Apologies if I was not clear. Obviously I do not presume to know exactly what everyone that did not review the game thinks therefore I thought it was obvious that when I said the majority I was referring to critic reviews (which indicate universal acclaim) and also all user reviews sites that I have personally checked also indicate close to universal acclaim. Obviously I include GOG and steam among those. I have not found a single user based average that indicates more negative than positive towards either DOS1 or DOS2. Obviously all sites do contain negative reviews. You won’t find a single game on the planet that doesn’t have a Single negative user review. But the Majority of critic and user reviews I have seen are positive. I would also like to point out that there is no evidence to support any claim that the majority of people that did not review the game in some way would leave a negative review.
So yes like I said I am not a telepath and cannot read the minds of all who have not voiced their opinion in some kind of way. But I hope they above is a little more clear for you.
Someone used the "retirement" stat on How Long to Beat as apparently a more accurate measurement of a game's popularity. First of all, I have no idea what this stat is even supposed to be measuring. Second of all, Baldur's Gate 2 and Divinity: Orignal Sin 2 have nearly the exact same percentage
@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 If you are going to argue that BG is too outdated and won't appeal to enough people, THEN WHY BOTHER MAKING A "BG" GAME IN THE FIRST PLACE?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.
Yes. You just made my argument for me, thank you. Why make a "BG3" at all? This should have just been a brand new series.
@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.
Yes. You just made my argument for me, thank you. Why make a "BG3" at all? This should have just been a brand new series.
I don't disagree with you, I just don't really care that much.
Personally, I don't give a shit what a game is named. I loved BG and BG2 but I thought ToB was meh. I loved Morrowind and Oblivion but thought Skyrim was meh. I loved the 1st Wizardry but thought the 2nd and 3rd were meh. I loved Bard's Tale but thought the 2nd was meh. Dungeon Master 1 was the best game of it's era but the 2nd was meh. Heroes of Might and Magic 1 through 5 were excellent but 6 was meh and 7 didn't even spark my interest enough to buy it. It doesn't matter what a game is named, what matters is whether or not it's 'fun'.
The OS games had huge sales numbers. The OS games got overwhelmingly positive reviews from professional reviewers. They also got overwhelmingly positive reviews from customer sites like Steam. They also got copycat behavior from other studios making similar games. Deadfire, for example, incorporates a number of OS elements like elemental counters and environment interactivity. The reverse didn't happen.
Sorry but there is no other standard than these for trying to dispassionately decide if a game is considered good or not. If you want the standard to merely be what we, as individuals, thought about these games, then I fail to even see the point of having a discussion about it. Because there would be no agreed upon logic.
And it's also inconsistent to claim that Larian or other members of this forum have to take into account your point of view, if you're going to brush aside all the aforementioned as inconsequential. Again, I think there's a clear indication that the "BG3 is a betrayal of the series" crowd wants to have it both ways: "We must be listened to. Our opinions matter. We don't care what reviewers, sales figures, and community reviews say."
Frankly, I am just looking at Baldur's Gate 3 as a sequel to D:OS 2 that happens to have gotten the most valuable RPG license in the world to set the story in. We are aware at this point Baldur's Gate 3 is being used because the story is tying directly into the 5e adventure Descent Into Avernus. The city is in the Sword Coast, the Sword Coast has been the focus on TWO hardcover books in 5th Edition, and the name itself carries an almost mythical quality. No, it will have nothing to do with the old story beyond some easter eggs and items (in all likelihood). I'm fine with this. They are tying it into the pen and paper game pretty directly at this point. Wouldn't surprise me at all if we see a Spelljammer book come out before the end of 2020 to deal with the Mindflayer travel.
Pure speculation on my part, but I suspect we're going to get some conspiracy in the main storyline that ties pretty directly with the events of the original saga -- either with Bhaal or maybe the legacy of Gorion's ward or I dunno, could do this dozens of ways. I just think the temptation for the writers to fan service in that way will be too strong to avoid. Not making a judgement on it either way, I can be happy with a BG3 that only makes glancing references to the originals, or the opposite.
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.
I disagree with a lot of your points, but I have to say - that was a super interesting video (to me). I'm a big Paradox Junkie, and it's pretty neat to see EU IV gradually give way to HOI4 as the dominate title.
I'm also shocked how CK2 never really goes anywhere, despite being around *forever*, and I figured Stellaris was going to be #1 by the end.
Didnt play Imperator. Looked like a game that wanted to be a lot of things and ended up being none of them.
