Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

Dark Dreams of Furiae - a new module for NWN:EE! Buy now
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

Baldurs gate 3 thoughts?

2

Comments

  • lroumenlroumen Member Posts: 2,285
    edited August 2019
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    lroumen wrote: »
    Blame mibg, not bg3.

    No, I'm gonna blame "BG3". It was a conscious decision to give the awful novel and P&P version of the events precedence over the actual games its nominally a sequel to.
    Even if the novel protagonist was called Dude McCoolFace that was awesome in every way, Murder in Baldurs Gate kills him off to either random adventurers or a random Bhaalspawn with an allergy for bravery. I played so many protagonists in bg1/2 that an Abdel type character for sure went through the roster in the last 20+ years. I don't care that the novels were bad. I am more appalled that mibg made the end so stupid. If the twist was better then I would be fine with it.

    BG3 just uses all of the things that were made canon before it. It does nothing wrong for what we can see currently.

  • WarChiefZekeWarChiefZeke Member Posts: 2,625
    Baldurs Gate 3 must die, for good DnD games to live.

    ThacoBell
  • batoorbatoor Member Posts: 677
    I can see the problem with following the games as canon...i mean it's like making a followup to MotB and together with a an overall D&D continuity to maintain. There isn't going to be a way to please everyone.. but they didn't seem that eager to do research in the first place with making the novels canon.

    It's comparable to what bioware did with Swtor. Where they practically just ignored everything that happened in kotor 2. Whereas kotor 2 was made on the foundations of what made the first game great. I seem to remember avellone saying in an interview he read a ton of star wars EU in preparation for making kotor 2. That's dedication and proper research....now from what I can tell some of the larian devs had just recently played bg2..?

    ThacoBell
  • GyorGyor Member Posts: 31
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    lroumen wrote: »
    Blame mibg, not bg3.

    No, I'm gonna blame "BG3". It was a conscious decision to give the awful novel and P&P version of the events precedence over the actual games its nominally a sequel to.

    @Lemernis "If the mission at hand, the NPCs, the villains, the graphics, the combat, and the grand adventure, etc., of your L1 (to start) character in BG3 is some really great stuff in its own right then that will more than balance out the bitter taste of Gorion's Ward having been Abdel Adrian.
    "

    NOTHING can fix that.

    It was never realistic to expect a continuation of the original character from BG 1, 2, ToB, the character's story was resolved and the video games were never canon, even back in the 1990's it wasn't FR canon, the books were (not sure about the comics).

    And it doesn't really matter, Abdel is already dead, so will only be referred to in the past tense.

    Fallout 1 and 2 did not share a protagonist, and that wasn't a big deal, so I have no problem with new Protagonists for BG 3, in fact I prefer it because my BG character became a God at the end, their plotline is over.

    In the Forgotten Realms its been over 120 years since ToB, they have under gone world shaping and world creating events in that time.

    View it as a new story in a new area that is based in a current Baldur's Gate.

    Much has changed. Since ToB there have been 3 different editions of D&D each super different from each other.

  • DinoDinDinoDin Member Posts: 1,317
    batoor wrote: »
    I can see the problem with following the games as canon...i mean it's like making a followup to MotB and together with a an overall D&D continuity to maintain. There isn't going to be a way to please everyone.. but they didn't seem that eager to do research in the first place with making the novels canon.

    It's comparable to what bioware did with Swtor. Where they practically just ignored everything that happened in kotor 2. Whereas kotor 2 was made on the foundations of what made the first game great. I seem to remember avellone saying in an interview he read a ton of star wars EU in preparation for making kotor 2. That's dedication and proper research....now from what I can tell some of the larian devs had just recently played bg2..?

    Personally, I don't want game developers creating a bunch of reactivity for BG3 based on what we did in the original games. I'm fine with them using some established script and letting our own BG playthroughs exist in some alternate universe. Who cares?

    The experience of playing Pillars of Eternity: Deadfire, showed me, that adding a bunch of flavor reactivity for what you did in the previous game, it doesn't really pay off. It's a bunch labor and quality-assurance testing for the devs that's squandering resources that could be spent on making excellent parts of a game.

