@DinoDin "The "innovative" gameplay element was specifically greater item/enviroment interactivity"
It took four posts, but you finally answered my question, thank you. You did not clarify what you thought was innovative at ALL in your initial comment. If you don't want to be "misrepresented", I recommend you actually include this information. Though rpgs HAVE been using interactivity like this for years. Especially Roguelikes.
My initial comment: "Agreed, and I think Larian deserve big credit for advancing the genre in a more open way with their OS titles here. I think it will work in BG, even if it's a gameplay element that doesn't have precedent in the series. Do we really want a BG3 game that only has the limited environment/item interaction of the first two games?"
Your reply: "Wait, using a decades old gameplay style (turn based) is advancing the genre? Okay, weird take."
The thing to do here is admit you were mistaken. Or stop tagging me / replying to me if you can't and just move on. Frankly, I think I'm just going to ignore you from now. While I've agreed with you in the past especially on politics, I've had too many bad interactions with you, witnessed you doing the same with others, and it seems you aren't interested in operating in good faith.
I don't care even the tiniest bit about environment or item interaction. All that effort should be spent working on a better story and characters, far as i'm concerned. The whole "infected with a mind flayer parasite that is supposed to kill you in 24 hrs but somehow doesn't" does not resonate with me in the least. It's flat out boring and uninspired. Or adding in more prestige classes, feats, and spells.
I think Ceremorphosis always took "days" and I think it has been set to 7 days lately (maybe for the game ?). So we don't know if there is someting special concerning it in the start of the game. But we can safely assume that it (the transformation) will be stopped at some point !
Anyway we are not talking about a low budget game. They put effort in story AND the rest !
And we can't judge the story from what we got now...
Ceremorphosis definitely takes longer than 24 hours, even back in 3rd Ed. Based on the "Lords of Madness" supplement, they didn't give a precise timeframe, but from the way they described it, the transformation took days, possibly even weeks. I'm not sure if subsequent editions sped up the process, but 7 days I guess is still a reasonable timeframe in a magical world.
Meh, I dunno why people are getting upset at the ceremorphosis or whatever. IMO, it's clearly a Macguffin for the early game, but there's going to be some deeper plot that's the actual main story. And why would you want to know that now?
I mean, BG's original plot hook -- your childhood home is no longer safe because unknown bounty hunters are after you -- isn't exactly novel nor the makings of an epic adventure storyline. That's what you need to compare ceremorphosis to, not to the true main storyline.
At this point, I've come to the conclusion there are several categories of people who discuss BG3:
- those who are interested (reasons might be different)
- those who are not interested at all
- those who have doubts and concerns
Of course, there are also people who don't discuss BG3, either because they don't want to or don't know about BG3, or don't know where to discuss it.
Those who are interested in BG3 will try to find arguments supporting the majority of choices (in certain cases, ALL choices) the developers have announced.
Those who have doubts and concerns will want to wait for the full game release and reviews.
Those who are not interested at all will try to find arguments against nearly everything they hear or see regarding BG3. At this point, I still am not sure if it's possible to change their view. Maybe when the game is all released, and patched, and on a big sale, -- maybe then they can give it a chance, but that is still a big question.
See the ceremorphosis plot choice for example. Or the discussion about throwing boots.
It's totally alright. So those of folks who are interested in BG3 - keep doing it. Don't feel discouraged by negative opinions, as these negative opinions won't stop coming.
Those of folks who are not interested in BG3 - keep doing it as well, I guess. Don't take each comment from a supposed supporter close to your heart. These positive opinions won't stop coming.
Meh, I dunno why people are getting upset at the ceremorphosis or whatever. IMO, it's clearly a Macguffin for the early game, but there's going to be some deeper plot that's the actual main story. And why would you want to know that now?
I wouldn't say I'm UPSET by the ceremorphosis plot per se... Those of you who've read my posts will know that I still have reservations over the illithids being the "face villains" for the game, because it runs counter to so much of the usual lore and culture of how the illithids approach things. (Unless something has DRASTICALLY changed behind the scenes, like the rise of a new Elder Brain, or even a cabal of Elder Brains, who have rediscovered lost illithid technology etc. etc.) There's also been hints from Larian that the legacy of the Bhaalspawn plays a much bigger role in BG3 than we've seen, so for all I know the whole thing about the illithids may actually be a smokescreen to disguise the real plot of BG3. (Weirder things have happened in game plots!)
I also have a general dislike of time limits in RPGs, because I like being able to explore and level up at my own pace. (I absolutely loathed the water chip quest from Fallout, for instance.) However, depending on how exactly it's done, it may turn out to be a non-issue (it might be nearly impossible NOT to resolve the ceremorphosis thing within 7 days, or as some have speculated, maybe "failing" means you wind up being able to play AS an illithid), or something that can be rectified with mods.
After hearing about Baldur's Gate 3 being released and seeing the gameplay I was glad to see an old classic finally come back to life.
