@JuliusBorisov Couldn't possibly disagree more with that interview you quoted. The same kind of talk didn't persuaded me back when D:OS1 released. Nor when they reused their interview skript when D:OS2 launched. And BG is RTwP, no matter the TTRPG it originated from.
If anything that rehashed talk makes me more critical of turn-based.
The "messiness" of real time combat adds excitement and cinematic realism to the game only a video game can have.
I have a really hard time accepting that they change BG so fundamentally. If the lead designer only likes turn based games, it probably was the wrong lead designer for Baldur's Gate.
Only by not having dialog wheels, cooldowns and spells/unarmed attacks scaling with weapon like most mainstream modern games like D3 and DA:I makes this game worth playing.
On G2 - REturning, a vendor even asks why you need a weapon if you are a necromancer
I din't played dos2 much but if i remember correctly at least dos2 din't had cooldowns.
Other thing that i liked is that seems like vampire spawn(At least the rogue that Sween played) will be in the game. Anyone knows if i can be a vampire on BG3?
I tried to install vampirism mods for BG1/2 but din't worked?
I'm not sure if the lore is very strong about this. But my understanding is that a vampire spawn has a vampire for a master. But if that master were to be destroyed the spawn could become a vampire themselves.
Edit: Looks like they have to draw the blood of their master to become a vampire.
"You changed some stuff. Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 had "real-time with pause" combat, you've gone turn-based. The camera is that sort of third-person-isometric hybrid...
Walgrave: It's 2020!
Is that basically the reason why - you felt you needed to modernise it?
Walgrave: So, I think that in spirit it's still the successor of Baldur's Gate 1 and 2. Because there are so many things that people who did play and like Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 will still recognise in the new one. It's still about your party. It's still about big personalities clashing with each other and relationships. It's still a party-based game, you still need to do combat, you will recognise a lot of D&D rules - even if you haven't played D&D in 20 years. You will still recognise all the spells, et cetera.
So, to me it's a true sequel, but we are bringing it into the 21st century by saying, "Look, it's glorious 3D. It has really nice cinematics. We're taking it further with systemics, we applied the 'Larian philosophy', which is like, oodles of content and hidden features and hidden stuff everywhere." So to me it's a good sequel.
The choices that we made are ours. Why did we go for turn-based instead of real-time with pause? Because D&D to us is a turn-based game and we're really good - or we have become really good - with turn-based combat. So that, I think, is one of our strengths, and trying out real-time with pause for now, just because the originals were that? It's a big risk. Because the team would have to think completely differently, our combat would be completely different. And we didn't really feel good about that. Normally we do try out a lot. Normally we try out a lot before we make a decision, but with real-time with pause and turn-based we didn't, we just said "Okay it's just gonna be turn-based."
I don't mind TB combat in this game per se to be honest but I'm much more critical of art style, writing quality and my personal quirk - overall sound design. To much CRPG's in recent years had bland characters with monotonous voices. BG3 doesn't looks exceptional in this regard either.
Sigh, where are those people who directed voice actors for Badur's Gate, KOTOR, Mass Effect series...
Among other details, it talks about how fast level progression will be felt in-game, how Larian Studios approached Disco Elysium developers on how to make failing a roll fun (so that you don't save-scum), how verticality in BG3 will differ from D:OS 2.
In the past i ranted here against Larian by not liking some mechanics but now i realize that they did a amazing job reviving the turn based mod. IF wasn't by LArian, PoE2 would't probably receive a turn based module nor "PFKM2"
One of the things I find striking about the whole "style" argument is how many people feel PoE was somehow stylistically very similar to the BG franchise. I never felt remotely like I was playing either BG or a spiritual successor to BG when I was playing PoE. It was just another one of the many IE-esque games that came out.
It felt like its own thing. It was okay-ish, but definitely not BG.
If anything, I'd put forward that simply by being on a D&D ruleset, BG3 is more like the previous BG games than PoE.
