The first thing I noticed was that you apparently have to play a pre-made character instead of creating your own. That's a total deal-breaker for me.
Then, the pre-made character he selected was a vampire spawn. All RPG "edgelord" type material makes me cringe and roll my eyes. Another deal-breaker if all the characters are edgelords.
I can't say I'm "disappointed" or anything like that. The preview looked exactly like what I was expecting. Another Divinity game. So I guess I'd be excited if I liked Divinity games, but sadly, I don't.
They already addressed that issue in an interview. You can use an origin character or made a custom one, like in previous game. Baldur’s Gate 3 will let players enjoy significantly more meaningful, nuanced stories using custom characters than they could in Divinity 2, this according to Larian Studios senior writer Adam Smith.
I think there is an elf, human and githyanki characters in the gameplay. Sven also showed half-elf, elf, dwarf, etc in the character creation.
Thanks for that answer. That was one of my biggest fears/misgivings from watching the video, that if I wanted to get a real "deep dive" into the story, I'd be forced into playing one of the "pre-generated" characters included with the game. Which, to be fair, has a long and honorable tradition in D&D. :P But it wouldn't be MY character.
One other thing. I'd noticed that Shadowheart and the githyanki lady were actually two other options among the "pre-gens"; does that mean that if you pick one of these origins, you're essentially playing AS one of the companions you'd otherwise have met and recruited in the game?
One other thing. I'd noticed that Shadowheart and the githyanki lady were actually two other options among the "pre-gens"; does that mean that if you pick one of these origins, you're essentially playing AS one of the companions you'd otherwise have met and recruited in the game?
That's how it works in D:OS2, so yeah. Either way you can get their story, the difference is the amount and perspective, which obviously is a bit different when you are them instead of having them along.
Using the BG name comes down to branding. It means something to people. If BG3 is too different from 1 and 2, of course there will be a riot.
Coca-Cola in 1985. Changing the formula of coke almost destroyed the company. I don't think Larian is at risk because DoS fans will carry them and it will be a good game that sells anyway. But if using the BG name pisses off the majority of BG fans rather than pull them onboard, using it was a mistake.
Whether it's a limitation or a design choice doesn't really matter if the end result is the same. Time will tell what the party size cap is but it's not unrealistic that Larian will stick with what has worked for them so far.
Well, there is a crucial difference: If it is an engine limitation you would not be able to mod the game to play with a party of 4, 5, 6... companions or fellow players
Or at least you have more problems to do so.
Fingers crossed that it's a system option that can be modded or edited via the console then, similar to how NWN2 had a default party size of 4, but it expanded to 5 in later chapters (which meant you could go into the console and change the variable to allow you to bring every single companion with you at once. It would devolve the game into pathfinding madness, but it was POSSIBLE. )
They even made that possible to pick all companions in the Action 3rd RT game Greedfall of Spidergames I´m sure they would make it possible in the upcoming Larian game too.
And possibly an RTwP mod, a 6-man-party mod and surely one that allows you to get a space miniature hamster as a pet.
PD: BTW Am I the only one that is still in shock that in the gameplay two level 1 characters survived an encounter with 3 bloody intellect devourers?
"Just mod it" should not be the answer to something that shouldn't be an issue in the first place though. A pretty significant part of what makes Baldur's Gate what it is is the possibility of a big party. If they want us to feel like this actually is a BG then the party is not one of the things they can compromise on. Merely modding in more companions/players might not even work properly with the story, game balancing or interaction amongst party members. And any time a patch is released it might break this just like any other non-intended change. Not to mention that modding is something a lot of people have no knowledge of or interest in.
Don't get me wrong, I fully agree that players should be able to mod the party or indeed any aspect of the game. But I don't think they should have to just because the new developer wants to do things radically different while still claiming it's more of the same.
"Just mod it" should not be the answer to something that shouldn't be an issue in the first place though. A pretty significant part of what makes Baldur's Gate what it is is the possibility of a big party. If they want us to feel like this actually is a BG then the party is not one of the things they can compromise on. Merely modding in more companions/players might not even work properly with the story, game balancing or interaction amongst party members. And any time a patch is released it might break this just like any other non-intended change. Not to mention that modding is something a lot of people have no knowledge of or interest in.