Was hoping to find a community to read about interesting takes about the game and what it could offer. Quickly recognized however that reading (at least here) has been a complete waste of my time. Seriously have not seen so much nit-picking in my life. I also wonder why people who clearly have no interest in the game and generally dislike literally everything the game has to offer keep repeating themselves in every thread about how much everything supposedly sucks.
Not saying one has to go around and being blindly optimistic and positive about the direction of the game, certainly should be room for criticism and discussion over design choices one believes should be scrutinized but there is a difference between that and just flailing about how much every aspect of the game is bad. I must ask then why waste your time and energy over a game you clearly don't want to play? Take this ThacoBell guy for instance. In literally every post I read on this forum from that user about BG3 he clearly doesn't like any part of the game and he's just going around "liking" any post that expresses a negative view. Why then care so much, is the goal to convince others to feel the same? I don't get it. It just seems incredibly odd to spend so much time on something you aren't interested in.
Anyways I'm going to look for another place to actually discuss the game rather than just hate every aspect of it. Seems wholly unproductive of ones time. Stay mad I guess.
There's definitely a lot of users disappointed with the direction Larian has taken, myself included, and this thread in particular has a lot of dissenting opinions (as you would expect from the thread title). But I disagree with the notion that the board as a whole has been only doom and gloom. If you look at the "ayes or nays"-thread, it seems to be a pretty even split and as soon as the hype machine starts rolling around early access, I'd imagine we'd only get more positive reception. There are also quite a few threads on here created in the wake of what Larian showed us earlier this year that are very much excited about the project.
As for why some are so disappointed as they are, I read a fantastic post on these very forums (that I unfortunately can't seem to find at the moment). The sum of it was that the BG-series comes with so much historical importance and pedigree attached to it that any continuation would have to try and balance. Regardless of how good the game is going to be (and I imagine many will consider it very good, the early press impressions were through the roof), the fact remains that this will be the only BG3 to ever exist. And that's a pretty scary thought for people who have wanted this (or not!) for the last 20 years. This announcement was always going to ruffle feathers, and you can't expect to drop a new release in a series such as this and not have people react (both positively and negatively).
I don't hate what we've seen of BG3 and, in fact, enjoy certain aspects (5th ed is so much cooler than 2nd). I will also freely admit to nitpicking what we have seen so far, but I would argue that details are what makes how a game "feel", and as such is an important part of game criticism (at least from a fan perspective). More than anything though, I'm disappointed with WotC for how they've managed the franchise in the last few years. It is clear they've been building toward BG3 for some time now, but thus far everything feels so corporately calculated. My big issue is with them and not really Larian.
They realized they had this big IP, that Minsc & Boo were it's most recognizable element, and that the history of CHARNAME (and the nature of player choice-driven RPGs in general) would be an obstacle for future stories, and so they started went to work bringing the duo back and giving Abdel (ugh) a proper ending. I don't really mind the former, but the latter runs contrary to the whole idea of BG and that they went with canonizing Abdel further even though he is *extremely* unpopular with the fanbase makes the mind boggle.
I'm sure Larian will do a good job, and I'm sure the franchise is here to stick around for while now. But for someone who the originals impacted greatly as a youth, I'm not sure I wanna be there for it and ultimately, that's what I find so disheartening. I'm clearly in a very different place now than I was 20 years ago and I never expected a potential sequel to stay in the past, but I at least hoped they wouldn't disregard so much of the franchise as they have so far. I will always have the originals and the EE's and the future will never invalidate those experiences, but as of right now, I just can't bring myself to be excited for what is to come.
At this point, I've come to the conclusion there are several categories of people who discuss BG3:
- those who are interested (reasons might be different)
- those who are not interested at all
- those who have doubts and concerns
Of course, there are also people who don't discuss BG3, either because they don't want to or don't know about BG3, or don't know where to discuss it.
Those who are interested in BG3 will try to find arguments supporting the majority of choices (in certain cases, ALL choices) the developers have announced.
Those who have doubts and concerns will want to wait for the full game release and reviews.
Those who are not interested at all will try to find arguments against nearly everything they hear or see regarding BG3. At this point, I still am not sure if it's possible to change their view. Maybe when the game is all released, and patched, and on a big sale, -- maybe then they can give it a chance, but that is still a big question.
See the ceremorphosis plot choice for example. Or the discussion about throwing boots.
It's totally alright. So those of folks who are interested in BG3 - keep doing it. Don't feel discouraged by negative opinions, as these negative opinions won't stop coming.
Those of folks who are not interested in BG3 - keep doing it as well, I guess. Don't take each comment from a supposed supporter close to your heart. These positive opinions won't stop coming.
You left out a crucial fourth category: those who want to be interested in and want to like a game titled BG3 because they love BG1&2 and have been dying for a new game in that franchise, but who feel very let down and excluded by the particular direction Larian has chosen to take the new game.
IMO you're only choosing to exclude yourself if your hangups are about certain gameplay elements that you refuse to play. I don't think it's fair to blame that particular taste on the designers. No one can design a game that will satisfy everyone -- nor would making a game via poll-testing every design decision be a good recipe for making games imo.