Among other details, it talks about how fast level progression will be felt in-game, how Larian Studios approached Disco Elysium developers on how to make failing a roll fun (so that you don't save-scum), how verticality in BG3 will differ from D:OS 2.
Nice video; i only wanna add to 2:16 that NWN1/NWN2 are MP games and RtWP. You just remove "pause" in MP...
Honestly I think a really important thing that gets missed is enemy variety (and not just the variety of the enemies but how they fight you). This is one of the biggest weaknesses of PST and Pillars of Eternity 1. Enemies were just boring to fight most of the time. In PST's case enemies almost never use any kind of ranged attack and almost always attack with some kind of claw. In PoE's case it just threw a lot of human enemies at you and (outside of those ghosts that teleport behind you) there wasn't a lot of variety.
Contrast that with BG2:SoA. Even in the initial areas there are a bunch of distinctly different enemies you can fight. Once you leave the city it really opens up and you can fight all sorts of things that gives a bit of variety to it.
Among other details, it talks about how fast level progression will be felt in-game, how Larian Studios approached Disco Elysium developers on how to make failing a roll fun (so that you don't save-scum), how verticality in BG3 will differ from D:OS 2.
I hope they take the time to speak to other game companies on writing good character responses.
One of the things I find striking about the whole "style" argument is how many people feel PoE was somehow stylistically very similar to the BG franchise. I never felt remotely like I was playing either BG or a spiritual successor to BG when I was playing PoE. It was just another one of the many IE-esque games that came out.
It felt like its own thing. It was okay-ish, but definitely not BG.
If anything, I'd put forward that simply by being on a D&D ruleset, BG3 is more like the previous BG games than PoE.
PF:KM felt more like BG than PoE. A lot more.
To be clear, I wasn't arguing that PoE has a lot in common with BG. Visually, dialog and characterwise, and storywise they're very different. Gameplaywise they're similar in some ways and different in others. PoE does, however, have more in common with BG than BG3 apparently does, in that it took some inspiration from Baldur's Gate and upholds some of its essential values, while BG3 just looks like a game from a totally different lineage of CRPGs.
The D&D ruleset has changed so much from AD&D 2nd edition that it's not really much of a connection, especially since BG used it in a very different combat system. Not to mention that BG3's apparent lack of dice rolls, percentile chances shown everywhere and the hard-to-miss attacks take it even further away from where BG took it. It's a take on D&D, just like Baldur's Gate was, but a take that goes in an entirely different direction.
Once again, I wouldn't care if they named the game literally anything else. This is conjecture based on my impression of how Wizards does business, but I'm pretty sure Wizards pushed the title "Baldur's Gate 3" on Larian to capitalize on BioWare's legacy. It's clear from their rhetoric that Larian didn't want to make a Baldur's Gate game—they just wanted to make their own D&D game, and honestly, good on them. I just wish they hadn't trod over someone else's legacy in the process.
So let's see, "BG3" looks like DoS2 and DA, but not remotely like BG.
Rtwp is apparently just "messy" and objectively worse than TB?
Yeah, no. Larian has ensured that I never support any product of theirs. They were the wrong company to make BG3, and what we are being given is a straight up insult to the legacy and fans of BG. I am legitimately angry over this.
^Larian is less evil than for eg modern BioWare. If BioWare made BG3, it will be far less faithful than BG2 or TTD&D. Would be probably a neverwinter mmo(not the nwn1/2) with live service p2w lootbox.
Unless they implement DOS2 armor mechancis and huge number inflation scaling with items, or CDs instead of spell slots, the game worth to be played IMO.
One of the things I find striking about the whole "style" argument is how many people feel PoE was somehow stylistically very similar to the BG franchise. I never felt remotely like I was playing either BG or a spiritual successor to BG when I was playing PoE. It was just another one of the many IE-esque games that came out.
It felt like its own thing. It was okay-ish, but definitely not BG.
If anything, I'd put forward that simply by being on a D&D ruleset, BG3 is more like the previous BG games than PoE.
PF:KM felt more like BG than PoE. A lot more.
