Skeptic would hold his judge until he/she has enough information to work with and then make a judgement. Skeptic would need a viable reason to hold a stance.
Yeah but people here have said "why assume this game won't be good based on things Larian have already made" as if that's unreasonable. Its not particularly an unreasonable stance, because that's exactly the most relevant information to forming a basis for speculation, and honestly based on past experience, it usually does logically follow through. Sounds like healthy Scepticism to me.
Yep, the lack of information is precisely a legitimate and viable reason to be skeptical.
Skeptic would hold his judge until he/she has enough information to work with and then make a judgement. Skeptic would need a viable reason to hold a stance.
Yeah but people here have said "why assume this game won't be good based on things Larian have already made" as if that's unreasonable. Its not particularly an unreasonable stance, because that's exactly the most relevant information to forming a basis for speculation, and honestly based on past experience, it usually does logically follow through. Sounds like healthy Scepticism to me.
Yep, the lack of information is precisely a legitimate and viable reason to be skeptical.
And the little info that we have don't make us much "hopeful" either...
@chimaera "Calling Larian unethical because you don't like that the story isn't going to be about what you want - not skepticism. "
That's not what I was saying. So you either didn't even read the comments you seem to take issue with, or you are actively trying to misrepresent what I've said.
Well, this is why we have all these strong debates.
For me, its rules system is the weak point of D&D. Finally, with 5e, the rules are 'ok', but the selling point of D&D for me is the world, the setting, the lore. The rules are something to be tolerated.
As I've said before, I loved the BG games in spite of the rules, not because of them. AD&D 2e was shit and I truly despise that rules system.
AD&D is 1st edition, not 2nd, and you're spitting on my childhood.
Well, this is why we have all these strong debates.
For me, its rules system is the weak point of D&D. Finally, with 5e, the rules are 'ok', but the selling point of D&D for me is the world, the setting, the lore. The rules are something to be tolerated.
As I've said before, I loved the BG games in spite of the rules, not because of them. AD&D 2e was shit and I truly despise that rules system.
AD&D is 1st edition, not 2nd, and you're spitting on my childhood.
Wasn't second edition also labeled AD&D? As in AD&D 2nd edition?
Also, when someone states an opinion very authoritatively (e.g. X is shit), just imagine they said "I think" before it. There's no need to feel down because of what other people's subjective takes are.
Well, this is why we have all these strong debates.
For me, its rules system is the weak point of D&D. Finally, with 5e, the rules are 'ok', but the selling point of D&D for me is the world, the setting, the lore. The rules are something to be tolerated.
As I've said before, I loved the BG games in spite of the rules, not because of them. AD&D 2e was shit and I truly despise that rules system.
AD&D is 1st edition, not 2nd, and you're spitting on my childhood.
Wasn't second edition also labeled AD&D? As in AD&D 2nd edition?
Also, when someone states an opinion very authoritatively (e.g. X is shit), just imagine they said "I think" before it. There's no need to feel down because of what other people's subjective takes are.
You're correct. I swear, I wish people would just take a second to double check via Google or Wikipedia. It literally took me five seconds. Online conversation would be so improved by this one simple trick.
Well, this is why we have all these strong debates.
For me, its rules system is the weak point of D&D. Finally, with 5e, the rules are 'ok', but the selling point of D&D for me is the world, the setting, the lore. The rules are something to be tolerated.
As I've said before, I loved the BG games in spite of the rules, not because of them. AD&D 2e was shit and I truly despise that rules system.
AD&D is 1st edition, not 2nd, and you're spitting on my childhood.
Wasn't second edition also labeled AD&D? As in AD&D 2nd edition?
Also, when someone states an opinion very authoritatively (e.g. X is shit), just imagine they said "I think" before it. There's no need to feel down because of what other people's subjective takes are.
I thought my post was quite clear it's my personal opinion. If not, then I reiterate here: yes I do have very strong negative views of 2e, but they are indeed subjective personal opinion.
And also yes, 2e is AD&D. The "A" for "Advanced" was added going from 1e to 2e.
Well, this is why we have all these strong debates.
For me, its rules system is the weak point of D&D. Finally, with 5e, the rules are 'ok', but the selling point of D&D for me is the world, the setting, the lore. The rules are something to be tolerated.
As I've said before, I loved the BG games in spite of the rules, not because of them. AD&D 2e was shit and I truly despise that rules system.
AD&D is 1st edition, not 2nd, and you're spitting on my childhood.
Sorry. Nothing personal. I love playing fighters, and 2e was shit--to put it honestly--for melee classes and especially fighters. I also hated that you could go through a level up, even multiple level ups, and the only thing that changed for your character was gaining a few HPs. And I thoroughly disliked dual-classing.