    JuliusBorisov
  • BelleSorciereBelleSorciere Member Posts: 2,125
    A decision likely demanded by WotC, not necessarily Larian.

    Gyor
  • GyorGyor Member Posts: 31
    A decision likely demanded by WotC, not necessarily Larian.

    That is true too, Nathan Stewart made using 5e a condition of anyone getting the license.

    BelleSorciere
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,009
    A decision likely demanded by WotC, not necessarily Larian.

    Nope, nope, nope. Larian stated in an early interview that WotC gave them free reign to basically do whatever they want. I will NOT let people deflect any responsibility for how this turns out away from Larian.

    WarChiefZekeKamigoroshikanisatha
  • WarChiefZekeWarChiefZeke Member Posts: 2,625
    That just makes me even more disappointed to hear. If they gave them freedom they had the potential to do something really great. Instead we get this insult.

    kanisathaThacoBell
  • JuliusBorisovJuliusBorisov Member, Administrator, Moderator, Developer Posts: 21,613
    Sorry, what exactly is an insult in this context, when all we have is a few interviews without any gameplay information?

  • WarChiefZekeWarChiefZeke Member Posts: 2,625
    In this context, choosing to use a canon that virtually nobody likes and invalidates the entire series it is based on and the one we all know and love. Nothing in their short interviews gives me any hope they will redeem themselves via gameplay or story, either.

    megamike15KamigoroshiThacoBell
  • JuliusBorisovJuliusBorisov Member, Administrator, Moderator, Developer Posts: 21,613
    I find it quite harsh. They had no choice other than to use the official lore and stories, and their own story in the game can be majorly unaffected by the novels "that virtually nobody likes". What will mean more (in terms of what BG3 will be), IMHO, is Larian's ability for storytelling and excellent gameplay, which I enjoyed greatly from their previous games.

  • lroumenlroumen Member Posts: 2,285
    They may be too focused on the potential for a tie-in they do not like, that they forget to keep an open mind to the remainder of the project.

  • LemernisLemernis Member, Moderator Posts: 4,302
    I've recently been enjoying some YT videos reacquainting myself with the ancient Greco-Roman philosophy of stoicism (Marcus Aurelius) and alongside it the notion of solipsism. It's an interesting parallel to this discussion, honestly.

    I just hope that enough fans of the franchise, and new players discovering it for the first time, will be able to enjoy BG3 for what it offers--in some sense independently of whatever each one of us individually wishes for it to be. Because there's no way they can satisfy everyone. Everyone has their own personal concept of what they feel would be ideal, what will make them happy or disappointed, etc.

    JuliusBorisov
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,009
    I find it quite harsh. They had no choice other than to use the official lore and stories, and their own story in the game can be majorly unaffected by the novels "that virtually nobody likes". What will mean more (in terms of what BG3 will be), IMHO, is Larian's ability for storytelling and excellent gameplay, which I enjoyed greatly from their previous games.

    Larian has explcitly stated that they were given almost complete freedom from WotC, and that if the games fails, its is their fault and their fault alone. The buck will not be passed. Larian is wholly and entirely responsible for whatever comes out.
    lroumen wrote: »
    They may be too focused on the potential for a tie-in they do not like, that they forget to keep an open mind to the remainder of the project.

    I don't care what the rest of the game is like. Its already a failure conceptually. Story is PARAMOUNT in an rpg.

  • BelleSorciereBelleSorciere Member Posts: 2,125
    edited August 2019
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    A decision likely demanded by WotC, not necessarily Larian.

    Nope, nope, nope. Larian stated in an early interview that WotC gave them free reign to basically do whatever they want. I will NOT let people deflect any responsibility for how this turns out away from Larian.

    Have you ever done creative work for an IP not owned by the people you're working for? Because let me tell you from personal experience... there's never full free reign. Larian can do whatever they want, but if they're not required to use WotC's canon for the Forgotten Realms as the backdrop and history, and they're not required to use 5e for the rules, that would be fairly unprecedented. WotC will still have final approval.