Don't get me wrong, I fully agree that players should be able to mod the party or indeed any aspect of the game. But I don't think they should have to just because the new developer wants to do things radically different while still claiming it's more of the same.
The fact that BG has a 6 party limit is very, very, very low on the list of "things that make BG seem like BG" in my opinion.
What's more, D&D 5e is balanced around the idea of having 4 party members. The Challenge Rating system is defined based on how 4 players would deal with a given situation (A CR5 encounter is expected to be challenging for 4 5th level characters).
You can certainly have more than 4 characters, but that's the sweet spot for the system.
So if they do decide to stop at 4 players, it's really just them hewing closer to the source material.
Edit - I also think this was a conscious balance change between older editions (2.5) and 5th (or even 3rd, TBH). 2.5's class system was inflexible, and it was harder to comfortably cover all possible needs of a party with 4 players. It was doable, but the optimization was a bit poorer. With 5e, it's very easy to meet the core needs with just 4 characters (Due to more robust classes, a multi-classing system, and the way skills now work).
I haven't spoken to you in ages. Do you have any idea how BG3 may tie into the originals, if at all?
My first impression is actually one of relief "I might not have to devote hundreds of hours to this." However, I really do hope there's a meaningful way the games are related but I have to tell you that right now I'm incredibly cynical. And my apprehensions aren't something I'm wanting to hang on the devs. I personally just can't see why this should be BG3 but my imagination may be failing me.
First of all, I think the biggest feedback that the developer can actually use will be possible to provide only during the testing period.
After watching the gameplay reveal I'm definitely interested. But one can easily assign that to me being a big fan of D:OS games. Yet, while the argument has some truth in it, this feeling about BG3 is still majority based on what I expected from such a title.
When BG3 was first teased on the Larian site, I wrote that for me such a title should definitely be a breaking thing in the genre. It should introduce something new, it should feel like a top, top game.
It should not rely just on nostalgia and reproducing old classics. It should not cater to the audience of legacy DnD titles as the biggest group the game wants to impress.
What I've been reading and watching so far looks like a game I imagined. Much deeper character interaction, the use of the surroundings, verticality, rolling dice.
Yes, the D:OS games sold me a TB combat. I really started to look at the TB combat differently after playing them.
That said, I have quite a few concerns regarding the game, but since it was a pre-alpha, I'd like to give them time to improve the game, fix bugs and maybe change a few approaches.
I also recently watched a pre-alpha footage of D:OS 2 and was surprised how much the game changed for its actual release if compared to that. If anything, you could call that version a mod for D:OS 1.
Halfway through the first combat encounter I was thinking to myself that if this had been real-time with pause, at least *something* would've happened by now. By the time Swen did actually, eventually, succeed in being party wiped I was just *bored*!
As the game play went on, interminably, I started to wonder that no one has learned from the manifest disappointment of having Baldur's Gate's name used as a marketing scam. The thing for me, rightly or wrongly, about Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 is that they're synonymous with the Bhaalspawn story. The game mechanics and the art and the feel of Baldur's Gate is all enveloped in the story. Everyone in recent years flinging around the name 'Baldur's Gate' could *never* compete with the story of the Bhaalspawn, however well they replicated the mechanics and the art! Once you've been the prophesied offspring of the dead god of murder and played out everything that entails, the idea of being part of a story in which no one, or indeed everyone, is the hero just doesn't cut it.
By all means call this 'Baldur's Gate: *Name*'. Or even '*Name*: A Baldur's Gate Story'. To call it Baldur's Gate 3, with what the 3 implies, is a lie.
PD: BTW Am I the only one that is still in shock that in the gameplay two level 1 characters survived an encounter with 3 bloody intellect devourers?
Hate those little buggers
I don't have fond memories of those things myself. In Neverwinter Nights one of them is one of the first bosses and if you attempt it at level 1 things do not go well. Even much later on in the game when you can meet several they aren't exactly trash monsters still. No idea how tough these things are in later editions though or how "heroic" our main character is supposed to be; it seemed to be implied that having the parasite was somehow empowering.