To be clear, I wasn't arguing that PoE has a lot in common with BG. Visually, dialog and characterwise, and storywise they're very different. Gameplaywise they're similar in some ways and different in others. PoE does, however, have more in common with BG than BG3 apparently does, in that it took some inspiration from Baldur's Gate and upholds some of its essential values, while BG3 just looks like a game from a totally different lineage of CRPGs.
The D&D ruleset has changed so much from AD&D 2nd edition that it's not really much of a connection, especially since BG used it in a very different combat system. Not to mention that BG3's apparent lack of dice rolls, percentile chances shown everywhere and the hard-to-miss attacks take it even further away from where BG took it. It's a take on D&D, just like Baldur's Gate was, but a take that goes in an entirely different direction.
Once again, I wouldn't care if they named the game literally anything else. This is conjecture based on my impression of how Wizards does business, but I'm pretty sure Wizards pushed the title "Baldur's Gate 3" on Larian to capitalize on BioWare's legacy. It's clear from their rhetoric that Larian didn't want to make a Baldur's Gate game—they just wanted to make their own D&D game, and honestly, good on them. I just wish they hadn't trod over someone else's legacy in the process.
Maybe we watched two separate videos? I believe Sven specifically said you could look at the diceroll information if you want. So there are dice rolls.
The percentage change to hit was high a few times, but some of the time it was quite low, lower than 40%. I dont know if you play 5e, but if you do - you'll know that the system expects you to hit far more often than you miss.
Ruleset wise - there is still so, so, so ,so much more in common between 2.5 and 5e than there is between D&D and any other system. The also applies to BG3 being much much closer in ruleset to BG2 than PoE. Be it the classes, Races, stats, savings throws, the way modifiers are counted, the spells themselves, the monsters and the way the monsters interact with the world. I could literally spend 20 minutes on this, but I think you get the idea.
I didnt really respond to your last comment about values because, frankly - those details seem to just be the things you think of when you think of BG2. Those arent "values" per se -atleast, not to me, and they arent something that Larian throws away by not exactly duplicating them. I think I basically just fully reject the premise of your argument. Since both of our positions on this are completely subjective, I'll leave it at that.
Lastly - The idea that simply changing the name making all the difference, to me, is a weird argument that I've never understood. To me, this is essentially equivalent to setting up your own expectations and being upset when something else doesnt meet them. There's really nothing to be done about that. The expectations are arbitrary in that a name and name alone has changed them.
Swen Vicke: “Join us as we return to Baldur’s Gate for the first time in 20 years!”
Hahahahahahahaha, Beamdog just got destroyed.
I thought so too, but after the WORLDWIDEREVEAL I dont' think Beamdog has anything to fear. Doesn't look like Larian is cooking up anything that resembles BG/IWD, so there will still be a market for oldskoole IE-fun I think.
I didnt really respond to your last comment about values because, frankly - those details seem to just be the things you think of when you think of BG2. Those arent "values" per se -atleast, not to me, and they arent something that Larian throws away by not exactly duplicating them. I think I basically just fully reject the premise of your argument. Since both of our positions on this are completely subjective, I'll leave it at that.
Well said. One thing I find weird among the Larian/BG3 critics on here is the failure to recognize that the Original Sin games drew in tabletop gamers. It's a big reason for the relative success of that series when contrasted with other titles like PoE, Wasteland, PF:K.
I dunno what Adul means by "values" of the BG series, and I'd like to see that point cite some specifics, but one thing about BG was that it was clearly designed to also draw in tabletop gamers. Bioware's team later said they very much based it on a combination of tabletop experiences and the RTS games that were popular at the time.
Seems hard to argue that Larian isn't recreating some of that same magic, just minus the RTS inspiration.
I remember when Larian was granted permission to use the license of D&D/BG - and I was very nervous. I own the DOS games - and my wife has completed them (I honestly found myself unable to get into that combat system and stopped playing them, rather quickly). Even though she found some level of enjoyment in them, the idea of replaying them is far from her mind ("No desire to repeat that"). We're huge BG fans - logging thousands of hours into them and still replaying, modding, and talking about them.