At this point, I've come to the conclusion there are several categories of people who discuss BG3:
- those who are interested (reasons might be different)
- those who are not interested at all
- those who have doubts and concerns
Of course, there are also people who don't discuss BG3, either because they don't want to or don't know about BG3, or don't know where to discuss it.
Those who are interested in BG3 will try to find arguments supporting the majority of choices (in certain cases, ALL choices) the developers have announced.
Those who have doubts and concerns will want to wait for the full game release and reviews.
Those who are not interested at all will try to find arguments against nearly everything they hear or see regarding BG3. At this point, I still am not sure if it's possible to change their view. Maybe when the game is all released, and patched, and on a big sale, -- maybe then they can give it a chance, but that is still a big question.
See the ceremorphosis plot choice for example. Or the discussion about throwing boots.
It's totally alright. So those of folks who are interested in BG3 - keep doing it. Don't feel discouraged by negative opinions, as these negative opinions won't stop coming.
Those of folks who are not interested in BG3 - keep doing it as well, I guess. Don't take each comment from a supposed supporter close to your heart. These positive opinions won't stop coming.
You left out a crucial fourth category: those who want to be interested in and want to like a game titled BG3 because they love BG1&2 and have been dying for a new game in that franchise, but who feel very let down and excluded by the particular direction Larian has chosen to take the new game.
There is only one game titled BG3, and that is the game from Larian we are here discussing. You potentially would have been interested in that "ideal BG3" you could imagine, but at this moment of time and space, you not interested in trying the game we discuss because you "feel very let down". It shouldn't stop you from sharing that frustration, but the side result is that we're going in circles each time, between the aforementioned categories of replies.
IMO you're only choosing to exclude yourself if your hangups are about certain gameplay elements that you refuse to play. I don't think it's fair to blame that particular taste on the designers. No one can design a game that will satisfy everyone -- nor would making a game via poll-testing every design decision be a good recipe for making games imo.
No I'm not "choosing" to exclude myself, and telling me so is patronizing to me. I have a very clear reason for not liking this game, based on my philosophy that if you are going to be making a new game in an existing franchise that is highly beloved by many people, I expect you to stay close to the original vision of the franchise. If this is not what you want to do, or you find this stifles your creativity, then you should just go create a brand new franchise. This is why I even highly dislike developers using the "spiritual successor" phrase, and feel very strongly that referring to games like PoE and T:ToN as spiritual successors was a huge mistake and those games would've been better received without that tag.
It is Larian that has chosen to take the new game in a significantly different direction from the old games, not just with the combat system although I reject dismissing that issue as you try to do and consider it a critical factor, but also such design choices as centrality of multiplayer over single player, 33% reduction in party size, cartoony art style, so-called interactive systems that are nothing more than silly gimmicks borrowed from another game, prioritizing their pregenerated PCs over a custom PC, etc, etc. So yes, I have every right to be angry, angry at having been excluded and thrown under the bus by Larian as part of a deliberate strategy by Larian to do so. And I will neither dial down that anger nor keep from expressing my anger at every turn as Larian has only themselves to blame for it.
At this point, I've come to the conclusion there are several categories of people who discuss BG3:
- those who are interested (reasons might be different)
- those who are not interested at all
- those who have doubts and concerns
Of course, there are also people who don't discuss BG3, either because they don't want to or don't know about BG3, or don't know where to discuss it.
Those who are interested in BG3 will try to find arguments supporting the majority of choices (in certain cases, ALL choices) the developers have announced.
Those who have doubts and concerns will want to wait for the full game release and reviews.
Those who are not interested at all will try to find arguments against nearly everything they hear or see regarding BG3. At this point, I still am not sure if it's possible to change their view. Maybe when the game is all released, and patched, and on a big sale, -- maybe then they can give it a chance, but that is still a big question.
See the ceremorphosis plot choice for example. Or the discussion about throwing boots.
It's totally alright. So those of folks who are interested in BG3 - keep doing it. Don't feel discouraged by negative opinions, as these negative opinions won't stop coming.
Those of folks who are not interested in BG3 - keep doing it as well, I guess. Don't take each comment from a supposed supporter close to your heart. These positive opinions won't stop coming.
You left out a crucial fourth category: those who want to be interested in and want to like a game titled BG3 because they love BG1&2 and have been dying for a new game in that franchise, but who feel very let down and excluded by the particular direction Larian has chosen to take the new game.
There is only one game titled BG3, and that is the game from Larian we are here discussing. You potentially would have been interested in that "ideal BG3" you could imagine, but at this moment of time and space, you not interested in trying the game we discuss because you "feel very let down". It shouldn't stop you from sharing that frustration, but the side result is that we're going in circles each time, between the aforementioned categories of replies.
This is a cop-out, which begs the question why even bother with your previous post if it was meant only to pigeon-hole those of us on the other side? I don't see myself falling into any of your three boxes. So where am I? I don't think you are intending this at all, but it comes across to me as you saying I don't matter. And as you can surely appreciate, nobody will take too kindly to being told they don't matter.