Someone used the "retirement" stat on How Long to Beat as apparently a more accurate measurement of a game's popularity. First of all, I have no idea what this stat is even supposed to be measuring. Second of all, Baldur's Gate 2 and Divinity: Orignal Sin 2 have nearly the exact same percentage
"Retirement" is simply the percentage of gamers who started the game and never finished their single playthrough for various reasons. Aka ragequit. Having such a high rejection of 32% who played the non-EE D:OS is by all accounts not normal.
Someone used the "retirement" stat on How Long to Beat as apparently a more accurate measurement of a game's popularity. First of all, I have no idea what this stat is even supposed to be measuring. Second of all, Baldur's Gate 2 and Divinity: Orignal Sin 2 have nearly the exact same percentage
"Retirement" is simply the percentage of gamers who started the game and never finished their single playthrough for various reasons. Aka ragequit. Having such a high rejection of 32% who played the non-EE D:OS is by all accounts not normal.
Just as an anecdotal counterpoint: I dont finish the vast majority of games I play. Doesnt mean I didnt like them. I'm a real big Uncharted fan, never finished 4.
Life gets in the way. It's not an indictment of the game. I wonder if some of the "retirement" numbers related to Early Access user as well, since D:OS was EA. In either case, it seems like it has gotten better, according to what others said.
I've slept with the thought brought up in this thread yesterday, that even while D:OS games have amazing review scores, people who didn't like them just didn't play them and thus didn't review them. Well, this is what I can say:
This approach, if you use it, should also affect all other games. So people who didn't like PoE and PoE II and P:K just didn't play them and thus didn't review them. If a smaller number of people reviewed the game if compared to other games, then, using this approach, it means that there is a smaller number of people who supported this game, if compared o other games.
Now, look at the numbers:
PoE owners, Steam. 1,000,000 .. 2,000,000
PoE II owners, Steam. 500,000 .. 1,000,000
Pathfinder: Kingmaker owners, Steam. 500,000 .. 1,000,000
Divinity: Original Sin classic owners, Steam. 1,000,000 .. 2,000,000
Divinity: Original Sin Enhanced Edition owners, Steam. 1,000,000 .. 2,000,000
Divinity: Original Sin II Enhanced Edition owners, Steam. 2,000,000 .. 5,000,000
So, according to the approach above, the number of people who supported PoE and P:K, was smaller if compared to the fans of the D:OS games.
This is why I can't agree with the comments from yesterday, sorry.
Here is another clue showing the D:OS games boast bigger numbers of people who liked them (if compared to the other games we compare them to):
You know, people who don't support a game, or don't like it, wouldn't join its subreddit.
Along with the review scores @jjstraka34 posted, it's clear Larian, and the D:OS games, were total, tremendous success, and I mean here people who really liked them, not "hyped" them. I'm one of them, btw. So it's really difficult for me to read claims that Larian didn't deserve to develop BG3. They did. I played their games, I felt BG-ish vibes, especially in D:OS 2. Even while the games were TB, I still felt the same vibe.
Right now, I'm replaying BGII:EE, after completing BG:EE and SoD. The tactical combat I see and enjoy (having installed difficulty-enhanced mods) still kicks ass in BG2, in 2020. I enjoyed the combat in the D:OS games, but didn't enjoy it in PoE or P:K, sorry. Maybe combat is not something people like the most. Then the feeling of exploration and companion stories. Those aspects still kick ass in BG2, in 2020. And I liked them in the D:OS games. Unfortunately, I can't say the feeling of exploration and companion stories were of the same quality, FOR ME, in PoE and P:K.
Again, I reiterate: it's so cool we got PoE II and the new Pathfinder game is in development. I'm all for new games to be created so that they could find their fans. And those don't like Larian games after playing them, or those who don't expect nothing good from BG3 after not playing any of the D:OS games, -- please note and think about this: there are people who liked the Larian games and/or like what they're seeing from the BG3 so far. These fans exist, and they are plenty. If you argue that there are plenty of people who are not in this category, -- there are other amazing games and companies out there, for your gaming pleasure. And if BG3 is not what you envisioned yourself as "true BG3", then make no mistake, sooner or later another game will happen, which will kick ass for you. Just as Dragon Age: Origins was released in 2009 and many people where like "whoa, it is so BGish", it might always happen. But for many people, BG3 from Larian IS ALREADY BGish.
there are people who liked the Larian games and/or like what they're seeing from the BG3 so far. These fans exist, and they are plenty. If you argue that there are plenty of people who are not in this category, -- there are other amazing games and companies out there, for your gaming pleasure.
Indeed. Both sides of the spectrum have plenty of people to them. This poll's results being one way to gauge the (dis)interest for BG3. And it turned out to be one of the most well-balanced polls I saw on these forums for a long time, I might add. Luckily isometric RPG's don't seem to die out anytime soon. There is always Pathfinder: Wrath of the Rigteous, Alaloth: Champions of the Four Kingdoms, Black Geyser: Couriers of Darkness and The Dark Eye: Book of Heroes on the horizon for those of us preferring other approaches than Larian's take on the genre.
