. You want someone to blame for why this went in a different direction than a 20-year old engine RtWP, start with the review bombing campaign against Siege. Any hopes for an Infinty Engine BG3 went up in smoke when that happened.
At the end of the day the majority of reception for DOS1&2 was very very positive. It’s a fact. And like @jjstraka34 said.. ‘all Larian can do is go with the feedback of the people that actually participated in giving the feedback’. You couldn’t make a more true statement than that. And the fact is that the people that cared enough to give feedback were overwhelmingly positive hence why the games are liked so much. Yes there may be plenty of people who didn’t like the games much the same as you could argue that there are people that really did like the games (me included) but never left a single review for it on any review site. It goes both ways I’m afraid.
There is nothing wrong with not liking the games. That’s totally fine. But when it is made out that the overwhelming positive reception is actually some kind of lie... that’s the part that I can’t even bother to engage in any real debate because it’s just simply not true.
Who was Wizards of the Coast supposed to select?? Beamdog, whose NPCs and expansion have been ridiculed (unfairly)?? Obsidian, who seemed to have a crisis of conscience over their own sequel (Deadfire) because of it's low sale numbers (even though it's really good)?? Or do you go with the company that has been receiving accolades from the gaming press and players for their last two games?? It really wasn't much of a competition. Lukewarm reaction to the products of the first two companies made this an obvious choice. When Brian Fargo said he "knew who was making BG3", all smart money was on Larian. Lo and behold, that's who it was.
Nothing being relevant to my opinion of Original Sin 2 being a bad game. That was my opinion of it formed from playing it, I just managed to figure out what the source of the problems seemed to be in regards to the components of the game.
From a business standpoint, I won't argue Larian wasn't the only realistic choice, I can see why. I'm past that point of things. I hope they make a better product with it, and really me coming to a somewhat more concrete reason for why I found playing 2 ended up being quite the miserable experience is kind of a positive because I know BG3 might institute changes based on the D&D rules so it won't be the same, and I do think the D&D rules in general would work well for a CRPG and shouldn't lead to as rigorous encounter design.
@jjstraka34 "Or do you go with the company that has been receiving accolades from the gaming press and players for their last two games??"
I mean, not if the company has zero experience or interest in making a game that matches the previous entries. Amanita design is a FANTASTIC company that makes point and click adventure games. They get a lot of attention in the indie scene, and have been relatively successful. That doesn't mean that they would be a good fit for BG3.
Success does not equal being the right developer for the job. Only Beamdog or Obsidian really had the chops for this. If you are going to argue that BG is too outdated and won't appeal to enough people, THEN WHY BOTHER MAKING A "BG" GAME IN THE FIRST PLACE?
If its necessary to COMPLETELY change everything about a beloved franchise for being too old, wouldn't it make more sense to just make a new franchise?
PoE2 has similar review numbers, metacritic scores, and positive professional reviews as D:OS2. Nevertheless, its sales were much lower. How do we explain that? Because reviews tell us something about the people who liked something. They typically don't tell us much about people disliking something (or being indifferent to it). And game developers understand this very well, even if people on a forum cannot understand this logic. Bottom line: there is NO consensus among all gamers out there that the D:OS games are great. Those of you are D:OS fans can try to proclaim this all you want but it is a complete BS fallacy. If selling 2M units on D:OS2 makes Larian the "best choice" for making BG3, I wonder what that makes of Bethesda who've sold 42M units of Skyrim. And CDPR who've sold 35M units of TW3. And even Bioware who've sold over 10M units of DA:I. The most one can say is that a small majority of people within a videogame niche that itself is a TINY fraction of the overall gamer population, liked the D:OS games. That's it. There is no "consensus" that those games are the greatest ever or any such nonsense.
@jjstraka34 "Or do you go with the company that has been receiving accolades from the gaming press and players for their last two games??"
I mean, not if the company has zero experience or interest in making a game that matches the previous entries. Amanita design is a FANTASTIC company that makes point and click adventure games. They get a lot of attention in the indie scene, and have been relatively successful. That doesn't mean that they would be a good fit for BG3.
Success does not equal being the right developer for the job. Only Beamdog or Obsidian really had the chops for this. If you are going to argue that BG is too outdated and won't appeal to enough people, THEN WHY BOTHER MAKING A "BG" GAME IN THE FIRST PLACE?