It's up to the developer of the game to decide whose feedback matters. In this subforum, all opinions matter, -- since we're all just sharing opinions. Just don't expect that your negative post will be left without consequences from those who support the game. And vice versa, any fan of BG3 shouldn't expect their supportive post should be left without a reply or 2 from those who don't like BG3.
When you say, for example, "if you are going to be making a new game in an existing franchise that is highly beloved by many people, I expect you to stay close to the original vision of the franchise," expect some people to disagree with you, as these people support the current approach and think BG3 should be treated differently from what you imagine.
A sequel needs to be an evolution of the previous games in the series. BG3 takes nothing mechanics wise from BG1 or 2, and instead is an evolution on the mechanics of a completely different franchise. This decision is baffling. And bad.
If you look at another high profile game based on an old license that came out recently: The Final Fantasy 7 Remake. I'm also not excited for this game, because it changes the mechanics so much from the original, but this game doesn't make me angry, just indifferent? Why? Because its a clear evolution of Final Fantasy's systems. The whole series has been moving slowly towards real time combat, and away from traditional turn based. So making the remake reflect that MAKES SENSE. I'm not personally a fan, but I cannot claim that its not Final Fantasy. The devs of the remake clearly are more passionate aboutt ehir source material than Larian is for theirs.
In the case of FFVII Remake, I'd argue that any gameplay changes are even easier to justify. Few would have been impressed by a simple graphics upgrade mixed in with some convenience improvements. That's fine for an enhanced edition, but a remake requires a bit more resources put into it, I feel. Personally, I'm more interested in the game because of the changes, since I can always go back to the original if I want that type of gameplay. It also helps that we've continuously gotten new installment in the series for 30 years and that Square have made it part of their formula to mix up the battle system for pretty much each new installment. Had BG3 been BG: Remake, I'd been a lot more stoked about it simply because it'd be a reimagination and not a continuation.
I think the unfortunate truth is that some people on here are so personally invested in the franchise that they have taken any changes they do not want to be a personal attack upon both them and the franchise they cherish.
This isnt to say that the crowd who are excited for the game do not also cherish the franchise equally (Although it is something suggested this is not the case).
A sequel needs to be an evolution of the previous games in the series. BG3 takes nothing mechanics wise from BG1 or 2, and instead is an evolution on the mechanics of a completely different franchise. This decision is baffling. And bad.
That is one definition of a sequel. Certainly not the only one - and the fact that Larian has hinted that story beats will be significantly related to events from the original games satisfies my requirement of a sequel in which there is some meaningful connection between the games.
The way I look at it, we haven't had a decent D&D game since Neverwinter Nights 2, which was *checks watch* 14 years ago. Sure, there have been the much needed and appreciated EE editions of the classics from Beamdog, and SoD, and long-lost premium modules for NWN, but this is the first REAL meaty experience in a decade and a half. Maybe it doesn't deserve to use the Baldur's Gate name. At this point, I really feel like that's to move units and add heft to the project. It's mostly Larian putting their weight behind a 100 hour campaign in a 5th Edition setting. That is worth getting excited about, if for no other reason than we've been living with variations of 3rd Edition with everything from Knights of the Old Republic and Pathfinder: Kingmaker for two decades. I'm ready to try something else.
I think the unfortunate truth is that some people on here are so personally invested in the franchise that they have taken any changes they do not want to be a personal attack upon both them and the franchise they cherish.
This is it exactly. And I have no problem with you or anyone else disagreeing or having a different take on this point. All I'm saying is that if one is going to criticize us for our stance, at least do so in the proper context, which is that our criticism is not general or abstract criticism. The things we are angry about are not things we are angry about generally with all games. For example, some people keep going to just the TB combat issue and keep saying that's my only reason for not liking this game. Again, not true, else how does one explain that I am a KS backer of Solasta, Realms Beyond, and T:ToN, all TB combat games. Our criticism and anger here is very, very, very specific to this game and only this game, not games generally. Why? Because this game carries the title Baldur's Gate III. That's the context that keeps getting missed/deliberately ignored by people reacting to the posts of those of us who are angry.
I'll provide a personal reply, @kanisatha. I don't ignore that, not at all. I heard that well and many times. But I personally don't agree with your point of view, that's all. The information about the game, including the bits from the AMA, keeps me assured BG3 carries the title of BG with pride and deservedly. And since I don't agree with you, or @ThacoBell, I can't share your concerns. But that doesn't make me blind or deaf to your comments.
As for the FPS question, @ThacoBell, the Fallout franchise experienced nearly what you're asking about. My personal opinion is that F3, F4 ARE continuation of F1, F2. The genre, camera, approach, etc are in the end components of what constitutes the game.
But I like RPGs a lot. I'd be a bit sad to see BG becoming FPS. That is just my personal take.
The source material Larian works with are not BG1 and BG2 games, - that material is DnD. BG1 and BG2 are great games from 1998 and 2000, and they showed the world how a party-based RPG should be done at that time. BG3 will be a game from 2020(2021) and it should show the world how a party-based RPG should be done nowadays. And the developers have all my trust when they want to create a DnD game which has storylines going back to legacy titles.
So a Baldur's Gate fps would have been acceptable so long as the right names were dropped and story beats referenced?