Uhm, well, about the arguments about D:OS, I feel I must say something. In spite of my relative apathy towards "BG3" (based simply on what I've seen so far of it), I don't think D:OS can be called a "bad game" or anywhere near it (can't comment about D:OS 2, since I haven't played it). I have quite a few hours into the first game, and even though I'm on a hiatus from it, it's more to do with the release of Terraria 1.4 than the quality of D:OS itself. From what I've played of the game in that period, the story and characterisations looked pretty good, as well as the different meta elements of the game (like the spellcasting, CRAFTING ( ), environmental interaction, exploration and a decent variety of choices), though I didn't quite like the stealth aspect of the game. Sure, I would have liked the game better if it was RTwP like BG et al, but even though I have to bear with that aspect of the combat, since I really don't like the way movement/positioning costs AP and also the overall "discontinuous" nature of turn based gameplay in general, I still think that the game, by itself, is pretty nicely done.
I feel that people's opinion about D:OS might be biased by them being upset at Larian due to the recent events, and what many consider as them "usurping" the BG IP, but if we were to disregard those for a moment, and focus on the game (that is, D:OS) itself, it's not so bad at all. It's very possible you may not agree with me on this, and that is entirely fine.
I feel that a game's quality is judged by how much people enjoy playing them, and not just sales and numbers, and even not the gameplay time, since the latter obviously varies from person to person due to real life circumstances. And thus, it is very difficult to set hard "objective" standards to define what a "good game" is, for not everyone will enjoy the same game to the same extent. Obviously things like good story, intuitive gameplay and such stuff are things that all games strive to achieve, but as regards to design choices, none is "more enjoyable" than another in absolute terms, since everyone has different preferences. If you ask me, I would say D:OS was a pretty good game.
While I understand that people, who wanted an RTwP isometric PoE-like BG3 (that includes me as well), feel "left-out" by Larian's decisions, because their making of a turn-based D:OS-like BG3 inevitably ensures that the BG3 they wanted will never be made, it is not quite right to blame Larian for that. They're trying to make what they think will be a great game, and they also have a good customer base who like the concept of the game and are willing (or rather, excited) to play it. Also, it's not like that they have any obligations to the RTwP group, so other than losing a handful of customers (while still having a good decent chunk in hand), they have absolutely nothing to lose.
I understand that people need to vent their grievances, but at this point, it is of no use, since the fate of BG3 is sealed. Arguing over all this might (?) be an involving pastime for many, but I don't think anybody's opinions about this would change even a bit by mere words and arguments, since this is not a question of logic, but of sentiments. There will only be disagreement, disappointment, frustration, and probably a bunch of angry rhetorical comments from either group. This does not mean that I condemn your right to free speech and expression, but rather that I ask you to question yourself to what end your arguments will lead you, and also consider the fact that this time might be better spent in more enjoyable pursuits, for it's not of much use to mourn over what is already long lost. There are lots of other games coming up in the near future, and it is very likely that some of them might appeal more to your tastes than the one we are talking about here. That's all I had to say.
I feel that people's opinion about D:OS might be biased by them being upset at Larian due to the recent events
Not in my case, my views on them formed well before the announcement was made. I simply do not think they were good and you know what, just because you thought it was good doesn't mean anyone else will.
I do have my reasons, the brickwall based encounter design in both games (it's worse in 2 though I should stress) makes playing them a frustrating bore and I feel the game design is contradictory, it wants to encourage exploration but then punishes you for daring to stray from the path.
It's instituting a more JRPG style of progression into a very incompatible western RPG approach. If Baldur's Gate 3 does not do this it has a chance of working I think. It won't if Larian still choose to design their encounters that way and then I'd say its what I feared worst as a Baldur's gate game from them.
I feel that people's opinion about D:OS might be biased by them being upset at Larian due to the recent events
Not in my case, my views on them formed well before the announcement was made. I simply do not think they were good and you know what, just because you thought it was good doesn't mean anyone else will.
I feel that people's opinion about D:OS might be biased by them being upset at Larian due to the recent events, and what many consider as them "usurping" the BG IP, but if we were to disregard those for a moment, and focus on the game (that is, D:OS) itself, it's not so bad at all. It's very possible you may not agree with me on this, and that is entirely fine.
There are lots of other games coming up in the near future, and it is very likely that some of them might appeal more to your tastes than the one we are talking about here. That's all I had to say.