And like that my respect from you went from 0, that being neutral, to negative value. There is nothing better than making assumptions about people coming from random guy who just joined tha community and is pretending to have any kind of highground.
True, two first Baldur's Gate games followed one particular story, that being Gorion's ward's. It is also true, however, that only the first game's title has anything to do with story. Sequel was just named Baldur's Gate for, guess, what, marketing. It is easier to convey it being a direct sequel if it's shared a name, even if the title has nothing to do with actual content of the game.
Best quote from Baldur's Gate game for your post:
"Pointing others to their intellectual nothingness, does not seem to me to be the peak of good manners", or any manners at all.
After all your reply, at least its first part, is nothing far from direct personal attack, and pointing fingers on anyone, and anything that is not aligning to your worldview, and is dare enough to posses its own opinion and tastes.
I dare to be skeptical, and it is my law to do so, or you wish to take this law to even talk here, as you stated in your reply ?
I dare to disagree, that BG 3 deserves the number "3" in its tittle. But you say no, its deserves, and if I dare to disagree, that for you, im noting more that low-life, who does not deserve any respect. Then what you will do, spit on me ?
You really wish to take my rights to present my opinion here, JUST BECAUSE IM NEW ?
Or just because i never said anything here before ?
Or just because my opinion is direct opposite of yours ?
Who gives you the rights to decide who can talk, and who can not ?
What will you do when i will stand my ground, you will threaten me, or you will try to track me ?
Tell me, who you are to decide, administrator, politician, law-enforcer, or god himself ?
All this pointing, all this judging, only because i warned people to tone their hype down, until actual game-play will be shown, and current hype is nothing more that a lie (i hope that im wrong, i really hope, but my life experience shows that possibility that its empty lie is quite large), but no, you must attack. Not dispute, but blatantly try to attack and insult.
Good for you, you showed your etiquette, i don't need to say anything more.
WotC gets to decide on that, because they own the license, not you. Being a fan of the previous games does not entitle you to decide what the sequel should or should not be about. WotC can do what they want with their franchise, and what they want is likely new customers, not the old guard. (who, ironically also tends to be often anti-Beamdog)
Yeah and so this is a transparent cash in that doesn't respect us, doesn't respect the original material, and will go out of its way to probably ruin it in no uncertain terms, to chase people who never had any passion for what the term "Baldur's Gate 3" means, because, well, its business.
I understand this, I see it all the time, it's not controversial, its nothing new.
People who defend these companies for chasing money without regard to quality and disrespecting all prior fans and legacies is kind of a new thing though, and I have to say its a worrying trend, and I really have nothing to say to you that would be very nice but I will say no one here is going to care about that argument as if it was any shield of criticism.
@chimaera "It's difficult to misinterpret direct statements like that:
" Stop lying to all your potential customers and stop marketing it as the next game in the saga.""
Its almost like I'm saying that they should change the name, not the story.
"
WotC gets to decide on that, because they own the license, not you. Being a fan of the previous games does not entitle you to decide what the sequel should or should not be about."
Oh yes, how dare I have an opinion. I should just shut up and fall in line with everyone else. Spare me.
"WotC can do what they want with their franchise, and what they want is likely new customers, not the old guard."
If that's true, why does the marketing seem to be targeted directly at old players? What would new customers care about BG3?
(...)
That means it has to be playable with a console controller, and that will influence everything in the game design from the top down. Every AAA game I've played in at least the last 10 years has shown the console influence of its design in the PC version. (...) , much as I would like to, because the PC keyboard controls were so clunky I found the discomfort of control prevented me from getting the least bit immersed into the actual gam
Even Dragon Age Origins? BioWare did right on DA:O, only dumbed down the console version controlls and combat depth. About skyrim, try skyui and countless of mods. Skyrim is a bad game but is a good modding sandbox tool.
Dragon Age Origins was originally intended for PC.
@Rohen It does make me laugh when people say stuff like this. Larian have not once mislead anyone so far. Pretty much from the start we have been told it will be an original story based around Baldur’s Gate.
They have confirmed characters from the previous games will appear. It's a tenuous connection, but a connection nonetheless. Connections are heavily implied. The very title, especially its lack of a subtitle, is generating the massive amounts of sometimes baseless speculation we are seeing. Titles may change however, and I do believe the EE's have generated enough renewed interest for Larian to add the "3", at least for now. Is it a good/justified move? I can't answer that question without more information. It definitely is generating publicity, and that may be all there is to it.
(...)