If its necessary to COMPLETELY change everything about a beloved franchise for being too old, wouldn't it make more sense to just make a new franchise?
The problem here is that the Baldur's Gate story is done. Like, really, REALLY done. There is no room for anything afterwards. It's why Beamdog did a bridge game instead of a sequel. What do you do after you become a God?? Make a D&D version of Populous??
They could have easily called Throne of Bhaal Baldur's Gate 3. Apparently they thought a full 40-hour epic campaign was only worthy of the designation of expansion. My how times have changed. Actually, both Witcher 3 expansions are like Throne of Bhaal in size and scope. Incidentally, Witcher 3 is the only game since BG2 to attempt the kind of scope achived in that game.
I just get tired of the sales=enjoyment argument. It doesn't follow. It's a fallacy.
To be clear, I wasn't saying this at all, and in fact agree with you. All I was saying that with sales numbers you at least have the POSSIBILITY of knowing something about how many people MAY have liked the game. But even if you knew this, it is meaningless because this only gives you the numerator and still leaves you without a denominator (the total population of people who could have and should have been the target audience for the game). So there is no way really to get a fair percentage number for "people who liked the game."
At the end of the day the majority of reception for DOS1&2 was very very positive.
Majority of whom, exactly? If you want to specify majority of people who left reviews on Steam or GOG, fair enough. I readily concede that. But simply saying "majority" implies majority of all people, or maybe majority of all gamers, or maybe majority of all RPG fans. And there is exactly ZERO evidence to support any such claim of a majority. So if you are going to use that term "majority," you need to specify majority among whom? What is the population you are speaking of?
Comments
I strongly disagree. It is fundamentally different to say something personal against an inanimate entity (Larian) versus saying something personal against another person on this forum. They are two completely different things. And yes, I am very angry at Larian. What they have chosen to do with BG3 is personal to me. And I won't apologize for my strong feelings.
No they did not. There is at least one interview out there in which a senior Larian dev stated very clearly that the combat system was the first thing they decided on, and it was decided instantly with no discussion or debate because TB was the "obvious choice."
And what have they done? They haven't even released the damn game. All they did is they have shown pre-alfa gameplay which can be very different from what we will get on release. Besides c'mon, it's just a video game, don't act like it's the end of the world, if it won't meet your expectations. There are still plenty of games to choose from. I myself am very far from being impressed by what I have seen so far, so I chose to see BG3 as just another game that I might be interested in after release. This way I make room for Larian to impress me.
@ThacoBell , Is that a dig at "Phantom Menace"?
Well played, sir.
I mean, Larian has impressed 80-90% of the people who have played their last two games according to any place you can buy them or any reviewer. The people who don't like them are the extreme minority.
"Yes, oh omnipresent authority figure."
"Stop touching me!"
"One day, Tiax will point and click."
"You point, I punch."
"What is this mouse magic where you point and I must obey?" (I don't remember the exact wording on that one since I don't use Edwin.)
Icewind Dale also has "irritated responses" in all the voice sets if you click on one character too many times.
I finally watched "Rise of Skywalker" on Disney+ and.......let's just say the Phantom Menace is no longer the worst of the nine films. Movie left me dumbfounded and saying "this is what happens when you make a film to cater to the people who thought the last one was bad". I suppose "Rise of Skywalker" was about space adventure far more then Episode 1, but none of those adventures made a lick of sense, nor did they even take 5 seconds to explain why any of them were taking place. I think I'd rather watch Chancellor Valorum take roll calls in the Senate for two hours than whatever the hell was going on in Episode 9.
This started in Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness, where half the fun for a little kid playing a fairly demanding strategy game was clicking on each unit about 10 times to see all their "annoyed" dialogue. I also believe that when Jan Jansen dies, he says something like "don't forget to raise me" as his final words.
To bring this back on topic, I'll probably give BG3 the same chance to be fun for me by "just going with it." As I get older, I'm learning that life is a lot more enjoyable when I don't hate on other people's creative efforts in genres I love, whether I personally like the end result or not. Doing that just discourages anybody creative from starting new projects in the various genres I enjoy, in whatever mediums, and winds up causing me to not enjoy things I could enjoy by working a little bit on my own attitude.
Doing that too much and withholding criticism can deny somebody the motivation to improve however. And my attitude to this point for things like The Rise of Skywalker is Disney are out to make money, they really don't care much about the quality of the material they're putting out, and they're banking on people going easy on them if they put enough hyperactive nonsense on the screen. I care about craft, and things having a creative soul.