But none of those other games will be a Baldur's Gate game, nor even a Forgotten Realms game. So my loss is a permanent loss and there's no way to spin that. Yet apparently this point is not understandable for many of you.
It's like saying to someone who wants filet mignon "Oh don't worry. It's ok. There's plenty of hamburger out there for you." How can this not be viewed as patronizing and insulting?
There are lots of other games coming up in the near future, and it is very likely that some of them might appeal more to your tastes than the one we are talking about here. That's all I had to say.
But none of those other games will be a Baldur's Gate game, nor even a Forgotten Realms game. So my loss is a permanent loss and there's no way to spin that. Yet apparently this point is not understandable for many of you.
It's like saying to someone who wants filet mignon "Oh don't worry. It's ok. There's plenty of hamburger out there for you." How can this not be viewed as patronizing and insulting?
Are you aware that there are people dying of starvation every day on this planet ?
I'm shocked by your answer...
There are lots of other games coming up in the near future, and it is very likely that some of them might appeal more to your tastes than the one we are talking about here. That's all I had to say.
But none of those other games will be a Baldur's Gate game, nor even a Forgotten Realms game. So my loss is a permanent loss and there's no way to spin that. Yet apparently this point is not understandable for many of you.
I understand and respect your sentiments. But one cannot surely say that there won't be a good game among those others, isn't it so? Sometimes we have to make do with what we can get. When we do not possess the power to alter something, we have no choice but to survive it. It's sad, but that's how it is.
It's like saying to someone who wants filet mignon "Oh don't worry. It's ok. There's plenty of hamburger out there for you." How can this not be viewed as patronizing and insulting?
@kanisatha I totally disagree that the comment is patronising in the slightest. You are totally muddling the posters words. They said that ‘hopefully a game that comes out in the future will be more to your tastes’. That by definition is not saying that you should accept something that you would view as a bad ‘food’. You have made it very clear that you do not like what Larian are doing with Baldur’s Gate 3. It’s a fact that it is never going to change. I don’t see how saying that hopefully a future game will be more to your tastes is patronising in the slightest and you have definitely twisted his words.
Hmm... I still think it's on you that the BG3 game is not to your tastes. It's not even out yet! And it's already being written off. That's why I think this is "not understandable" to many of us. If the game were already out, you gave it a shot, and just couldn't bring yourself to enjoy it any way, it'd be different. But this literal prejudice against the game is very much not understandable, and, for me, not something I'll ever be sympathetic to.
@kanisatha I don't think you understand the difference between "friendly" / "comforting" and "patronizing" / "insulting". Users have been trying to provide you arguments, yet all we get is that you're not being heard and you're being insulted, both by the developers and commentators. This is the opposite of truth and I'm sad you don't see it.
Someone used the "retirement" stat on How Long to Beat as apparently a more accurate measurement of a game's popularity. First of all, I have no idea what this stat is even supposed to be measuring. Second of all, Baldur's Gate 2 and Divinity: Orignal Sin 2 have nearly the exact same percentage
"Retirement" is simply the percentage of gamers who started the game and never finished their single playthrough for various reasons. Aka ragequit. Having such a high rejection of 32% who played the non-EE D:OS is by all accounts not normal.
Actually, "retirement" doesn't necessarily mean "ragequit". I "retired" from playing D:OS 2 after the end of Act One. I didn't even start Act Two. I wasn't mad at it, I tried really hard to like it, and I wanted to like it. I did like it, to a point. I just lost interest in it after I finished Act One. I started thinking of other games that I would rather spend my time playing, and I dropped my D:OS 2 run in favor of those other games.
I can't put my finger on why it lost me. I had a very similar experience with D:OS 1, the first and only time I ever played it about a fourth of the way through.
I didn't fall in love with the cast. There was nothing really wrong with them, I guess, but I just didn't connect. I didn't like that they had no class identities, leaving it completely up to the player to develop their builds and classes. They seemed kind of like blank slate cutouts designed for the player to do whatever with, and for me, that started to fall flat. Their personal backstories and quests were somewhat interesting to me, but not enough to keep me wanting to go to the end with them.
I don't like puzzles, and Larian loves them.
The combat system was fun for a while, but I got tired of it. It started to feel like only a tactical combat simulator to me more than a proper role-playing game. I didn't like how it practically required power-gaming to succeed, or at least it felt that way to me. I felt the same way about the combat system in Pathfinder: Kingmaker, which also lost me around the end of its first act.
I'll be giving BG3 a fair chance to pull me in, and I hope for the best with it, but if it's of similar style to D:OS, I'm kind of expecting the same experience - temporary, short-term enjoyment that leads to eventual disinterest and apathy in favor of other games I enjoy more. If it's like D:OS or P:KM, I'll play it one time, only part way through, and then likely never go back to it, other than a short retry after a year or two that also doesn't stick.