WotC gets to decide on that, because they own the license, not you. Being a fan of the previous games does not entitle you to decide what the sequel should or should not be about. WotC can do what they want with their franchise, and what they want is likely new customers, not the old guard. (who, ironically also tends to be often anti-Beamdog)
Sure, but fans can show dissatisfaction. And note, WotC tried to turn D&D into an generic mmo-like game with 4e and failed miserably. SCL, tried to do the same in a computer style.
If WotC wanna make BG3 into an fortnite style battle royale, they can and we can say that is an awful idea.
As I've said before, I loved the BG games in spite of the rules, not because of them. AD&D 2e was shit and I truly despise that rules system.
Sorry, that's crazy. OD&D had Greyhawk, a high-magic western medieval-ish campaign world. BECMI came along and gave us the Known World, a middle/high-magic western medieval-ish campaign world. AD&D came along and gave us the Forgotten Realms... a high-magic western medieval-ish campaign setting. (Greyhawk and Faerun are so interchangeable that BG2 filled out its ranks of magical artifacts with items from Greyhawk!) Oh right, and Dragonlance, which was a western medieva- eh, you get it right?
Then came 2nd Edition, and with it a flowering of wildly imaginative campaigns. In addition to settings touching on other cultures (Al Qadim, Dark Sun), there was also properly genius stuff like Ravenloft and Planescape. Not to mention Spelljammer, Masque of the Red Death, the Creative Campaigning book, and the Green Book series.
2E was an idea factory, and the ruleset proved adaptable to a large variety of those different ideas. Was it coincidence? Maybe. Could other editions have been equally adaptable? Debatable. Were there more 2E sourcebooks than actual people playing D&D at the time? Yes. But that doesn't matter. It was awesome, and now that we've established it was awesome let's please close the thread, no need to discuss it further.
Then came 3rd edition and it's associated D20 system and Holy Heck! did the creativity explode. I was working in a bookstore around the time 3.5 ed came out, and the amount of new RPGs coming out was just mind-boggling. Just about every genre and setting you can think of had a go. Of course, most of them never gathered a following, but those were the days...
It never ceases to amaze me how much some people assume based on so little. You know nothing, John Doe.. so why not just wait for more info before you work yourselves into an uncontrollable barbarian rage á la Minsc? The few tidbits of info dropped so far is hardly enough to warrant such outcry about "disrespect", "destroying the legacy" and whatever.
It never ceases to amaze me how much some people assume based on so little. You know nothing, John Doe.. so why not just wait for more info before you work yourselves into an uncontrollable barbarian rage á la Minsc? The few tidbits of info dropped so far is hardly enough to warrant such outcry about "disrespect", "destroying the legacy" and whatever.
It never ceases to amaze me how much some people assume based on so little. You know nothing, John Doe.. so why not just wait for more info before you work yourselves into an uncontrollable barbarian rage á la Minsc? The few tidbits of info dropped so far is hardly enough to warrant such outcry about "disrespect", "destroying the legacy" and whatever.
We all know by now that BG III is either divine revelation or the apocalypse... and both sides already have schisms. Funny hats and fancy robes for everyone, rejoice!
On a more serious note I think it's not a surprise that even mentioning the possibility of BG III would be polarizing. Until actual information comes out everything from the logo appearance to anything said by a developer will be interpreted a thousand different ways. And everyone will be sure they are right until further info is given.
I don't think there will be any "disrespect"/"destroying the legacy" if they create a DnD RPG based on the 5E according to their understanding of DnD rules and WotC feedback. This game might turn out to be very different from BG 1&2, but it won't stop being a DnD RPG just because of it. If they manage to live up to the glory of BG 1&2 in terms of stories, companions, adventure - this will be truly BGIII in my eyes. It doesn't need to use mechanics from old DnD games, be it BG or NWN.
Then came 3rd edition and it's associated D20 system and Holy Heck! did the creativity explode. I was working in a bookstore around the time 3.5 ed came out, and the amount of new RPGs coming out was just mind-boggling. Just about every genre and setting you can think of had a go. Of course, most of them never gathered a following, but those were the days...
I'm still kinda hoping for, one day, something like Urban Arcana.
If I had to bet for something, I'd bet a lot that WotC got interested in having a new DnD platform based on the success (from what I heard people say, at least...) of the DM mode in D:OS2.
Perhaps they saw that and thought "We need that!" and they approached Larian with the idea of making a game based on DnD rules that have that integrated in it... I mean, I'm a DnD noob and as soon as I saw that, I thought "How's there's no DnD game that has that!"
Perhaps even if the game as a single player game is not up to standards for BG1 & 2, it could stand up as a MP platform for years to come.