    JuliusBorisovmlnevese
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,009
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    A decision likely demanded by WotC, not necessarily Larian.

    Nope, nope, nope. Larian stated in an early interview that WotC gave them free reign to basically do whatever they want. I will NOT let people deflect any responsibility for how this turns out away from Larian.

    Have you ever done creative work for an IP not owned by the people you're working for? Because let me tell you from personal experience... there's never full free reign. Larian can do whatever they want, but if they're not required to use WotC's canon for the Forgotten Realms as the backdrop and history, and they're not required to use 5e for the rules, that would be fairly unprecedented. WotC will still have final approval.

    Larian made the claim themselves. Unless, of course, you want to make the argument that you can't trust what they say...

  • KuronaKurona Member Posts: 881
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    I don't care what the rest of the game is like. Its already a failure conceptually. Story is PARAMOUNT in an rpg.
    Even if that opinion was an actual fact (which it isn't) we don't even know what the story is. We just know that mind flayers are involved and that some time in the past an idiot named Abdel Adrian lived.
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    Larian made the claim themselves. Unless, of course, you want to make the argument that you can't trust what they say...
    And now you're building a strawman just to shit on Larian.

    We get it - Larian bad, MiBG bad, BG good. It's not like you failed to convey this sentiment in the fifty posts or so you've already made on the subject.

  • lroumenlroumen Member Posts: 2,285
    edited August 2019
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    lroumen wrote: »
    They may be too focused on the potential for a tie-in they do not like, that they forget to keep an open mind to the remainder of the project.

    I don't care what the rest of the game is like. Its already a failure conceptually. Story is PARAMOUNT in an rpg.
    Then I suggest to stop feeding your allergy of your interpretation of what Larian will create and start ignoring bg3. You have no influence on it whatsoever. Verify your claims after it comes out with people who have already played it, then decide whether you still want to.
    The game still takes many months to be built. That is a much too long time frame to be angry. For yourself, please don't.

  • BelleSorciereBelleSorciere Member Posts: 2,125
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    A decision likely demanded by WotC, not necessarily Larian.

    Nope, nope, nope. Larian stated in an early interview that WotC gave them free reign to basically do whatever they want. I will NOT let people deflect any responsibility for how this turns out away from Larian.

    Have you ever done creative work for an IP not owned by the people you're working for? Because let me tell you from personal experience... there's never full free reign. Larian can do whatever they want, but if they're not required to use WotC's canon for the Forgotten Realms as the backdrop and history, and they're not required to use 5e for the rules, that would be fairly unprecedented. WotC will still have final approval.

    Larian made the claim themselves. Unless, of course, you want to make the argument that you can't trust what they say...

    Have you ever done creative work for an IP not owned by the people you're working for? I repeat this because you didn't answer. I've worked on three. There's always an upper limit to the creative freedom they grant you. There are always boundaries you can't cross without problems ensuing. We already know how WotC handles licensing the D&D and Forgotten Realms IP, given that there are multiple games in this setting going back to the early 90s. Larian has free rein to do the story they want to do, but they very likely do not have free rein to pick the canon they want.

    Anyway, mentions of Abdel Adrian in the dialogue won't ruin the game. We likely won't have to deal with direct references to the events of the novels in ways that will define BG3's plot.

    JuliusBorisovLemernisSkatan
  • ZaxaresZaxares Member Posts: 1,215
    Anyway, mentions of Abdel Adrian in the dialogue won't ruin the game. We likely won't have to deal with direct references to the events of the novels in ways that will define BG3's plot.

    That's likely true. Still, I hope that Larian will either allow the player to tweak the story of Gorion's Ward to more closely suit the choices we made in the previous two games, or keep the events of the Bhaalspawn saga vague enough that it really doesn't make a difference (probably the easier option, especially given the fact that they took place over a century ago). Either way would be fine with me.

  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,009
    edited August 2019
    Kurona wrote: »
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    I don't care what the rest of the game is like. Its already a failure conceptually. Story is PARAMOUNT in an rpg.
    Even if that opinion was an actual fact (which it isn't) we don't even know what the story is. We just know that mind flayers are involved and that some time in the past an idiot named Abdel Adrian lived.
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    Larian made the claim themselves. Unless, of course, you want to make the argument that you can't trust what they say...
    And now you're building a strawman just to shit on Larian.