I still haven't decided whether to buy it when it first comes out, given my experience with Larian products so far, or to wait for some patch cycles, Let's Plays, and for the price to drop. I'm already not enthused about the idea of playing a character infected with a mindflayer parasite. I guess time will tell.
There are lots of other games coming up in the near future, and it is very likely that some of them might appeal more to your tastes than the one we are talking about here. That's all I had to say.
But none of those other games will be a Baldur's Gate game, nor even a Forgotten Realms game. So my loss is a permanent loss and there's no way to spin that. Yet apparently this point is not understandable for many of you.
It's like saying to someone who wants filet mignon "Oh don't worry. It's ok. There's plenty of hamburger out there for you." How can this not be viewed as patronizing and insulting?
It is not. It's just a damn computer game, a hobby. It's not something you cannot live without. I was really not happy with the last season of GoT, but that's it. I was angry for about a week and got over with it. I found other TV series that I loved watching. Let's not make a make a sanctity of a video game however great its previous installments were.
Someone used the "retirement" stat on How Long to Beat as apparently a more accurate measurement of a game's popularity. First of all, I have no idea what this stat is even supposed to be measuring. Second of all, Baldur's Gate 2 and Divinity: Orignal Sin 2 have nearly the exact same percentage
"Retirement" is simply the percentage of gamers who started the game and never finished their single playthrough for various reasons. Aka ragequit. Having such a high rejection of 32% who played the non-EE D:OS is by all accounts not normal.
Actually, "retirement" doesn't necessarily mean "ragequit". I "retired" from playing D:OS 2 after the end of Act One. I didn't even start Act Two. I wasn't mad at it, I tried really hard to like it, and I wanted to like it. I did like it, to a point. I just lost interest in it after I finished Act One. I started thinking of other games that I would rather spend my time playing, and I dropped my D:OS 2 run in favor of those other games.
I can't put my finger on why it lost me. I had a very similar experience with D:OS 1, the first and only time I ever played it about a fourth of the way through.
I didn't fall in love with the cast. There was nothing really wrong with them, I guess, but I just didn't connect. I didn't like that they had no class identities, leaving it completely up to the player to develop their builds and classes. They seemed kind of like blank slate cutouts designed for the player to do whatever with, and for me, that started to fall flat. Their personal backstories and quests were somewhat interesting to me, but not enough to keep me wanting to go to the end with them.
I don't like puzzles, and Larian loves them.
The combat system was fun for a while, but I got tired of it. It started to feel like only a tactical combat simulator to me more than a proper role-playing game. I didn't like how it practically required power-gaming to succeed, or at least it felt that way to me. I felt the same way about the combat system in Pathfinder: Kingmaker, which also lost me around the end of its first act.
I'll be giving BG3 a fair chance to pull me in, and I hope for the best with it, but if it's of similar style to D:OS, I'm kind of expecting the same experience - temporary, short-term enjoyment that leads to eventual disinterest and apathy in favor of other games I enjoy more. If it's like D:OS or P:KM, I'll play it one time, only part way through, and then likely never go back to it, other than a short retry after a year or two that also doesn't stick.
I still haven't decided whether to buy it when it first comes out, given my experience with Larian products so far, or to wait for some patch cycles, Let's Plays, and for the price to drop. I'm already not enthused about the idea of playing a character infected with a mindflayer parasite. I guess time will tell.
Yeah, I have a similiar problem with P:K. It's just way too long with repetative quests and (especially) locations. I'm at Chapter 4, over 80 hours in game and I'm struggling to make myself to finish it. From all isometric games I was playing since DAO, this one was the most promising. But it's simply flawed. There is no single aspect of it that is really bad for me, but in overall it's just... only good. Like 7/10 good. I was hoping for 9/10.
BelgarathMTH's experiences are very similar to mine.
The only recent CRPGs that I thought got everything right were Shadowrun Dragonfall and Hong Kong. And they're very different from the rest, but for me they emphasised what I sought in this type of game the most.
And they were modest productions, which I think was a boon for them in some ways, there wasn't a particular need for the storytelling style or subject matter to have wide, conventional appeal, which usually means going big and epic because there's an expectation for that instead of doing it where it makes sense.
So removed from everything else, my impression of Baldur's Gate 3 is it opens with the cinematic destruction of a city, and then the graphic violation of a character by a parasite.
I won't lie, Larian are being pretty edgy up front, and keen to flaunt that they have the muscle to make a big cinematic where big things are happening, so pay attention.
I come at most things from a writing perspective and these are not often great signs, it indicates a desire to focus on spectacle over depth. And if these events are very necessary to the story, there's lots of different ways you could present that, but they have chosen a very bland way to do it.