I've watched one of the WotC people say in videos from ~year ago that they were interested in taking opportunity of the new social mediums available to them to expand DnD into... (I dont have a link now, but IIRC it was in an interview/conference I watched on Matt Colville Youtube channel... I hope I remember correctly.)
EDIT: lots of typos.. a.k.a brain moves faster that hands can type
It never could be in the first place:
1) If it's old school isometric, then it belongs in past millennia.
2) If it's top view with free camera, then it has bad controls.
3) If it's third-person, then it is for action gameplay.
So, does it really matter what they choose to call it.
Many franchises had changed significantly at some point(s). How many of us who played MM6-9 had also played MM1-5? Certainly not me.
But if they abandon the guaranteed to fail clinging to the past, they have at least a chance to produce something of its own value.
Well, this is why we have all these strong debates.
For me, its rules system is the weak point of D&D. Finally, with 5e, the rules are 'ok', but the selling point of D&D for me is the world, the setting, the lore. The rules are something to be tolerated.
As I've said before, I loved the BG games in spite of the rules, not because of them. AD&D 2e was shit and I truly despise that rules system.
AD&D is 1st edition, not 2nd, and you're spitting on my childhood.
I think AD&D was 2nd ed. I have 1st edition rule books and they say nothing about AD&D on them, unlike the 2E books.
The original game was Dungeons & Dragons, in small soft cover booklets. The first hardcovers were Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. This is usually what is meant by the term "First Edition". The second edition still used the name Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. They dropped the "Advanced" from the 3rd edition onward.
The original game was Dungeons & Dragons, in small soft cover booklets. The first hardcovers were Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. This is usually what is meant by the term "First Edition". The second edition still used the name Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. They dropped the "Advanced" from the 3rd edition onward.
For example, you could tell by the implementation of the Ranger class. In 1st Edition they could cast both mage and druid spells. He could also cast the mage spells in armor. They also got their extra attacks a bit later and started with two hit dice at Level 1. Finally, in 1st edition the Ranger got attack boni vs all giant class creatures.
Comments
Yep, the lack of information is precisely a legitimate and viable reason to be skeptical.
IMO is. The closest thing to BG/IWD that an modern cRPG archived. And only for sorcerers, there are DOZENS of bloodlines to choose.
And the little info that we have don't make us much "hopeful" either...
That's not what I was saying. So you either didn't even read the comments you seem to take issue with, or you are actively trying to misrepresent what I've said.
AD&D is 1st edition, not 2nd, and you're spitting on my childhood.
Wasn't second edition also labeled AD&D? As in AD&D 2nd edition?
Also, when someone states an opinion very authoritatively (e.g. X is shit), just imagine they said "I think" before it. There's no need to feel down because of what other people's subjective takes are.
You're correct. I swear, I wish people would just take a second to double check via Google or Wikipedia. It literally took me five seconds. Online conversation would be so improved by this one simple trick.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editions_of_Dungeons_&_Dragons
I thought my post was quite clear it's my personal opinion. If not, then I reiterate here: yes I do have very strong negative views of 2e, but they are indeed subjective personal opinion.
And also yes, 2e is AD&D. The "A" for "Advanced" was added going from 1e to 2e.
Sorry. Nothing personal. I love playing fighters, and 2e was shit--to put it honestly--for melee classes and especially fighters. I also hated that you could go through a level up, even multiple level ups, and the only thing that changed for your character was gaining a few HPs. And I thoroughly disliked dual-classing.
Best quote from Baldur's Gate game for your post:
"Pointing others to their intellectual nothingness, does not seem to me to be the peak of good manners", or any manners at all.
After all your reply, at least its first part, is nothing far from direct personal attack, and pointing fingers on anyone, and anything that is not aligning to your worldview, and is dare enough to posses its own opinion and tastes.
I dare to be skeptical, and it is my law to do so, or you wish to take this law to even talk here, as you stated in your reply ?
I dare to disagree, that BG 3 deserves the number "3" in its tittle. But you say no, its deserves, and if I dare to disagree, that for you, im noting more that low-life, who does not deserve any respect. Then what you will do, spit on me ?
You really wish to take my rights to present my opinion here, JUST BECAUSE IM NEW ?
Or just because i never said anything here before ?
Or just because my opinion is direct opposite of yours ?
Who gives you the rights to decide who can talk, and who can not ?
What will you do when i will stand my ground, you will threaten me, or you will try to track me ?
Tell me, who you are to decide, administrator, politician, law-enforcer, or god himself ?
All this pointing, all this judging, only because i warned people to tone their hype down, until actual game-play will be shown, and current hype is nothing more that a lie (i hope that im wrong, i really hope, but my life experience shows that possibility that its empty lie is quite large), but no, you must attack. Not dispute, but blatantly try to attack and insult.