I can sum up why The Rise of Skywalker is terrible without going into any detail on it anyway, its done as meaningful as soon as "Emperor Palpatine" appears on the text crawl. So oh, the sacrifice of Darth Vader has had the meaning ripped from it, that's how much you care about any meaning this thing has.
If your argument amounts to "that kind of thing doesn't matter", I think your attitude is harmful to culture, and just because you don't think you see the immediate consequence of it doesn't mean its not there. I think its harmful to kids most of all to be honest, there's so little respect for them in the media supposedly aimed at them these days.
For Larian, well, lets hope they took criticism on their writing at least in Original Sin 2 to heart and try to become better from it.
On what basis can you say that? Yes we know how many people liked their games based on sales and reviews, but we have no data on the number of people who actively, consciously rejected their games. So there's no way to ascertain a percentage because we cannot identify the whole population.
See Rome: Imperator by Paradox, a game released last year that I myself looked forward to and was excited about. It was a financial success, lots of sales (me among them). It's just that the game was shit. Worst game purchase I've done in years. And I wasn't alone to think that. It's players/day numbers dropped like a traitorous senator off the Tarpeian Rock. In just a few weeks it fell below the user base of Paradox games that had been out for 7-8 years. The sales were good, but people hated the game.
Of course, it's probably not that way with the DOS. I'm not trying to argue that. I just get tired of the sales=enjoyment argument. It doesn't follow. It's a fallacy.
Edit: Just a neat video showing Imperator's rise and fall:
Imperator is released at the end of April 2019. By the 9th of May it has fallen below the number of people playing of Crusader Kings 2, a game released in 2012.
"Level ups give exponential bonuses, so your level 10s are probably going to get curb-stomped by level 11's, but they will steamroll level 9's. "
Original Sin 2's role playing wanted to encourage exploration. It's gameplay wanted to punish you for it.
And its such a clearly bad way to design a CRPG of all things I can't say I understand how anyone could enjoy that game, it really screws up one of the most basic things an RPG shouldn't mess up.
Now, Baldur's Gate 3 is D&D so it should be spared this horrible, horrible design approach. I really hope so anyway.
Divinity: Original Sin- 90% positive reviews on Steam, 4.4/5 on GOG, 94% professional review score and 82% user review score on Meta Critic.
Divinity: Original Sin II- 96% positive reviews on Steam, 4.6/5 on GOG, 93% professional review score and 88% user review score on Meta Critic.
You wanna argue with those numbers across multiple platforms, go ahead. It's a ridiculous argument to make. There is an absolute consensus among anyone who cared enough to comment on the game that it was a smashing success. I didn't say a damn word about sales. Your argument that "we don't know how many people hated it so much they never said anything" could be said about ANY game ever released. Check out the Steam achievement percentages for the amount of people who have finished either Baldur's Gate EE game. For the first, it's about 7%. For the second, it's about 8%.
One of the great things about the Infinity Engine games is that everyone is generally playing by the same rules. In many ways, it's an immersive sim in the Forgotten Realms. The Divinity: Original Sin games reward ingenuity and smarts in combat in a way NO game since BGII has really done. You'd think the elemental and weather effects, and the way you can use the objects surrounding you would be amazing to people who claim to love RPGs, but I'm convinced that most people haven't even played the games at this point.
Divinity: Original Sin II- 96% positive reviews on Steam, 4.6/5 on GOG, 93% professional review score and 88% user review score on Meta Critic.
You wanna argue with those numbers across multiple platforms, go ahead. "
Okay, I'll bite. There isn't a single person who doesn't care about DOS, not hate but apathy, who would bother posting a review. The same would go for people who looked at the turnbased mechanics and passed on it altogether.
The only thing the reviews tell us is how many people REALLY liked it (I've played many game I've thoroughly enjoyed, but never reviewed) or REALLY hated it. All the people in between would not be represented by the numbers.
No the surface element thing is just another system on top of systems already there. It's somewhat novel but simple, it's not some really super creative addition that will change your approach much.
There's not much changing of approach at all in them, I have to say, and the encounter design and placement is horrendously restrictive, moreso than anything else in the CRPG genre that I can think of.
I can grasp why a very combat-centric person who loves min maxing would like the Original Sin design. I think its awful for those into it more for the role playing, narrative and exploration, if the Baldur's Gate games had this kind of brickwalling I don't think we'd be talking about them now with reverence.