By all means call this 'Baldur's Gate: *Name*'. Or even '*Name*: A Baldur's Gate Story'. To call it Baldur's Gate 3, with what the 3 implies, is a lie.
I really am worried about the pace of combat. It’s not necessary I can pause I just don’t like taking turns. It would be great if you selected your actions, enemies select theirs, then mayhem. But that’s not D&D.
And this really should be called something else. There are too many departures from the originals. The name alone has put people off of the game. How, exactly, are we moving on from the Bhaalspawn saga?
We live in an age where word of mouth travels faster than ever. All people needed to hear was “new 5e game developed in a proven engine. And we will be revisiting Baldur’s Gate.” Done. Interested. No promises. No expectations that come with a “3.”
If this is a good game, and I think it will be, it, WotC, and Larian can stand on their own feet.
@PsicoVic "It was never meant to be. They told us that from the start."
Um, no they didn't. The first thing we shown was a title screen that said "BG3" with no context beyond that. That IMMIEDIATELY sets expectations.
Larian also claimed early on that they were respectful of the franchise, even claiming to play through BG2 to better understand it. Boy that didn't last long.
The very idea of pre-gen characters and companions that you are very limited in shaping is antithetical to what an RPG is supposed to be about. In a true RPG, the player should be able to play whatever character they want to play. Yes you are allowed to create your own characters, but it is confirmed that custom characters will not have anywhere near the same level of story and environmental reactivity as the pre-gen characters, which in turn clearly says we are SUPPOSED to play the game with what Larian is pushing on to us and not our own characters.
What is also very clear to me is that this game has been designed from the ground up as a multiplayer game first and foremost, and even further as a multiplayer tabletop simulator. You can play it single player if you want, but that is not how you are SUPPOSED to play it and not what it is designed for. The party size limit of four, the combat system, the way dialog choices are presented, the pre-gen characters and limited ability to shape your companions, even a very limited number of available companions, these are all game design choices obviously made to support a multiplayer "tabletop" experience. It is, for all intents and purposes, a big-budget grand advertisement - an infomercial - for the PnP D&D game.
Hmm. I haven't played any of the origin stories in D:OS2 because, like you, I have little interest in playing a character entirely determined by someone else. So I don't know how much worse off I am playing my own character in it. I've never felt like the story is cheapened in any way though and I can't imagine them doing any worse in this game.
Being designed as a multiplayer game isn't necessarily bad. Neverwinter Nights was, and that turned out decent eventually. Yes I know, the main campaign is far from great and "it might get better" isn't a selling point, but Larian's made some really good games now so I don't think we have much to fear even if it is a MP game in nature.
there is also the fact a large chunk of larian's fanbase never even finished dos 2. they mess around in co op with friends for a few hours then just stop paying. i expect thats whats gonna happen with bg 3 as well. people are not gonna care about the story or anything they will just play the game because it has co op mess around with their friends for 20 hours. then drop the game and move on and just praise it for it's multiplayer aspect and nothing else.
Four party members makes a lot more sense for TB combat, so even though I actually think six is the sweet spot for D&D CRPG's, it's probably wise to limit that number. TB combat, especially the XCOM style, with a large party would just get tedious.
One big strength of RTwP, imho, is that its combat system can support a much wider range of encounters while still being fun. Want to have the player slay a series of trash mob fights in the opening? RT works great because veteran players can cruise through that content without even pausing. Want to have enormous army style battles like what you get in ToB or SoD? Again, RT is so much better at making this fun. It's a more flexible system. It's also a combat system that's *unique* to video games.
Too often, I think CRPG developers try to create games with their main inspiration being tabletop RPG. That's of course perfectly fine. But I really wish developers would take some time to think about what they can only do in a video game.
All that being said, I think the biggest reason Larian is going TB is the multiplayer component. It's a big part of OS's success. And I think WotC has some grand plan for a generation of multiplayer friendly RPG's. That is what sells after all. Just as I said RT was more flexible, TB is clearly the king for multiplayer ease. So I respect their decision to stick with what they know, and what will draw in the multiplayer crowd.