Then they made that video about stealing from WotC - and I was like, "Hey, they've got a good attitude and a sense of humor." My hope went up, and I waited... And let the 'Obsidian really deserved this shot' attitude slide from my mind (sorry, Beamdog, I love you folks and what you've done, but Obsidian really hit the mark for me with Pillars).
The cinematic elements are incredible - really, really good. I got chills from watching those bits... and then I saw it...
I'm remaining optimistic, but I really hoped that the development team would contain folks who were PASSIONATE about the original games. Maybe they are, but it does look like Baldur's Gate: Original Sin. Comments deriding RTwP from them do not fill me with warm fuzzies. I do like the turn based option outside of combat - it was neat for stealth abilities. I like being able to throw my boots...
I'm worried that they are going very Divinity with NPCs - overly 'special', power gamer oriented, examples of why I'm still playing OSR games (5e is the first edition I've bought since 2e, I do like it - I just don't run it).
I think the Illithid infection is a nice nod to the originals, in a way - starting off with that 'blessing and a curse' feel.
I will undoubtedly buy the game, but I doubt it will possess me like the original series...
But I'm giving them the chance (whilst still lamenting Obsidian not being 'the ones')
Lastly - The idea that simply changing the name making all the difference, to me, is a weird argument that I've never understood. To me, this is essentially equivalent to setting up your own expectations and being upset when something else doesnt meet them. There's really nothing to be done about that. The expectations are arbitrary in that a name and name alone has changed them.
This is where where you're failing to understand where I'm coming from. For me this is not about expectations, nor what games I like to play. I never expected this game to be like Baldur's Gate, so I'm not disappointed in that regard. I'm perfectly fine with a game not appealing to me.
For me this is about legacy—the legacy of two games that I actually care about and the legacy that Wizards and Larian are doing damage to by stapling it over an unrelated D&D game. What they've done is overrode what people will think of years from now when they hear the Baldur's Gate name. In the zeitgeist of a new generation of people who pay attention to video games it obscures the actual Baldur's Gate games and confuses what they stood for. It eclipses their place in posterity.
All so this game can make more money than it would have made standing on its own merits.
It will probably be a nice D&D game set in FR, which is always great, but like many before me said, it should have been a new series and not BG3. I know it's just an alpha (pre-alpha?) demo, but this doesn't look or feel like a BG game. I hope they will at least make simple adjustments such as adding portraits, changing the ui, changing the map, inventory... to feel more like IE games. Currently it looks exactly like DOS.
And I simply don't get these designers saying that RTwP is ''messy, chaotic'' etc. WTF? Such is life - combat IS messy and chaotic! Iron Mike famously said: ''Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth'' And many military commanders said that when real combat starts, plans go out the window. And RTwP very nicely reflects that reality. Also, even in all the mess and chaos, the pause gives you the ability to always control the battle.
For me, turn based is too slow, structured, methodical, predictable, and ultimately, boring and tedious. Now tell me, who doesn't enjoy blasting 10 kobolds with a fireball in 3 seconds? To me, RTwP is simply more exciting and fun to play. BG series with SCS mod (imo the best mod out there) - I keep replaying it, over and over again, and the combat never gets old.
So yeah, sadly it looks like BG3 will not be liked by many fans of the old games.
Lastly - The idea that simply changing the name making all the difference, to me, is a weird argument that I've never understood. To me, this is essentially equivalent to setting up your own expectations and being upset when something else doesnt meet them. There's really nothing to be done about that. The expectations are arbitrary in that a name and name alone has changed them.
This is where where you're failing to understand where I'm coming from. For me this is not about expectations, nor what games I like to play. I never expected this game to be like Baldur's Gate, so I'm not disappointed in that regard. I'm perfectly fine with a game not appealing to me.