On the positives, the characters seem varied in personality, have striking designs, and the dialogue trees seem to be quite dense. Those are positive signs.
In the end its going to come down to the story, if that ends up strong I can probably deal with other things that bother me.
I don't think I can change my vote but I think I'd be on Neither now. Neutrally I'm willing to give this game a chance and largely disassociate my expectations from the old games. It still has to be good itself and that is it's own battle.
What Larian fan (who is ENTIRELY being catered to at the expense of the IP), is going to play BG3 as their first "Baldur's Gate" game and be excited by the originals? The games are going to be completely different in how the player interacts with them. RTwP and Turnbased are different playstyles that feel completely diffrent.
The people who came into this new aren't going to enjoy BG1 or 2 for the most part. And with WotC deliberately downplaying the originals, to the point that new content for them is forbidden, the BG series as we know it is probably dead.
Comments
Apologies if I was not clear. Obviously I do not presume to know exactly what everyone that did not review the game thinks therefore I thought it was obvious that when I said the majority I was referring to critic reviews (which indicate universal acclaim) and also all user reviews sites that I have personally checked also indicate close to universal acclaim. Obviously I include GOG and steam among those. I have not found a single user based average that indicates more negative than positive towards either DOS1 or DOS2. Obviously all sites do contain negative reviews. You won’t find a single game on the planet that doesn’t have a Single negative user review. But the Majority of critic and user reviews I have seen are positive. I would also like to point out that there is no evidence to support any claim that the majority of people that did not review the game in some way would leave a negative review.
So yes like I said I am not a telepath and cannot read the minds of all who have not voiced their opinion in some kind of way. But I hope they above is a little more clear for you.
Yes. You just made my argument for me, thank you. Why make a "BG3" at all? This should have just been a brand new series.
I don't disagree with you, I just don't really care that much.
Sorry but there is no other standard than these for trying to dispassionately decide if a game is considered good or not. If you want the standard to merely be what we, as individuals, thought about these games, then I fail to even see the point of having a discussion about it. Because there would be no agreed upon logic.
And it's also inconsistent to claim that Larian or other members of this forum have to take into account your point of view, if you're going to brush aside all the aforementioned as inconsequential. Again, I think there's a clear indication that the "BG3 is a betrayal of the series" crowd wants to have it both ways: "We must be listened to. Our opinions matter. We don't care what reviewers, sales figures, and community reviews say."
I disagree with a lot of your points, but I have to say - that was a super interesting video (to me). I'm a big Paradox Junkie, and it's pretty neat to see EU IV gradually give way to HOI4 as the dominate title.
I'm also shocked how CK2 never really goes anywhere, despite being around *forever*, and I figured Stellaris was going to be #1 by the end.
Didnt play Imperator. Looked like a game that wanted to be a lot of things and ended up being none of them.
Thank you for posting it.
"Retirement" is simply the percentage of gamers who started the game and never finished their single playthrough for various reasons. Aka ragequit. Having such a high rejection of 32% who played the non-EE D:OS is by all accounts not normal.
Just as an anecdotal counterpoint: I dont finish the vast majority of games I play. Doesnt mean I didnt like them. I'm a real big Uncharted fan, never finished 4.
Life gets in the way. It's not an indictment of the game. I wonder if some of the "retirement" numbers related to Early Access user as well, since D:OS was EA. In either case, it seems like it has gotten better, according to what others said.
This approach, if you use it, should also affect all other games. So people who didn't like PoE and PoE II and P:K just didn't play them and thus didn't review them. If a smaller number of people reviewed the game if compared to other games, then, using this approach, it means that there is a smaller number of people who supported this game, if compared o other games.
Now, look at the numbers:
PoE owners, Steam. 1,000,000 .. 2,000,000
PoE II owners, Steam. 500,000 .. 1,000,000
Pathfinder: Kingmaker owners, Steam. 500,000 .. 1,000,000
Divinity: Original Sin classic owners, Steam. 1,000,000 .. 2,000,000
Divinity: Original Sin Enhanced Edition owners, Steam. 1,000,000 .. 2,000,000
Divinity: Original Sin II Enhanced Edition owners, Steam. 2,000,000 .. 5,000,000
So, according to the approach above, the number of people who supported PoE and P:K, was smaller if compared to the fans of the D:OS games.
This is why I can't agree with the comments from yesterday, sorry.
Here is another clue showing the D:OS games boast bigger numbers of people who liked them (if compared to the other games we compare them to):
https://www.reddit.com/r/projecteternity 45.1k members
https://www.reddit.com/r/pathfinder_kingmaker 20k members
https://www.reddit.com/r/divinityoriginalsin 129k members
You know, people who don't support a game, or don't like it, wouldn't join its subreddit.