Sure. If they had made BG3 into a game in the mold of something like Skyrim, I would still consider it to be a sequel
@JuliusBorisov beat me to the punch with a similar argument.
and to be clear: I dont think it particularly matters if anyone likes FO3 or 4, or Skyrim or anything. There is clearly a large community that would consider this to be a sequel. You dont have to be a part of that if you do not wish to - however, since you are the one imposing the limitation of what is or is not a sequel (for you), the onus is upon you and not the community of the developers.
I think the unfortunate truth is that some people on here are so personally invested in the franchise that they have taken any changes they do not want to be a personal attack upon both them and the franchise they cherish.
This is it exactly. And I have no problem with you or anyone else disagreeing or having a different take on this point. All I'm saying is that if one is going to criticize us for our stance, at least do so in the proper context, which is that our criticism is not general or abstract criticism. The things we are angry about are not things we are angry about generally with all games. For example, some people keep going to just the TB combat issue and keep saying that's my only reason for not liking this game. Again, not true, else how does one explain that I am a KS backer of Solasta, Realms Beyond, and T:ToN, all TB combat games. Our criticism and anger here is very, very, very specific to this game and only this game, not games generally. Why? Because this game carries the title Baldur's Gate III. That's the context that keeps getting missed/deliberately ignored by people reacting to the posts of those of us who are angry.
I dont have any issue with you disliking the game for any reason. Those are all going to be personal and apply to you. What I find unfortunate is that there's no capacity (that I've seen) to have a prolonged and rational discussion on the subject.
It inevitably comes down to people either attacking or being attacked (or even just perceiving that they're being attacked), and rather than a genuine conversation about the game - it becomes toxic.
You're entitled to your stance that you feel BG3's changes are a betrayal, but I just wish you would fully own that this is *your* decision. With respect, it's your decision to buy or not buy the game because of a design choice. It's your decision to make angry posts about it. I think it's a bit of an immature stance to say that a game studio has to cater to your taste above others.
Clearly, as you can see, there's a decent sized chunk of the community here that is willing to play a TB BG3. Clearly, as you can see from sales figures, choices by non-Larian studios, and reviewer praise that there's an appetite for TB in the marketplace. So Larian's decision is not an outrageous one. Comparing the switch from RTwP to an FPS is an absurd and unfair comparison. Both the OS games and PoE games are classed within the same genre and even subgenre of tactical-combat RPG's. Plenty of people bought both games and poured tons of hours into both games. It's not the extreme switch, to me, some are making it out to be. It doesn't even feel radically different to play the two series, for me anyways. They scratch similar itches, for me.
I also would have preferred RTwP, I feel have to reiterate, since this frequently gets misrepresented.
Again, if you have very very specific standards about games you'll play, that's fine! Maybe you don't have a lot of time or don't want to spend money on a product you won't play much. I get it. But no game studio can satisfy everyone, and no game studio should try imo. Game studios that have tried to make everyone happy in their titles have frequently failed to make anyone happy.
Also need to add, games have switched gameplay elements mid-series, even within the same studio. The gameplay of Ultima 7 is a much more radical shift than what we're seeing so far with BG3. It's considered one of the best titles in the history of CRPG's. The idea that you can't switch gameplay mid-series is just not something that holds up to a historic analysis.
I wholeheartedly agree. As soon as I saw the gameplay, I thought the exact same thing: they made a baldurs gate based on divinity.. its being called a loveletter to DND, but it shoulda been a loveletter to BG1 and 2. This is idiocy and an insult to the people who have been awaiting this for years. Theyre literally mooching off of BG's success, but dont want to respect the predecessors in terms of gameplay. Yeah.... conclusion, they bought the rights to this title just cause of its popularity, their rants about their love for the original games is hypocrisy
What I find unfortunate is that there's no capacity (that I've seen) to have a prolonged and rational discussion on the subject.
It inevitably comes down to people either attacking or being attacked (or even just perceiving that they're being attacked), and rather than a genuine conversation about the game - it becomes toxic.
Yes I agree, and I also think this is unfortunate. But there is a reason for that. This situation with BG3 is very much all or nothing, and there is no space for a middle ground. Some people get all/close to all of what they want; others get nothing. So it should be understandable that the people who are on the side of getting nothing are going to be seriously pissed. And when people try to tell us we should just get over it and accept this amazing gift Larian is giving us, that's only going to inflame people even more.
You're entitled to your stance that you feel BG3's changes are a betrayal, but I just wish you would fully own that this is *your* decision. With respect, it's your decision to buy or not buy the game because of a design choice. It's your decision to make angry posts about it. I think it's a bit of an immature stance to say that a game studio has to cater to your taste above others.
Clearly, as you can see, there's a decent sized chunk of the community here that is willing to play a TB BG3. Clearly, as you can see from sales figures, choices by non-Larian studios, and reviewer praise that there's an appetite for TB in the marketplace. So Larian's decision is not an outrageous one. Comparing the switch from RTwP to an FPS is an absurd and unfair comparison. Both the OS games and PoE games are classed within the same genre and even subgenre of tactical-combat RPG's. Plenty of people bought both games and poured tons of hours into both games. It's not the extreme switch, to me, some are making it out to be. It doesn't even feel radically different to play the two series, for me anyways. They scratch similar itches, for me.