For me this is about legacy—the legacy of two games that I actually care about and the legacy that Wizards and Larian are doing damage to by stapling it over an unrelated D&D game. What they've done is overrode what people will think of years from now when they hear the Baldur's Gate name. In the zeitgeist of a new generation of people who pay attention to video games it obscures the actual Baldur's Gate games and confuses what they stood for. It eclipses their place in posterity.
All so this game can make more money than it would have made standing on its own merits.
I dont want to come across as telling you what you think, but I want to bold your comment in an attempt to show how I'm viewing this.
That looks to me like you've got a series of expectations, based on the legacy of the franchise as applies to you. While it may be the legacy of the game itself, you're the one giving it meaning by assigning an expectation to it. This is why you think the game would be fine if it wasnt BG3. Because it's BG3, you have issues with it, and that seems to be an exploration of the bias of your expectations on your ability to accept the game.
FWIW - this has generally not happened with subsequent media that I can think of. Take the Star Wars saga. There are TONS of people who really really hate the sequels. Does that means the original trilogy is any less beloved? I dont think so. It hasnt eclipsed anything in that regard. If anything, I think it kind of shows that you cannot ruin something by trying to continue you. People will just consume the media they want to consume.
The most cynical view of this (and I dont necessarily think you're saying this, but it just occurred to me) would be the fear that BG3 will be more well liked and received than BG1 and 2, and will "replace" them moving forward when we talk about the franchise. I'd reject that view for two reasons. A) - I dont think doing something better necessarily replaces the value of the former. I'd argue BG2 is much better than BG1, but it hasnt replaced it. B ) - I personally think we should be so lucky as to get a game as great as BG1 or 2, and would never argue against that happening.
As parting thought: I do not think BG3 will be as good as BG1 or BG2. I think that's such a tall mountain that I dont expect any CRPG to climb it in my lifetime. I remain optimistic about those trying, though.
I am so glad that I am part of the group that can’t wait for Baldur’s Gate 3. Watching that live stream and seeing how amazing the work Larian have put in really makes me feel good about the fact that I had faith in them right from the start. The game looks beautiful. I can’t wait until this game releases and is successful because judging from what I’ve seen so far it had potential to be a massive success.
I am so glad that I am part of the group that can’t wait for Baldur’s Gate 3. Watching that live stream and seeing how amazing the work Larian have put in really makes me feel good about the fact that I had faith in them right from the start. The game looks beautiful. I can’t wait until this game releases and is successful because judging from what I’ve seen so far it had potential to be a massive success.
One odd thing that's gotten overlooked, because of all the content discussion. But man what awesome bravery by Vincke to do essentially a no-reload run, improv'd stream for the gameplay launch. For all the people alleging that this is some cynical cash grab or not faithful, I just dunno how you square that with really an unprecedentedly sincere gameplay reveal. Most studios would have cut a video of game play elements, all heavily scripted to show off the game at its best. Vincke just wings it and lets players see the game without filters.
FWIW - this has generally not happened with subsequent media that I can think of. Take the Star Wars saga. There are TONS of people who really really hate the sequels. Does that means the original trilogy is any less beloved? I dont think so. It hasnt eclipsed anything in that regard. If anything, I think it kind of shows that you cannot ruin something by trying to continue you. People will just consume the media they want to consume.
Great example, and well said. If anything the original series has only grown higher in stature. I was about to make a similar point regarding the Ultima series (also a series that saw radical shifts in gameplay btw). Ultima 8 and 9 being pretty awful did nothing to diminish the importance of the 7s and 4 in RPG history.
Also, every game series dies eventually folks. Either titles stop getting made. Or only bad titles get made. That's life. And games aren't quite like painting or music or other art, it's pretty rare for younger generations to take up past titles, especially any kind of complex game. Certain Ultima titles are absolute classics, but I don't expect anyone under 30 to enjoy playing them. And so when a series does die, its fate is to slip further and further into obscurity, generally speaking.
ultima 7 has aged abit better then the rest of them but i do agree somewhat.
it also does not help that most crpg fans tent to ignore anything before fallout 1 so to them crpgs as a genre to them and how they know them did not start until 97.