The very idea of pre-gen characters and companions that you are very limited in shaping is antithetical to what an RPG is supposed to be about. In a true RPG, the player should be able to play whatever character they want to play. Yes you are allowed to create your own characters, but it is confirmed that custom characters will not have anywhere near the same level of story and environmental reactivity as the pre-gen characters, which in turn clearly says we are SUPPOSED to play the game with what Larian is pushing on to us and not our own characters.
What is also very clear to me is that this game has been designed from the ground up as a multiplayer game first and foremost, and even further as a multiplayer tabletop simulator. You can play it single player if you want, but that is not how you are SUPPOSED to play it and not what it is designed for. The party size limit of four, the combat system, the way dialog choices are presented, the pre-gen characters and limited ability to shape your companions, even a very limited number of available companions, these are all game design choices obviously made to support a multiplayer "tabletop" experience. It is, for all intents and purposes, a big-budget grand advertisement - an infomercial - for the PnP D&D game.
Err... plenty of RPG's use pregenerated protagonists.
Err... plenty of RPG's use pregenerated protagonists.
kind of funny someone would bring this up bc BG had pre-gen characters.
people's issues are not about pre generated party members that is a givien. it's the fact you miss out on a ton of content if you don't use one of the premade charnames if you make your own.
Err... plenty of RPG's use pregenerated protagonists.
kind of funny someone would bring this up bc BG had pre-gen characters.
people's issues are not about pre generated party members that is a givien. it's the fact you miss out on a ton of content if you don't use one of the premade charnames if you make your own.
Your claim doesnt appear to be backed up based on what we know. There's no way to know for certain if the exact same amount of content with be available, but it looks like they want it to be roughly equivalent.
there is also the fact a large chunk of larian's fanbase never even finished dos 2. they mess around in co op with friends for a few hours then just stop paying. i expect thats whats gonna happen with bg 3 as well. people are not gonna care about the story or anything they will just play the game because it has co op mess around with their friends for 20 hours. then drop the game and move on and just praise it for it's multiplayer aspect and nothing else.
This post seems like it serves only to denigrate Larian fans, and diminish D:OS2's success. I get that you're disapointed that the game you want isnt being made, but there's no real reason to attack anyone. This forum has been fraught enough with people on both sides attacking each other.
Err... plenty of RPG's use pregenerated protagonists.
kind of funny someone would bring this up bc BG had pre-gen characters.
people's issues are not about pre generated party members that is a givien. it's the fact you miss out on a ton of content if you don't use one of the premade charnames if you make your own.
Your claim doesnt appear to be backed up based on what we know. There's no way to know for certain if the exact same amount of content with be available, but it looks like they want it to be roughly equivalent.
there is also the fact a large chunk of larian's fanbase never even finished dos 2. they mess around in co op with friends for a few hours then just stop paying. i expect thats whats gonna happen with bg 3 as well. people are not gonna care about the story or anything they will just play the game because it has co op mess around with their friends for 20 hours. then drop the game and move on and just praise it for it's multiplayer aspect and nothing else.
This post seems like it serves only to denigrate Larian fans, and diminish D:OS2's success. I get that you're disapointed that the game you want isnt being made, but there's no real reason to attack anyone. This forum has been fraught enough with people on both sides attacking each other.
i'm not attacking anyone. there are a bunch of people that played original sin 2 in co op for mabey 20 hours
had thier fun and then stop playing and move on to something else.
how is me stating that there are alot of fans of dos 2 that never finished the game due to fooling around in co op and as such believe the same will be the case for bg 3 attacking people?
Four party members makes a lot more sense for TB combat, so even though I actually think six is the sweet spot for D&D CRPG's, it's probably wise to limit that number. TB combat, especially the XCOM style, with a large party would just get tedious.
One big strength of RTwP, imho, is that its combat system can support a much wider range of encounters while still being fun. Want to have the player slay a series of trash mob fights in the opening? RT works great because veteran players can cruise through that content without even pausing. Want to have enormous army style battles like what you get in ToB or SoD? Again, RT is so much better at making this fun. It's a more flexible system. It's also a combat system that's *unique* to video games.