Along with the review scores @jjstraka34 posted, it's clear Larian, and the D:OS games, were total, tremendous success, and I mean here people who really liked them, not "hyped" them. I'm one of them, btw. So it's really difficult for me to read claims that Larian didn't deserve to develop BG3. They did. I played their games, I felt BG-ish vibes, especially in D:OS 2. Even while the games were TB, I still felt the same vibe.
Right now, I'm replaying BGII:EE, after completing BG:EE and SoD. The tactical combat I see and enjoy (having installed difficulty-enhanced mods) still kicks ass in BG2, in 2020. I enjoyed the combat in the D:OS games, but didn't enjoy it in PoE or P:K, sorry. Maybe combat is not something people like the most. Then the feeling of exploration and companion stories. Those aspects still kick ass in BG2, in 2020. And I liked them in the D:OS games. Unfortunately, I can't say the feeling of exploration and companion stories were of the same quality, FOR ME, in PoE and P:K.
Again, I reiterate: it's so cool we got PoE II and the new Pathfinder game is in development. I'm all for new games to be created so that they could find their fans. And those don't like Larian games after playing them, or those who don't expect nothing good from BG3 after not playing any of the D:OS games, -- please note and think about this: there are people who liked the Larian games and/or like what they're seeing from the BG3 so far. These fans exist, and they are plenty. If you argue that there are plenty of people who are not in this category, -- there are other amazing games and companies out there, for your gaming pleasure. And if BG3 is not what you envisioned yourself as "true BG3", then make no mistake, sooner or later another game will happen, which will kick ass for you. Just as Dragon Age: Origins was released in 2009 and many people where like "whoa, it is so BGish", it might always happen. But for many people, BG3 from Larian IS ALREADY BGish.
Those are SteamSpy estimations for the owners. Eg. from 1mln to 2 mln.
I feel that people's opinion about D:OS might be biased by them being upset at Larian due to the recent events, and what many consider as them "usurping" the BG IP, but if we were to disregard those for a moment, and focus on the game (that is, D:OS) itself, it's not so bad at all. It's very possible you may not agree with me on this, and that is entirely fine.
I feel that a game's quality is judged by how much people enjoy playing them, and not just sales and numbers, and even not the gameplay time, since the latter obviously varies from person to person due to real life circumstances. And thus, it is very difficult to set hard "objective" standards to define what a "good game" is, for not everyone will enjoy the same game to the same extent. Obviously things like good story, intuitive gameplay and such stuff are things that all games strive to achieve, but as regards to design choices, none is "more enjoyable" than another in absolute terms, since everyone has different preferences. If you ask me, I would say D:OS was a pretty good game.
While I understand that people, who wanted an RTwP isometric PoE-like BG3 (that includes me as well), feel "left-out" by Larian's decisions, because their making of a turn-based D:OS-like BG3 inevitably ensures that the BG3 they wanted will never be made, it is not quite right to blame Larian for that. They're trying to make what they think will be a great game, and they also have a good customer base who like the concept of the game and are willing (or rather, excited) to play it. Also, it's not like that they have any obligations to the RTwP group, so other than losing a handful of customers (while still having a good decent chunk in hand), they have absolutely nothing to lose.
I understand that people need to vent their grievances, but at this point, it is of no use, since the fate of BG3 is sealed. Arguing over all this might (?) be an involving pastime for many, but I don't think anybody's opinions about this would change even a bit by mere words and arguments, since this is not a question of logic, but of sentiments. There will only be disagreement, disappointment, frustration, and probably a bunch of angry rhetorical comments from either group. This does not mean that I condemn your right to free speech and expression, but rather that I ask you to question yourself to what end your arguments will lead you, and also consider the fact that this time might be better spent in more enjoyable pursuits, for it's not of much use to mourn over what is already long lost. There are lots of other games coming up in the near future, and it is very likely that some of them might appeal more to your tastes than the one we are talking about here. That's all I had to say.
Not in my case, my views on them formed well before the announcement was made. I simply do not think they were good and you know what, just because you thought it was good doesn't mean anyone else will.
I do have my reasons, the brickwall based encounter design in both games (it's worse in 2 though I should stress) makes playing them a frustrating bore and I feel the game design is contradictory, it wants to encourage exploration but then punishes you for daring to stray from the path.
It's instituting a more JRPG style of progression into a very incompatible western RPG approach. If Baldur's Gate 3 does not do this it has a chance of working I think. It won't if Larian still choose to design their encounters that way and then I'd say its what I feared worst as a Baldur's gate game from them.