I also would have preferred RTwP, I feel have to reiterate, since this frequently gets misrepresented.
Again, if you have very very specific standards about games you'll play, that's fine! Maybe you don't have a lot of time or don't want to spend money on a product you won't play much. I get it. But no game studio can satisfy everyone, and no game studio should try imo. Game studios that have tried to make everyone happy in their titles have frequently failed to make anyone happy.
All of this is fine and true with games in general. None of this is true for a game that is a direct sequel to a cherished old series of games. If you are making a new game in an old much loved franchise, you do have an obligation to try and satisfy as many of the fans of those old games as possible. The moment Larian decided to name their game BG3, they incurred an obligation to try and satisfy as many fans of BG1&2 as possible. But instead, Larian chose their D:OS fans as the target audience they will choose to satisfy. That's just plain wrong. And the obvious and correct way for Larian to have avoided incurring that obligation was to have not named their game BG3. If the game remained exactly the same as it is, but just carried some other name, we would not be having this debate.
Comments
It took four posts, but you finally answered my question, thank you. You did not clarify what you thought was innovative at ALL in your initial comment. If you don't want to be "misrepresented", I recommend you actually include this information. Though rpgs HAVE been using interactivity like this for years. Especially Roguelikes.
Your reply: "Wait, using a decades old gameplay style (turn based) is advancing the genre? Okay, weird take."
The thing to do here is admit you were mistaken. Or stop tagging me / replying to me if you can't and just move on. Frankly, I think I'm just going to ignore you from now. While I've agreed with you in the past especially on politics, I've had too many bad interactions with you, witnessed you doing the same with others, and it seems you aren't interested in operating in good faith.
Except these are still vague and do not even remotely describe what systems you were referencing.
Anyway we are not talking about a low budget game. They put effort in story AND the rest !
And we can't judge the story from what we got now...
I mean, BG's original plot hook -- your childhood home is no longer safe because unknown bounty hunters are after you -- isn't exactly novel nor the makings of an epic adventure storyline. That's what you need to compare ceremorphosis to, not to the true main storyline.
- those who are interested (reasons might be different)
- those who are not interested at all
- those who have doubts and concerns
Of course, there are also people who don't discuss BG3, either because they don't want to or don't know about BG3, or don't know where to discuss it.
Those who are interested in BG3 will try to find arguments supporting the majority of choices (in certain cases, ALL choices) the developers have announced.
Those who have doubts and concerns will want to wait for the full game release and reviews.
Those who are not interested at all will try to find arguments against nearly everything they hear or see regarding BG3. At this point, I still am not sure if it's possible to change their view. Maybe when the game is all released, and patched, and on a big sale, -- maybe then they can give it a chance, but that is still a big question.
See the ceremorphosis plot choice for example. Or the discussion about throwing boots.
It's totally alright. So those of folks who are interested in BG3 - keep doing it. Don't feel discouraged by negative opinions, as these negative opinions won't stop coming.
Those of folks who are not interested in BG3 - keep doing it as well, I guess. Don't take each comment from a supposed supporter close to your heart. These positive opinions won't stop coming.
I wouldn't say I'm UPSET by the ceremorphosis plot per se... Those of you who've read my posts will know that I still have reservations over the illithids being the "face villains" for the game, because it runs counter to so much of the usual lore and culture of how the illithids approach things. (Unless something has DRASTICALLY changed behind the scenes, like the rise of a new Elder Brain, or even a cabal of Elder Brains, who have rediscovered lost illithid technology etc. etc.) There's also been hints from Larian that the legacy of the Bhaalspawn plays a much bigger role in BG3 than we've seen, so for all I know the whole thing about the illithids may actually be a smokescreen to disguise the real plot of BG3. (Weirder things have happened in game plots!)
I also have a general dislike of time limits in RPGs, because I like being able to explore and level up at my own pace. (I absolutely loathed the water chip quest from Fallout, for instance.) However, depending on how exactly it's done, it may turn out to be a non-issue (it might be nearly impossible NOT to resolve the ceremorphosis thing within 7 days, or as some have speculated, maybe "failing" means you wind up being able to play AS an illithid), or something that can be rectified with mods.
Was hoping to find a community to read about interesting takes about the game and what it could offer. Quickly recognized however that reading (at least here) has been a complete waste of my time. Seriously have not seen so much nit-picking in my life. I also wonder why people who clearly have no interest in the game and generally dislike literally everything the game has to offer keep repeating themselves in every thread about how much everything supposedly sucks.
Not saying one has to go around and being blindly optimistic and positive about the direction of the game, certainly should be room for criticism and discussion over design choices one believes should be scrutinized but there is a difference between that and just flailing about how much every aspect of the game is bad. I must ask then why waste your time and energy over a game you clearly don't want to play? Take this ThacoBell guy for instance. In literally every post I read on this forum from that user about BG3 he clearly doesn't like any part of the game and he's just going around "liking" any post that expresses a negative view. Why then care so much, is the goal to convince others to feel the same? I don't get it. It just seems incredibly odd to spend so much time on something you aren't interested in.