A 4-man party is also the "classic" and recommended party size for D&D. The archetypal D&D party consists of four players, a Warrior, a Mage, a Priest and a Rogue, who between them cover all the essential roles a party needs. However, I agree that for CRPGs, having a larger party size works better because it opens up greater options in both combat, and for inter-party banter/dynamics. It's much easier to justify bringing jack-of-all-trades-style characters like Bards in a larger party, where their unique abilities amplify both combat and roleplaying.
By all means call this 'Baldur's Gate: *Name*'. Or even '*Name*: A Baldur's Gate Story'. To call it Baldur's Gate 3, with what the 3 implies, is a lie.
This is the only reason I feel anything about this game at all. That this is a Larian RPG is not by itself surprising, because why would it be anything else?
Calling it Baldur's Gate 3, which I recognise is not Larian's decision, at the end of the day it wouldn't be called that if someone at Wizards of the Coast didn't decide that's what they wanted, and I'm angry at that decision. And there's absolutely no argument to be made that the motivation here isn't cynical and deceptive. The simple fact is packaging something under another name and relating it when it has no relation is a very common marketing tactic now, I feel one of the more blatantly terrible examples is the Star Trek Picard series, which is just infuriatingly disgusting. This is not that bad, not many things are *that* bad, but this is still not an honest decision that respects the fanbase of the original series. There's just no authenticity here, and you know, I'd probably still be willing to give the game a shot if I didn't like, really hate Original Sin 2. But I really hated it so I've really got no interest whatsoever in playing it, or giving it any kind of chance, it simply doesn't deserve one, given I am the one who decides what I think deserves a chance at my time, because anyone uses the fact that maybe they're interested to try to argue I should be. Sorry, doesn't work like that.
And that's why other than making my position clear, which I've now done, I'm not going to waste my time talking about this game any further, and really I'd recommend to anyone who feels this way, believe me I understand why you're pissed off, I share that, but at some point you've got to say "well maybe I should just ignore it and leave it to those who are interested in it".
Because the way games development works, they're not going to change much in response to any outside factors, even if the audience dissatisfaction is much higher than what it is. Cynically, but I think truthfully, this was never going to be designed based on what the original series fanbase might have wanted. And if they won't consider us as a group, they don't deserve our time.
how is me stating that there are alot of fans of dos 2 that never finished the game due to fooling around in co op and as such believe the same will be the case for bg 3 attacking people?
It’s just not relative to everyone. Everyone enjoys games differently. I’ve been playing BG every year since it came out. I never play multiplayer (Maybe 90 minutes, lifetime total). So hours spent in co-op for me might be...30 minutes. While instead racking up single player hours with multiple play throughs.
So it’s not so much “attacking” as it is painting people with the brush of all of your preferences without understanding the people you are generalizing.
Totally understandable to be upset or confused by what Larian and WotC are planning, let’s not take it out on one another.
Err... plenty of RPG's use pregenerated protagonists.
kind of funny someone would bring this up bc BG had pre-gen characters.
people's issues are not about pre generated party members that is a givien. it's the fact you miss out on a ton of content if you don't use one of the premade charnames if you make your own.
Your claim doesnt appear to be backed up based on what we know. There's no way to know for certain if the exact same amount of content with be available, but it looks like they want it to be roughly equivalent.
This was found in this thread, just 1 page ago.
Words are wind, my friend, they blow just as easily through the lungs as from the arse
Four party members makes a lot more sense for TB combat, so even though I actually think six is the sweet spot for D&D CRPG's, it's probably wise to limit that number. TB combat, especially the XCOM style, with a large party would just get tedious.
One big strength of RTwP, imho, is that its combat system can support a much wider range of encounters while still being fun. Want to have the player slay a series of trash mob fights in the opening? RT works great because veteran players can cruise through that content without even pausing. Want to have enormous army style battles like what you get in ToB or SoD? Again, RT is so much better at making this fun. It's a more flexible system. It's also a combat system that's *unique* to video games.