    We get it - Larian bad, MiBG bad, BG good. It's not like you failed to convey this sentiment in the fifty posts or so you've already made on the subject.

    Oh yeah, but fifty posts praising Larian and refusing to entertain any criticism of them is just fine. Criticism is bad, grr!

    @BelleSorciere Its telling that when Larian first said how they were given all this freedom, and that they would personally accept all the blame as well as all the praise for the game, people in thread praised them for being honest and responsible. But since it was confirmed that the novels are canon, and the Bhaalspawn is gonna have a single concrete backstory, SUDDENLY everyone is all, "Oh, it must be WotC's fault." Everything that gets criticized about this game starts as "Oh you don't know that. I trust Larian to do better." Then when its confirmed, it changes to, "So what? Its not actually a problem now, in fact, I like this idea now that I can't deny it will happen." Its just constant moving of goalpoasts. First it was RTwP vs. TB, then its was novel canon, and now WotC vs. Larian responsibility. As much as people excited for the game complain about those of us who are skeptical, at least we are consistent about it. Our complaints haven't changed. But apparently the context in which we should be allowed to voice our opinion does.

  • KuronaKurona Member Posts: 881
    edited August 2019
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    Oh yeah, but fifty posts praising Larian and refusing to entertain any criticism of them is just fine. Criticism is bad, grr!
    No. Want to know what's bad?

    1. Repeating your same opinion ad libitum
    2. Presenting it as fact
    3. Being unnecessarily aggressive with everyone you disagree with

    You score 3/3 on this front. And you do this in so many threads you're one of the main reasons this site has become so unpleasant to peruse as of late.

    Calm the fuck down. Baldur's Gate is neither a piece of high literature nor a marvel of game design. There's no need to defend its honor with such vehemence.

    Lotti
  • megamike15megamike15 Member Posts: 2,610
    people praise larian to much. before dos they were nobody no one knew they existed. but because they made a game that was very popular they are the end all be all of rpg devs when i don't think they deserve it.

    ThacoBell
  • JuliusBorisovJuliusBorisov Member, Administrator, Moderator, Developer Posts: 21,613
    edited August 2019
    I like their games and praise the company. There's nothing bad in that.

    D:OS and D:OS 2 are not just "one" random game. We are talking about approximately 6 years of game development. The situation is close to Obsidian creating PoE and PoE 2. So the developers deserve the feedback, either good, or neutral, or bad. Larian "won" the Kickstarter era of classic RPGs, and they exist since late 1990-s.

    But on this forum, people don't praise them much. This subforum activity nearly stopped because of all the negative comments.

    And very often, the negative comments are based not on the experience of playing the previous games but just on the interviews or marketing. I appreciate all those who played D:OS 1 or 2 and share their opinions, even if negative.

    But I just can't agree with non-stopping comments about the game using the title wrongly, using the wrong engine, using wrong references to DnD, as well as comments about the gameplay before this gameplay has been shown.

    Post edited by JuliusBorisov on
    SkatanDinoDin
  • BelleSorciereBelleSorciere Member Posts: 2,125
    edited August 2019
    I think criticism is fine, and responding to the criticism and disagreeing with it doesn't prevent anyone from making any criticism, but I think it's premature to predict doom and gloom for BG3 because they're going to have a name for the Bhaalspawn.

    JuliusBorisov
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,009
    @Kurona You certainly fit all of your criteria. I've never attacked another person in this thread, and provided reasons for all of my feelings. Meanwhile the entire content of your last two comments was telling me to stop sharing my opinion and now a direct personal attack on me. Why don't you calm down instead?
    I think criticism is fine, and responding to the criticism and disagreeing with it doesn't prevent anyone from making any criticism, but I think it's premature to predict doom and gloom for BG3 because they're going to have a name for the Bhaalspawn.