But none of those other games will be a Baldur's Gate game, nor even a Forgotten Realms game. So my loss is a permanent loss and there's no way to spin that. Yet apparently this point is not understandable for many of you.
It's like saying to someone who wants filet mignon "Oh don't worry. It's ok. There's plenty of hamburger out there for you." How can this not be viewed as patronizing and insulting?
Are you aware that there are people dying of starvation every day on this planet ?
I'm shocked by your answer...
I understand and respect your sentiments. But one cannot surely say that there won't be a good game among those others, isn't it so? Sometimes we have to make do with what we can get. When we do not possess the power to alter something, we have no choice but to survive it. It's sad, but that's how it is.
But it's better than starving, right?
Actually, "retirement" doesn't necessarily mean "ragequit". I "retired" from playing D:OS 2 after the end of Act One. I didn't even start Act Two. I wasn't mad at it, I tried really hard to like it, and I wanted to like it. I did like it, to a point. I just lost interest in it after I finished Act One. I started thinking of other games that I would rather spend my time playing, and I dropped my D:OS 2 run in favor of those other games.
I can't put my finger on why it lost me. I had a very similar experience with D:OS 1, the first and only time I ever played it about a fourth of the way through.
I didn't fall in love with the cast. There was nothing really wrong with them, I guess, but I just didn't connect. I didn't like that they had no class identities, leaving it completely up to the player to develop their builds and classes. They seemed kind of like blank slate cutouts designed for the player to do whatever with, and for me, that started to fall flat. Their personal backstories and quests were somewhat interesting to me, but not enough to keep me wanting to go to the end with them.
I don't like puzzles, and Larian loves them.
The combat system was fun for a while, but I got tired of it. It started to feel like only a tactical combat simulator to me more than a proper role-playing game. I didn't like how it practically required power-gaming to succeed, or at least it felt that way to me. I felt the same way about the combat system in Pathfinder: Kingmaker, which also lost me around the end of its first act.
I'll be giving BG3 a fair chance to pull me in, and I hope for the best with it, but if it's of similar style to D:OS, I'm kind of expecting the same experience - temporary, short-term enjoyment that leads to eventual disinterest and apathy in favor of other games I enjoy more. If it's like D:OS or P:KM, I'll play it one time, only part way through, and then likely never go back to it, other than a short retry after a year or two that also doesn't stick.
I still haven't decided whether to buy it when it first comes out, given my experience with Larian products so far, or to wait for some patch cycles, Let's Plays, and for the price to drop. I'm already not enthused about the idea of playing a character infected with a mindflayer parasite. I guess time will tell.
It is not. It's just a damn computer game, a hobby. It's not something you cannot live without. I was really not happy with the last season of GoT, but that's it. I was angry for about a week and got over with it. I found other TV series that I loved watching. Let's not make a make a sanctity of a video game however great its previous installments were.
Yeah, I have a similiar problem with P:K. It's just way too long with repetative quests and (especially) locations. I'm at Chapter 4, over 80 hours in game and I'm struggling to make myself to finish it. From all isometric games I was playing since DAO, this one was the most promising. But it's simply flawed. There is no single aspect of it that is really bad for me, but in overall it's just... only good. Like 7/10 good. I was hoping for 9/10.
The only recent CRPGs that I thought got everything right were Shadowrun Dragonfall and Hong Kong. And they're very different from the rest, but for me they emphasised what I sought in this type of game the most.
And they were modest productions, which I think was a boon for them in some ways, there wasn't a particular need for the storytelling style or subject matter to have wide, conventional appeal, which usually means going big and epic because there's an expectation for that instead of doing it where it makes sense.
So removed from everything else, my impression of Baldur's Gate 3 is it opens with the cinematic destruction of a city, and then the graphic violation of a character by a parasite.
I won't lie, Larian are being pretty edgy up front, and keen to flaunt that they have the muscle to make a big cinematic where big things are happening, so pay attention.
I come at most things from a writing perspective and these are not often great signs, it indicates a desire to focus on spectacle over depth. And if these events are very necessary to the story, there's lots of different ways you could present that, but they have chosen a very bland way to do it.
On the positives, the characters seem varied in personality, have striking designs, and the dialogue trees seem to be quite dense. Those are positive signs.
In the end its going to come down to the story, if that ends up strong I can probably deal with other things that bother me.
I don't think I can change my vote but I think I'd be on Neither now. Neutrally I'm willing to give this game a chance and largely disassociate my expectations from the old games. It still has to be good itself and that is it's own battle.
The people who came into this new aren't going to enjoy BG1 or 2 for the most part. And with WotC deliberately downplaying the originals, to the point that new content for them is forbidden, the BG series as we know it is probably dead.