A 4-man party is also the "classic" and recommended party size for D&D. The archetypal D&D party consists of four players, a Warrior, a Mage, a Priest and a Rogue, who between them cover all the essential roles a party needs. However, I agree that for CRPGs, having a larger party size works better because it opens up greater options in both combat, and for inter-party banter/dynamics. It's much easier to justify bringing jack-of-all-trades-style characters like Bards in a larger party, where their unique abilities amplify both combat and roleplaying.
Yeah, even in D&D5e the CR of the encounters is measured using a party of four. It´s the standard party. If you have more players you have to balance the encounters with that as a base.
I suppose they do the same, on a much bigger scale.
Err... plenty of RPG's use pregenerated protagonists.
kind of funny someone would bring this up bc BG had pre-gen characters.
people's issues are not about pre generated party members that is a givien. it's the fact you miss out on a ton of content if you don't use one of the premade charnames if you make your own.
Your claim doesnt appear to be backed up based on what we know. There's no way to know for certain if the exact same amount of content with be available, but it looks like they want it to be roughly equivalent.
This was found in this thread, just 1 page ago.
Words are wind, my friend, they blow just as easily through the lungs as from the arse
Okay.
I prefer my information to be sourced by interviews and gameplay rather than conjecture - but you do you.
Comments
Thanks for that answer. That was one of my biggest fears/misgivings from watching the video, that if I wanted to get a real "deep dive" into the story, I'd be forced into playing one of the "pre-generated" characters included with the game. Which, to be fair, has a long and honorable tradition in D&D. :P But it wouldn't be MY character.
One other thing. I'd noticed that Shadowheart and the githyanki lady were actually two other options among the "pre-gens"; does that mean that if you pick one of these origins, you're essentially playing AS one of the companions you'd otherwise have met and recruited in the game?
Coca-Cola in 1985. Changing the formula of coke almost destroyed the company. I don't think Larian is at risk because DoS fans will carry them and it will be a good game that sells anyway. But if using the BG name pisses off the majority of BG fans rather than pull them onboard, using it was a mistake.
BTW I played DoS and DoS2 with a mod of 6-man-party, so it is not an engine limitation, it was a design choice.
Or at least you have more problems to do so.
And possibly an RTwP mod, a 6-man-party mod and surely one that allows you to get a space miniature hamster as a pet.
PD: BTW Am I the only one that is still in shock that in the gameplay two level 1 characters survived an encounter with 3 bloody intellect devourers?
Hate those little buggers
Don't get me wrong, I fully agree that players should be able to mod the party or indeed any aspect of the game. But I don't think they should have to just because the new developer wants to do things radically different while still claiming it's more of the same.
The fact that BG has a 6 party limit is very, very, very low on the list of "things that make BG seem like BG" in my opinion.
What's more, D&D 5e is balanced around the idea of having 4 party members. The Challenge Rating system is defined based on how 4 players would deal with a given situation (A CR5 encounter is expected to be challenging for 4 5th level characters).
You can certainly have more than 4 characters, but that's the sweet spot for the system.
So if they do decide to stop at 4 players, it's really just them hewing closer to the source material.
Edit - I also think this was a conscious balance change between older editions (2.5) and 5th (or even 3rd, TBH). 2.5's class system was inflexible, and it was harder to comfortably cover all possible needs of a party with 4 players. It was doable, but the optimization was a bit poorer. With 5e, it's very easy to meet the core needs with just 4 characters (Due to more robust classes, a multi-classing system, and the way skills now work).
First of all, I think the biggest feedback that the developer can actually use will be possible to provide only during the testing period.
After watching the gameplay reveal I'm definitely interested. But one can easily assign that to me being a big fan of D:OS games. Yet, while the argument has some truth in it, this feeling about BG3 is still majority based on what I expected from such a title.
When BG3 was first teased on the Larian site, I wrote that for me such a title should definitely be a breaking thing in the genre. It should introduce something new, it should feel like a top, top game.
It should not rely just on nostalgia and reproducing old classics. It should not cater to the audience of legacy DnD titles as the biggest group the game wants to impress.
What I've been reading and watching so far looks like a game I imagined. Much deeper character interaction, the use of the surroundings, verticality, rolling dice.