Anyways I'm going to look for another place to actually discuss the game rather than just hate every aspect of it. Seems wholly unproductive of ones time. Stay mad I guess.
There's definitely a lot of users disappointed with the direction Larian has taken, myself included, and this thread in particular has a lot of dissenting opinions (as you would expect from the thread title). But I disagree with the notion that the board as a whole has been only doom and gloom. If you look at the "ayes or nays"-thread, it seems to be a pretty even split and as soon as the hype machine starts rolling around early access, I'd imagine we'd only get more positive reception. There are also quite a few threads on here created in the wake of what Larian showed us earlier this year that are very much excited about the project.
As for why some are so disappointed as they are, I read a fantastic post on these very forums (that I unfortunately can't seem to find at the moment). The sum of it was that the BG-series comes with so much historical importance and pedigree attached to it that any continuation would have to try and balance. Regardless of how good the game is going to be (and I imagine many will consider it very good, the early press impressions were through the roof), the fact remains that this will be the only BG3 to ever exist. And that's a pretty scary thought for people who have wanted this (or not!) for the last 20 years. This announcement was always going to ruffle feathers, and you can't expect to drop a new release in a series such as this and not have people react (both positively and negatively).
I don't hate what we've seen of BG3 and, in fact, enjoy certain aspects (5th ed is so much cooler than 2nd). I will also freely admit to nitpicking what we have seen so far, but I would argue that details are what makes how a game "feel", and as such is an important part of game criticism (at least from a fan perspective). More than anything though, I'm disappointed with WotC for how they've managed the franchise in the last few years. It is clear they've been building toward BG3 for some time now, but thus far everything feels so corporately calculated. My big issue is with them and not really Larian.
They realized they had this big IP, that Minsc & Boo were it's most recognizable element, and that the history of CHARNAME (and the nature of player choice-driven RPGs in general) would be an obstacle for future stories, and so they started went to work bringing the duo back and giving Abdel (ugh) a proper ending. I don't really mind the former, but the latter runs contrary to the whole idea of BG and that they went with canonizing Abdel further even though he is *extremely* unpopular with the fanbase makes the mind boggle.
I'm sure Larian will do a good job, and I'm sure the franchise is here to stick around for while now. But for someone who the originals impacted greatly as a youth, I'm not sure I wanna be there for it and ultimately, that's what I find so disheartening. I'm clearly in a very different place now than I was 20 years ago and I never expected a potential sequel to stay in the past, but I at least hoped they wouldn't disregard so much of the franchise as they have so far. I will always have the originals and the EE's and the future will never invalidate those experiences, but as of right now, I just can't bring myself to be excited for what is to come.
You left out a crucial fourth category: those who want to be interested in and want to like a game titled BG3 because they love BG1&2 and have been dying for a new game in that franchise, but who feel very let down and excluded by the particular direction Larian has chosen to take the new game.
There is only one game titled BG3, and that is the game from Larian we are here discussing. You potentially would have been interested in that "ideal BG3" you could imagine, but at this moment of time and space, you not interested in trying the game we discuss because you "feel very let down". It shouldn't stop you from sharing that frustration, but the side result is that we're going in circles each time, between the aforementioned categories of replies.
No I'm not "choosing" to exclude myself, and telling me so is patronizing to me. I have a very clear reason for not liking this game, based on my philosophy that if you are going to be making a new game in an existing franchise that is highly beloved by many people, I expect you to stay close to the original vision of the franchise. If this is not what you want to do, or you find this stifles your creativity, then you should just go create a brand new franchise. This is why I even highly dislike developers using the "spiritual successor" phrase, and feel very strongly that referring to games like PoE and T:ToN as spiritual successors was a huge mistake and those games would've been better received without that tag.
It is Larian that has chosen to take the new game in a significantly different direction from the old games, not just with the combat system although I reject dismissing that issue as you try to do and consider it a critical factor, but also such design choices as centrality of multiplayer over single player, 33% reduction in party size, cartoony art style, so-called interactive systems that are nothing more than silly gimmicks borrowed from another game, prioritizing their pregenerated PCs over a custom PC, etc, etc. So yes, I have every right to be angry, angry at having been excluded and thrown under the bus by Larian as part of a deliberate strategy by Larian to do so. And I will neither dial down that anger nor keep from expressing my anger at every turn as Larian has only themselves to blame for it.
This is a cop-out, which begs the question why even bother with your previous post if it was meant only to pigeon-hole those of us on the other side? I don't see myself falling into any of your three boxes. So where am I? I don't think you are intending this at all, but it comes across to me as you saying I don't matter. And as you can surely appreciate, nobody will take too kindly to being told they don't matter.
When you say, for example, "if you are going to be making a new game in an existing franchise that is highly beloved by many people, I expect you to stay close to the original vision of the franchise," expect some people to disagree with you, as these people support the current approach and think BG3 should be treated differently from what you imagine.