Comments
If anything that rehashed talk makes me more critical of turn-based.
I have a really hard time accepting that they change BG so fundamentally. If the lead designer only likes turn based games, it probably was the wrong lead designer for Baldur's Gate.
On G2 - REturning, a vendor even asks why you need a weapon if you are a necromancer
I din't played dos2 much but if i remember correctly at least dos2 din't had cooldowns.
Other thing that i liked is that seems like vampire spawn(At least the rogue that Sween played) will be in the game. Anyone knows if i can be a vampire on BG3?
I tried to install vampirism mods for BG1/2 but din't worked?
What classes and races are confirmed?
Seems like Sorcerer is not on the preview.
Edit: Looks like they have to draw the blood of their master to become a vampire.
Walgrave: It's 2020!
Is that basically the reason why - you felt you needed to modernise it?
Walgrave: So, I think that in spirit it's still the successor of Baldur's Gate 1 and 2. Because there are so many things that people who did play and like Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 will still recognise in the new one. It's still about your party. It's still about big personalities clashing with each other and relationships. It's still a party-based game, you still need to do combat, you will recognise a lot of D&D rules - even if you haven't played D&D in 20 years. You will still recognise all the spells, et cetera.
So, to me it's a true sequel, but we are bringing it into the 21st century by saying, "Look, it's glorious 3D. It has really nice cinematics. We're taking it further with systemics, we applied the 'Larian philosophy', which is like, oodles of content and hidden features and hidden stuff everywhere." So to me it's a good sequel.
The choices that we made are ours. Why did we go for turn-based instead of real-time with pause? Because D&D to us is a turn-based game and we're really good - or we have become really good - with turn-based combat. So that, I think, is one of our strengths, and trying out real-time with pause for now, just because the originals were that? It's a big risk. Because the team would have to think completely differently, our combat would be completely different. And we didn't really feel good about that. Normally we do try out a lot. Normally we try out a lot before we make a decision, but with real-time with pause and turn-based we didn't, we just said "Okay it's just gonna be turn-based."
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2020-02-27-baldurs-gate-3-interview
Sigh, where are those people who directed voice actors for Badur's Gate, KOTOR, Mass Effect series...
Among other details, it talks about how fast level progression will be felt in-game, how Larian Studios approached Disco Elysium developers on how to make failing a roll fun (so that you don't save-scum), how verticality in BG3 will differ from D:OS 2.
BG3 seems good. BUT not good as BG2/1...
It felt like its own thing. It was okay-ish, but definitely not BG.
If anything, I'd put forward that simply by being on a D&D ruleset, BG3 is more like the previous BG games than PoE.
PF:KM felt more like BG than PoE. A lot more.
Nice video; i only wanna add to 2:16 that NWN1/NWN2 are MP games and RtWP. You just remove "pause" in MP...
Contrast that with BG2:SoA. Even in the initial areas there are a bunch of distinctly different enemies you can fight. Once you leave the city it really opens up and you can fight all sorts of things that gives a bit of variety to it.
I hope they take the time to speak to other game companies on writing good character responses.
To be clear, I wasn't arguing that PoE has a lot in common with BG. Visually, dialog and characterwise, and storywise they're very different. Gameplaywise they're similar in some ways and different in others. PoE does, however, have more in common with BG than BG3 apparently does, in that it took some inspiration from Baldur's Gate and upholds some of its essential values, while BG3 just looks like a game from a totally different lineage of CRPGs.
The D&D ruleset has changed so much from AD&D 2nd edition that it's not really much of a connection, especially since BG used it in a very different combat system. Not to mention that BG3's apparent lack of dice rolls, percentile chances shown everywhere and the hard-to-miss attacks take it even further away from where BG took it. It's a take on D&D, just like Baldur's Gate was, but a take that goes in an entirely different direction.
Once again, I wouldn't care if they named the game literally anything else. This is conjecture based on my impression of how Wizards does business, but I'm pretty sure Wizards pushed the title "Baldur's Gate 3" on Larian to capitalize on BioWare's legacy. It's clear from their rhetoric that Larian didn't want to make a Baldur's Gate game—they just wanted to make their own D&D game, and honestly, good on them. I just wish they hadn't trod over someone else's legacy in the process.