    I was onboard with the first half of your comment. Then you resorted to cherry picking. I've provided multiple reasons as to why I have beef with Larian's production. But go ahead and pick just a single example to make your argument look better.

  • kanisathakanisatha Member Posts: 1,210
    I like their games and praise the company. There's nothing bad in that.

    D:OS and D:OS 2 are not just "one" random game. We are talking about approximately 6 years of game development. The situation is close to Obsidian creating PoE and PoE 2. So the developers deserve the feedback, either good, or neutral, or bad. Larian "won" the Kickstarter era of classic RPGs, and they exist since late 1990-s.

    But on this forum, people don't praise them much. This subforum activity nearly stopped because of all the negative comments.

    And very often, the negative comments are based not on the experience of playing the previous games but just on the interviews or marketing. I appreciate all those who played D:OS 1 or 2 and share their opinions, even if negative.

    But I just can't agree with non-stopping comments about the game using the title wrongly, using the wrong engine, using wrong references to DnD, as well as comments about the gameplay before this gameplay has been shown.

    Well I disagree, @JuliusBorisov. I have cut back my posting in this subforum because I find it to be extremely hostile to and abusive of anyone who dares to have a negative view of either BG3 or Larian.

    Oh and btw, my criticism of D:OS comes from having wasted hundreds of hours of my time playing that game.

    KamigoroshiThacoBell
  • DinoDinDinoDin Member Posts: 1,317
    edited August 2019
    kanisatha wrote: »
    I like their games and praise the company. There's nothing bad in that.

    D:OS and D:OS 2 are not just "one" random game. We are talking about approximately 6 years of game development. The situation is close to Obsidian creating PoE and PoE 2. So the developers deserve the feedback, either good, or neutral, or bad. Larian "won" the Kickstarter era of classic RPGs, and they exist since late 1990-s.

    But on this forum, people don't praise them much. This subforum activity nearly stopped because of all the negative comments.

    And very often, the negative comments are based not on the experience of playing the previous games but just on the interviews or marketing. I appreciate all those who played D:OS 1 or 2 and share their opinions, even if negative.

    But I just can't agree with non-stopping comments about the game using the title wrongly, using the wrong engine, using wrong references to DnD, as well as comments about the gameplay before this gameplay has been shown.

    Well I disagree, @JuliusBorisov. I have cut back my posting in this subforum because I find it to be extremely hostile to and abusive of anyone who dares to have a negative view of either BG3 or Larian.

    Oh and btw, my criticism of D:OS comes from having wasted hundreds of hours of my time playing that game.

    I guess I just can't get how people can have a "negative view" of a game that hasn't come out, where we haven't so much as seen gameplay yet. And I think that's why some critics are getting a lot of pushback. There's definitely been several posts here already writing the game off as a failure based on, to me, faith alone. I don't think anyone else on this forum has special insight into BG3 that I don't, so I don't see how anyone can judge the game before there's any evidence out.

    Heck, even the debate about including the Abdel Adrian canon or whatever about the original saga seems premature. All we have is a vague confirmation of this fact. But what it means for what's going to be written into the game itself? We have no idea as of yet.

    Me personally, I think alot of people are clinging on to the tiny scraps of information they have and using them as pretext to hurl a bunch of invective about. And I suspect I'm not alone in that suspicion.

    I have plenty of criticisms of OS1. I've yet to play 2, but will buy it. OS1 has a crappy UI for being such a modern game, especially a game that expects you to do quite a bit of inventory management. The combat system isn't the game's strong point, imo. As well the written dialogue needed a good editor. It's full of unnecessary and uninteresting redundancy. But the engine and the way the basics of the game work are gorgeous, imo. Moving through the world and exploring all the little bits of the world is deeply rewarding in a way that's just not quite the case in PoE or PfK. The engine and world mean designers had a rich toolset to design dungeons, puzzles, and other interesting experiences that weren't just combat or dialogue. And since they can all take place within the core experience of the game, not as separate minigames, it adds a great immersive quality.

    Edit to add: And since that engine is the *one* thing we know will be imported into BG3, it gives me super high hopes for the game.

    JuliusBorisovBelleSorciere
Sign In or Register to comment.