If you look at another high profile game based on an old license that came out recently: The Final Fantasy 7 Remake. I'm also not excited for this game, because it changes the mechanics so much from the original, but this game doesn't make me angry, just indifferent? Why? Because its a clear evolution of Final Fantasy's systems. The whole series has been moving slowly towards real time combat, and away from traditional turn based. So making the remake reflect that MAKES SENSE. I'm not personally a fan, but I cannot claim that its not Final Fantasy. The devs of the remake clearly are more passionate aboutt ehir source material than Larian is for theirs.
This isnt to say that the crowd who are excited for the game do not also cherish the franchise equally (Although it is something suggested this is not the case).
That is one definition of a sequel. Certainly not the only one - and the fact that Larian has hinted that story beats will be significantly related to events from the original games satisfies my requirement of a sequel in which there is some meaningful connection between the games.
This is it exactly. And I have no problem with you or anyone else disagreeing or having a different take on this point. All I'm saying is that if one is going to criticize us for our stance, at least do so in the proper context, which is that our criticism is not general or abstract criticism. The things we are angry about are not things we are angry about generally with all games. For example, some people keep going to just the TB combat issue and keep saying that's my only reason for not liking this game. Again, not true, else how does one explain that I am a KS backer of Solasta, Realms Beyond, and T:ToN, all TB combat games. Our criticism and anger here is very, very, very specific to this game and only this game, not games generally. Why? Because this game carries the title Baldur's Gate III. That's the context that keeps getting missed/deliberately ignored by people reacting to the posts of those of us who are angry.
As for the FPS question, @ThacoBell, the Fallout franchise experienced nearly what you're asking about. My personal opinion is that F3, F4 ARE continuation of F1, F2. The genre, camera, approach, etc are in the end components of what constitutes the game.
But I like RPGs a lot. I'd be a bit sad to see BG becoming FPS. That is just my personal take.
The source material Larian works with are not BG1 and BG2 games, - that material is DnD. BG1 and BG2 are great games from 1998 and 2000, and they showed the world how a party-based RPG should be done at that time. BG3 will be a game from 2020(2021) and it should show the world how a party-based RPG should be done nowadays. And the developers have all my trust when they want to create a DnD game which has storylines going back to legacy titles.
Sure. If they had made BG3 into a game in the mold of something like Skyrim, I would still consider it to be a sequel
@JuliusBorisov beat me to the punch with a similar argument.
and to be clear: I dont think it particularly matters if anyone likes FO3 or 4, or Skyrim or anything. There is clearly a large community that would consider this to be a sequel. You dont have to be a part of that if you do not wish to - however, since you are the one imposing the limitation of what is or is not a sequel (for you), the onus is upon you and not the community of the developers.
I dont have any issue with you disliking the game for any reason. Those are all going to be personal and apply to you. What I find unfortunate is that there's no capacity (that I've seen) to have a prolonged and rational discussion on the subject.
It inevitably comes down to people either attacking or being attacked (or even just perceiving that they're being attacked), and rather than a genuine conversation about the game - it becomes toxic.
Clearly, as you can see, there's a decent sized chunk of the community here that is willing to play a TB BG3. Clearly, as you can see from sales figures, choices by non-Larian studios, and reviewer praise that there's an appetite for TB in the marketplace. So Larian's decision is not an outrageous one. Comparing the switch from RTwP to an FPS is an absurd and unfair comparison. Both the OS games and PoE games are classed within the same genre and even subgenre of tactical-combat RPG's. Plenty of people bought both games and poured tons of hours into both games. It's not the extreme switch, to me, some are making it out to be. It doesn't even feel radically different to play the two series, for me anyways. They scratch similar itches, for me.
I also would have preferred RTwP, I feel have to reiterate, since this frequently gets misrepresented.
Again, if you have very very specific standards about games you'll play, that's fine! Maybe you don't have a lot of time or don't want to spend money on a product you won't play much. I get it. But no game studio can satisfy everyone, and no game studio should try imo. Game studios that have tried to make everyone happy in their titles have frequently failed to make anyone happy.
Yes I agree, and I also think this is unfortunate. But there is a reason for that. This situation with BG3 is very much all or nothing, and there is no space for a middle ground. Some people get all/close to all of what they want; others get nothing. So it should be understandable that the people who are on the side of getting nothing are going to be seriously pissed. And when people try to tell us we should just get over it and accept this amazing gift Larian is giving us, that's only going to inflame people even more.
All of this is fine and true with games in general. None of this is true for a game that is a direct sequel to a cherished old series of games. If you are making a new game in an old much loved franchise, you do have an obligation to try and satisfy as many of the fans of those old games as possible. The moment Larian decided to name their game BG3, they incurred an obligation to try and satisfy as many fans of BG1&2 as possible. But instead, Larian chose their D:OS fans as the target audience they will choose to satisfy. That's just plain wrong. And the obvious and correct way for Larian to have avoided incurring that obligation was to have not named their game BG3. If the game remained exactly the same as it is, but just carried some other name, we would not be having this debate.