Rtwp is apparently just "messy" and objectively worse than TB?
Yeah, no. Larian has ensured that I never support any product of theirs. They were the wrong company to make BG3, and what we are being given is a straight up insult to the legacy and fans of BG. I am legitimately angry over this.
Unless they implement DOS2 armor mechancis and huge number inflation scaling with items, or CDs instead of spell slots, the game worth to be played IMO.
Maybe we watched two separate videos? I believe Sven specifically said you could look at the diceroll information if you want. So there are dice rolls.
The percentage change to hit was high a few times, but some of the time it was quite low, lower than 40%. I dont know if you play 5e, but if you do - you'll know that the system expects you to hit far more often than you miss.
Ruleset wise - there is still so, so, so ,so much more in common between 2.5 and 5e than there is between D&D and any other system. The also applies to BG3 being much much closer in ruleset to BG2 than PoE. Be it the classes, Races, stats, savings throws, the way modifiers are counted, the spells themselves, the monsters and the way the monsters interact with the world. I could literally spend 20 minutes on this, but I think you get the idea.
I didnt really respond to your last comment about values because, frankly - those details seem to just be the things you think of when you think of BG2. Those arent "values" per se -atleast, not to me, and they arent something that Larian throws away by not exactly duplicating them. I think I basically just fully reject the premise of your argument. Since both of our positions on this are completely subjective, I'll leave it at that.
Lastly - The idea that simply changing the name making all the difference, to me, is a weird argument that I've never understood. To me, this is essentially equivalent to setting up your own expectations and being upset when something else doesnt meet them. There's really nothing to be done about that. The expectations are arbitrary in that a name and name alone has changed them.
I thought so too, but after the WORLDWIDEREVEAL I dont' think Beamdog has anything to fear. Doesn't look like Larian is cooking up anything that resembles BG/IWD, so there will still be a market for oldskoole IE-fun I think.
J.
Well said. One thing I find weird among the Larian/BG3 critics on here is the failure to recognize that the Original Sin games drew in tabletop gamers. It's a big reason for the relative success of that series when contrasted with other titles like PoE, Wasteland, PF:K.
I dunno what Adul means by "values" of the BG series, and I'd like to see that point cite some specifics, but one thing about BG was that it was clearly designed to also draw in tabletop gamers. Bioware's team later said they very much based it on a combination of tabletop experiences and the RTS games that were popular at the time.
Seems hard to argue that Larian isn't recreating some of that same magic, just minus the RTS inspiration.
Then they made that video about stealing from WotC - and I was like, "Hey, they've got a good attitude and a sense of humor." My hope went up, and I waited... And let the 'Obsidian really deserved this shot' attitude slide from my mind (sorry, Beamdog, I love you folks and what you've done, but Obsidian really hit the mark for me with Pillars).
The cinematic elements are incredible - really, really good. I got chills from watching those bits... and then I saw it...
I'm remaining optimistic, but I really hoped that the development team would contain folks who were PASSIONATE about the original games. Maybe they are, but it does look like Baldur's Gate: Original Sin. Comments deriding RTwP from them do not fill me with warm fuzzies. I do like the turn based option outside of combat - it was neat for stealth abilities. I like being able to throw my boots...
I'm worried that they are going very Divinity with NPCs - overly 'special', power gamer oriented, examples of why I'm still playing OSR games (5e is the first edition I've bought since 2e, I do like it - I just don't run it).
I think the Illithid infection is a nice nod to the originals, in a way - starting off with that 'blessing and a curse' feel.
I will undoubtedly buy the game, but I doubt it will possess me like the original series...
But I'm giving them the chance (whilst still lamenting Obsidian not being 'the ones')
This is where where you're failing to understand where I'm coming from. For me this is not about expectations, nor what games I like to play. I never expected this game to be like Baldur's Gate, so I'm not disappointed in that regard. I'm perfectly fine with a game not appealing to me.