Yes, the D:OS games sold me a TB combat. I really started to look at the TB combat differently after playing them.
That said, I have quite a few concerns regarding the game, but since it was a pre-alpha, I'd like to give them time to improve the game, fix bugs and maybe change a few approaches.
I also recently watched a pre-alpha footage of D:OS 2 and was surprised how much the game changed for its actual release if compared to that. If anything, you could call that version a mod for D:OS 1.
As the game play went on, interminably, I started to wonder that no one has learned from the manifest disappointment of having Baldur's Gate's name used as a marketing scam. The thing for me, rightly or wrongly, about Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 is that they're synonymous with the Bhaalspawn story. The game mechanics and the art and the feel of Baldur's Gate is all enveloped in the story. Everyone in recent years flinging around the name 'Baldur's Gate' could *never* compete with the story of the Bhaalspawn, however well they replicated the mechanics and the art! Once you've been the prophesied offspring of the dead god of murder and played out everything that entails, the idea of being part of a story in which no one, or indeed everyone, is the hero just doesn't cut it.
By all means call this 'Baldur's Gate: *Name*'. Or even '*Name*: A Baldur's Gate Story'. To call it Baldur's Gate 3, with what the 3 implies, is a lie.
I don't have fond memories of those things myself. In Neverwinter Nights one of them is one of the first bosses and if you attempt it at level 1 things do not go well. Even much later on in the game when you can meet several they aren't exactly trash monsters still. No idea how tough these things are in later editions though or how "heroic" our main character is supposed to be; it seemed to be implied that having the parasite was somehow empowering.
I really am worried about the pace of combat. It’s not necessary I can pause I just don’t like taking turns. It would be great if you selected your actions, enemies select theirs, then mayhem. But that’s not D&D.
And this really should be called something else. There are too many departures from the originals. The name alone has put people off of the game. How, exactly, are we moving on from the Bhaalspawn saga?
We live in an age where word of mouth travels faster than ever. All people needed to hear was “new 5e game developed in a proven engine. And we will be revisiting Baldur’s Gate.” Done. Interested. No promises. No expectations that come with a “3.”
If this is a good game, and I think it will be, it, WotC, and Larian can stand on their own feet.
Naming it BG3, completely unnecessary.
Um, no they didn't. The first thing we shown was a title screen that said "BG3" with no context beyond that. That IMMIEDIATELY sets expectations.
Larian also claimed early on that they were respectful of the franchise, even claiming to play through BG2 to better understand it. Boy that didn't last long.
What is also very clear to me is that this game has been designed from the ground up as a multiplayer game first and foremost, and even further as a multiplayer tabletop simulator. You can play it single player if you want, but that is not how you are SUPPOSED to play it and not what it is designed for. The party size limit of four, the combat system, the way dialog choices are presented, the pre-gen characters and limited ability to shape your companions, even a very limited number of available companions, these are all game design choices obviously made to support a multiplayer "tabletop" experience. It is, for all intents and purposes, a big-budget grand advertisement - an infomercial - for the PnP D&D game.
Being designed as a multiplayer game isn't necessarily bad. Neverwinter Nights was, and that turned out decent eventually. Yes I know, the main campaign is far from great and "it might get better" isn't a selling point, but Larian's made some really good games now so I don't think we have much to fear even if it is a MP game in nature.
One big strength of RTwP, imho, is that its combat system can support a much wider range of encounters while still being fun. Want to have the player slay a series of trash mob fights in the opening? RT works great because veteran players can cruise through that content without even pausing. Want to have enormous army style battles like what you get in ToB or SoD? Again, RT is so much better at making this fun. It's a more flexible system. It's also a combat system that's *unique* to video games.
Too often, I think CRPG developers try to create games with their main inspiration being tabletop RPG. That's of course perfectly fine. But I really wish developers would take some time to think about what they can only do in a video game.
All that being said, I think the biggest reason Larian is going TB is the multiplayer component. It's a big part of OS's success. And I think WotC has some grand plan for a generation of multiplayer friendly RPG's. That is what sells after all. Just as I said RT was more flexible, TB is clearly the king for multiplayer ease. So I respect their decision to stick with what they know, and what will draw in the multiplayer crowd.