And my conclusion is I don't think Larian learned much of anything from Ultima, Baldur's Gate or Fallout. They don't really demonstrate that they did.
Which, eh, I have to also say is the issue with Beamdog. Siege of Dragonspear just didn't demonstrate much of an understanding what made the other games tick.
All Larian can go on is the feeback of people who actually participate in giving it. That being, reviews of players, reviews of critics, their kickstarter backers, and their sales numbers. Every one of those (along with getting Wizards of the Coast to select them for this project) would indicate to them they are doing something right. This is no different than a politician who doesn't care what someone who doesn't vote thinks.
I don't think anyone understands the Ultima element better than Larian. Divine Divinity is basically Diablo meets Ultima 7. The first Original Sin game likewise. The entire opening segment is like an homage to the murder mystery at the beginning of Ultima VII.
This constant comparison to BG 1 & 2 as the bar that must be met is also beyond tiresome. It's like expecting every movie I watch to be Citizen Kane or The Seventh Seal or it's an automatic failure because it isn't the ABSOLUTE BEST thing that has ever been done in it's medium.
Imitation is often the least qualified form of understanding, however, the issue is whilst that particular segment works out alright, it's an isolated part of a game that completely fails to live up to that model in most other ways. Because the escape Fort Joy part of Original Sin 2 also works alright, it falls apart after that.
Their understanding of the Ultima concept of freeform role playing (and Baldur's gate is only relevant here because it did it well too and much, much better than the Original Sin games) is incredibly questionable based on their decision of employing such a restrictive, linear grind to the progression.
Which is worse in 2 than it is in 1 but it's still very much a problem in 1.
It's still relevant to talk about because Larian is making BG3.
There is nothing wrong with not liking the games. That’s totally fine. But when it is made out that the overwhelming positive reception is actually some kind of lie... that’s the part that I can’t even bother to engage in any real debate because it’s just simply not true.
From a business standpoint, I won't argue Larian wasn't the only realistic choice, I can see why. I'm past that point of things. I hope they make a better product with it, and really me coming to a somewhat more concrete reason for why I found playing 2 ended up being quite the miserable experience is kind of a positive because I know BG3 might institute changes based on the D&D rules so it won't be the same, and I do think the D&D rules in general would work well for a CRPG and shouldn't lead to as rigorous encounter design.
In theory, anyway.
I mean, not if the company has zero experience or interest in making a game that matches the previous entries. Amanita design is a FANTASTIC company that makes point and click adventure games. They get a lot of attention in the indie scene, and have been relatively successful. That doesn't mean that they would be a good fit for BG3.
Success does not equal being the right developer for the job. Only Beamdog or Obsidian really had the chops for this. If you are going to argue that BG is too outdated and won't appeal to enough people, THEN WHY BOTHER MAKING A "BG" GAME IN THE FIRST PLACE?
If its necessary to COMPLETELY change everything about a beloved franchise for being too old, wouldn't it make more sense to just make a new franchise?
The problem here is that the Baldur's Gate story is done. Like, really, REALLY done. There is no room for anything afterwards. It's why Beamdog did a bridge game instead of a sequel. What do you do after you become a God?? Make a D&D version of Populous??
They could have easily called Throne of Bhaal Baldur's Gate 3. Apparently they thought a full 40-hour epic campaign was only worthy of the designation of expansion. My how times have changed. Actually, both Witcher 3 expansions are like Throne of Bhaal in size and scope. Incidentally, Witcher 3 is the only game since BG2 to attempt the kind of scope achived in that game.
To be clear, I wasn't saying this at all, and in fact agree with you. All I was saying that with sales numbers you at least have the POSSIBILITY of knowing something about how many people MAY have liked the game. But even if you knew this, it is meaningless because this only gives you the numerator and still leaves you without a denominator (the total population of people who could have and should have been the target audience for the game). So there is no way really to get a fair percentage number for "people who liked the game."
Majority of whom, exactly? If you want to specify majority of people who left reviews on Steam or GOG, fair enough. I readily concede that. But simply saying "majority" implies majority of all people, or maybe majority of all gamers, or maybe majority of all RPG fans. And there is exactly ZERO evidence to support any such claim of a majority. So if you are going to use that term "majority," you need to specify majority among whom? What is the population you are speaking of?