Good for you, you showed your etiquette, i don't need to say anything more.
Sadly that is what most optimist on this topic try to do so. Sigh.
Yeah and so this is a transparent cash in that doesn't respect us, doesn't respect the original material, and will go out of its way to probably ruin it in no uncertain terms, to chase people who never had any passion for what the term "Baldur's Gate 3" means, because, well, its business.
I understand this, I see it all the time, it's not controversial, its nothing new.
People who defend these companies for chasing money without regard to quality and disrespecting all prior fans and legacies is kind of a new thing though, and I have to say its a worrying trend, and I really have nothing to say to you that would be very nice but I will say no one here is going to care about that argument as if it was any shield of criticism.
" Stop lying to all your potential customers and stop marketing it as the next game in the saga.""
Its almost like I'm saying that they should change the name, not the story.
"
WotC gets to decide on that, because they own the license, not you. Being a fan of the previous games does not entitle you to decide what the sequel should or should not be about."
Oh yes, how dare I have an opinion. I should just shut up and fall in line with everyone else. Spare me.
"WotC can do what they want with their franchise, and what they want is likely new customers, not the old guard."
If that's true, why does the marketing seem to be targeted directly at old players? What would new customers care about BG3?
Dragon Age Origins was originally intended for PC.
They have confirmed characters from the previous games will appear. It's a tenuous connection, but a connection nonetheless. Connections are heavily implied. The very title, especially its lack of a subtitle, is generating the massive amounts of sometimes baseless speculation we are seeing. Titles may change however, and I do believe the EE's have generated enough renewed interest for Larian to add the "3", at least for now. Is it a good/justified move? I can't answer that question without more information. It definitely is generating publicity, and that may be all there is to it.
Sure, but fans can show dissatisfaction. And note, WotC tried to turn D&D into an generic mmo-like game with 4e and failed miserably. SCL, tried to do the same in a computer style.
If WotC wanna make BG3 into an fortnite style battle royale, they can and we can say that is an awful idea.
Then came 3rd edition and it's associated D20 system and Holy Heck! did the creativity explode. I was working in a bookstore around the time 3.5 ed came out, and the amount of new RPGs coming out was just mind-boggling. Just about every genre and setting you can think of had a go. Of course, most of them never gathered a following, but those were the days...
Is not "so little"
Is he saying that D&D leveling doesn't work on a video game(despite having worked properly in "N" games and that Missing not work on video games too(despite worked in "N" games) and when people ask him, he ignores...
We all know by now that BG III is either divine revelation or the apocalypse... and both sides already have schisms. Funny hats and fancy robes for everyone, rejoice!
On a more serious note I think it's not a surprise that even mentioning the possibility of BG III would be polarizing. Until actual information comes out everything from the logo appearance to anything said by a developer will be interpreted a thousand different ways. And everyone will be sure they are right until further info is given.
You are correct that it will be a D&D game. It just won't be a Baldur's Gate game.
I'm still kinda hoping for, one day, something like Urban Arcana.
Perhaps they saw that and thought "We need that!" and they approached Larian with the idea of making a game based on DnD rules that have that integrated in it... I mean, I'm a DnD noob and as soon as I saw that, I thought "How's there's no DnD game that has that!"
Perhaps even if the game as a single player game is not up to standards for BG1 & 2, it could stand up as a MP platform for years to come.
I've watched one of the WotC people say in videos from ~year ago that they were interested in taking opportunity of the new social mediums available to them to expand DnD into... (I dont have a link now, but IIRC it was in an interview/conference I watched on Matt Colville Youtube channel... I hope I remember correctly.)
EDIT: lots of typos.. a.k.a brain moves faster that hands can type
1) If it's old school isometric, then it belongs in past millennia.
2) If it's top view with free camera, then it has bad controls.
3) If it's third-person, then it is for action gameplay.
So, does it really matter what they choose to call it.
Many franchises had changed significantly at some point(s). How many of us who played MM6-9 had also played MM1-5? Certainly not me.
But if they abandon the guaranteed to fail clinging to the past, they have at least a chance to produce something of its own value.
Yes, exactly.
Goldbox games: AD&D 1st Edition.
Baldur's Gate: AD&D 2nd Edition.
For example, you could tell by the implementation of the Ranger class. In 1st Edition they could cast both mage and druid spells. He could also cast the mage spells in armor. They also got their extra attacks a bit later and started with two hit dice at Level 1. Finally, in 1st edition the Ranger got attack boni vs all giant class creatures.