Err... plenty of RPG's use pregenerated protagonists.
kind of funny someone would bring this up bc BG had pre-gen characters.
people's issues are not about pre generated party members that is a givien. it's the fact you miss out on a ton of content if you don't use one of the premade charnames if you make your own.
https://www.trustedreviews.com/news/baldurs-gate-3-will-fix-one-of-divinity-2s-biggest-flaws-3985098
Your claim doesnt appear to be backed up based on what we know. There's no way to know for certain if the exact same amount of content with be available, but it looks like they want it to be roughly equivalent.
This was found in this thread, just 1 page ago.
Edit, while I'm at it:
This post seems like it serves only to denigrate Larian fans, and diminish D:OS2's success. I get that you're disapointed that the game you want isnt being made, but there's no real reason to attack anyone. This forum has been fraught enough with people on both sides attacking each other.
i'm not attacking anyone. there are a bunch of people that played original sin 2 in co op for mabey 20 hours
had thier fun and then stop playing and move on to something else.
how is me stating that there are alot of fans of dos 2 that never finished the game due to fooling around in co op and as such believe the same will be the case for bg 3 attacking people?
A 4-man party is also the "classic" and recommended party size for D&D. The archetypal D&D party consists of four players, a Warrior, a Mage, a Priest and a Rogue, who between them cover all the essential roles a party needs. However, I agree that for CRPGs, having a larger party size works better because it opens up greater options in both combat, and for inter-party banter/dynamics. It's much easier to justify bringing jack-of-all-trades-style characters like Bards in a larger party, where their unique abilities amplify both combat and roleplaying.
This is the only reason I feel anything about this game at all. That this is a Larian RPG is not by itself surprising, because why would it be anything else?
Calling it Baldur's Gate 3, which I recognise is not Larian's decision, at the end of the day it wouldn't be called that if someone at Wizards of the Coast didn't decide that's what they wanted, and I'm angry at that decision. And there's absolutely no argument to be made that the motivation here isn't cynical and deceptive. The simple fact is packaging something under another name and relating it when it has no relation is a very common marketing tactic now, I feel one of the more blatantly terrible examples is the Star Trek Picard series, which is just infuriatingly disgusting. This is not that bad, not many things are *that* bad, but this is still not an honest decision that respects the fanbase of the original series. There's just no authenticity here, and you know, I'd probably still be willing to give the game a shot if I didn't like, really hate Original Sin 2. But I really hated it so I've really got no interest whatsoever in playing it, or giving it any kind of chance, it simply doesn't deserve one, given I am the one who decides what I think deserves a chance at my time, because anyone uses the fact that maybe they're interested to try to argue I should be. Sorry, doesn't work like that.
And that's why other than making my position clear, which I've now done, I'm not going to waste my time talking about this game any further, and really I'd recommend to anyone who feels this way, believe me I understand why you're pissed off, I share that, but at some point you've got to say "well maybe I should just ignore it and leave it to those who are interested in it".
Because the way games development works, they're not going to change much in response to any outside factors, even if the audience dissatisfaction is much higher than what it is. Cynically, but I think truthfully, this was never going to be designed based on what the original series fanbase might have wanted. And if they won't consider us as a group, they don't deserve our time.
It’s just not relative to everyone. Everyone enjoys games differently. I’ve been playing BG every year since it came out. I never play multiplayer (Maybe 90 minutes, lifetime total). So hours spent in co-op for me might be...30 minutes. While instead racking up single player hours with multiple play throughs.
So it’s not so much “attacking” as it is painting people with the brush of all of your preferences without understanding the people you are generalizing.
Totally understandable to be upset or confused by what Larian and WotC are planning, let’s not take it out on one another.
Words are wind, my friend, they blow just as easily through the lungs as from the arse
Yeah, even in D&D5e the CR of the encounters is measured using a party of four. It´s the standard party. If you have more players you have to balance the encounters with that as a base.
I suppose they do the same, on a much bigger scale.
Okay.
I prefer my information to be sourced by interviews and gameplay rather than conjecture - but you do you.