For me this is about legacy—the legacy of two games that I actually care about and the legacy that Wizards and Larian are doing damage to by stapling it over an unrelated D&D game. What they've done is overrode what people will think of years from now when they hear the Baldur's Gate name. In the zeitgeist of a new generation of people who pay attention to video games it obscures the actual Baldur's Gate games and confuses what they stood for. It eclipses their place in posterity.
All so this game can make more money than it would have made standing on its own merits.
And I simply don't get these designers saying that RTwP is ''messy, chaotic'' etc. WTF? Such is life - combat IS messy and chaotic! Iron Mike famously said: ''Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth'' And many military commanders said that when real combat starts, plans go out the window. And RTwP very nicely reflects that reality. Also, even in all the mess and chaos, the pause gives you the ability to always control the battle.
For me, turn based is too slow, structured, methodical, predictable, and ultimately, boring and tedious. Now tell me, who doesn't enjoy blasting 10 kobolds with a fireball in 3 seconds? To me, RTwP is simply more exciting and fun to play. BG series with SCS mod (imo the best mod out there) - I keep replaying it, over and over again, and the combat never gets old.
So yeah, sadly it looks like BG3 will not be liked by many fans of the old games.
I dont want to come across as telling you what you think, but I want to bold your comment in an attempt to show how I'm viewing this.
That looks to me like you've got a series of expectations, based on the legacy of the franchise as applies to you. While it may be the legacy of the game itself, you're the one giving it meaning by assigning an expectation to it. This is why you think the game would be fine if it wasnt BG3. Because it's BG3, you have issues with it, and that seems to be an exploration of the bias of your expectations on your ability to accept the game.
FWIW - this has generally not happened with subsequent media that I can think of. Take the Star Wars saga. There are TONS of people who really really hate the sequels. Does that means the original trilogy is any less beloved? I dont think so. It hasnt eclipsed anything in that regard. If anything, I think it kind of shows that you cannot ruin something by trying to continue you. People will just consume the media they want to consume.
The most cynical view of this (and I dont necessarily think you're saying this, but it just occurred to me) would be the fear that BG3 will be more well liked and received than BG1 and 2, and will "replace" them moving forward when we talk about the franchise. I'd reject that view for two reasons. A) - I dont think doing something better necessarily replaces the value of the former. I'd argue BG2 is much better than BG1, but it hasnt replaced it. B ) - I personally think we should be so lucky as to get a game as great as BG1 or 2, and would never argue against that happening.
As parting thought: I do not think BG3 will be as good as BG1 or BG2. I think that's such a tall mountain that I dont expect any CRPG to climb it in my lifetime. I remain optimistic about those trying, though.
One odd thing that's gotten overlooked, because of all the content discussion. But man what awesome bravery by Vincke to do essentially a no-reload run, improv'd stream for the gameplay launch. For all the people alleging that this is some cynical cash grab or not faithful, I just dunno how you square that with really an unprecedentedly sincere gameplay reveal. Most studios would have cut a video of game play elements, all heavily scripted to show off the game at its best. Vincke just wings it and lets players see the game without filters.
This kind of transparency is rare!
Great example, and well said. If anything the original series has only grown higher in stature. I was about to make a similar point regarding the Ultima series (also a series that saw radical shifts in gameplay btw). Ultima 8 and 9 being pretty awful did nothing to diminish the importance of the 7s and 4 in RPG history.
Also, every game series dies eventually folks. Either titles stop getting made. Or only bad titles get made. That's life. And games aren't quite like painting or music or other art, it's pretty rare for younger generations to take up past titles, especially any kind of complex game. Certain Ultima titles are absolute classics, but I don't expect anyone under 30 to enjoy playing them. And so when a series does die, its fate is to slip further and further into obscurity, generally speaking.
it also does not help that most crpg fans tent to ignore anything before fallout 1 so to them crpgs as a genre to them and how they know them did not start until 97.