I'll take a flawed BG3 in the hand over a perfect BG3 in the bush any day.
The further and further we get from BG2, the less likely it is that the sequel would resemble the predecessors, and the less likely it might get made at all.
Let me just add, since you're getting mighty personal, I'm under no obligation to respond to every point you make in your posts. Just as Larian is not obligated to name the games that they earned the rights to according to your tastes.
Well enjoy your flawed BG3 then. Hopefully the hype you've consumed doesn't let you down too hard.
I will. It's not like the game is going to deeply surprise me at this point. It's pretty clear what the gameplay looks like from the extremely honest reveal they did. And so I get to enjoy a game that's had a lot of talented people put a lot of hard work into it.
You, on the other hand, get to stay mad about what is essentially just a superficial decision. Whether the game is called 3 or deserves to be called that doesn't effect if it will be good or not. Whose perspective on this issue is actually working for them? I get to enjoy a game. You get to be mad about it.
Who says I am mad?
This entire time I have been looking at it from a marketing perspective. They screwed up on a marketing. They are going to lose sales because of it - that is a genuine fact. It has nothing to do with the quality of the game.
This entire time I have been looking at it from a marketing perspective. They screwed up on a marketing. They are going to lose sales because of it - that is a genuine fact. It has nothing to do with the quality of the game.
I mentioned this before, but you're coming across like a guy I saw on usenet in the early 2000s who insisted that KOTOR would fail because it wasn't set during the movies. Or maybe all the people who said they were boycotting Modern Warfare 2 but were playing it on day one?
The question isn't how many people aren't going to buy their game, but how many are, and you have not made a substantial claim in that regard, just a nebuluous claim that some people won't buy it because of the name. Since the reality is that every possible customer does not buy every possible game, this isn't a compelling argument that it will turn out badly.
@deltago whilst I do agree with you that It might be a genuine fact that sales will be lost due some of the original fans not liking the direction of the game (and I sympathise with them) I don’t think in the long run this will hurt the game much. I think it will still sell very well as obviously Larian have their own fan base plus they will still have sales from old school Baldur’s Gate fans (me included) that really like what they see so far.
It’s sad that they are potentially going to lose some sales because of this but like I said i don’t anticipate the lost sales being anywhere near significant enough for it to affect the games performance. I am currently predicting that this will be more successful than DOS1&2 and could potentially do very very well for them. I could be wrong here as things can change and I’m not claiming to be an expert but I will be very shocked if this game is not a resounding success critically and in terms of sales.
I’m not saying this makes how you feel any less relevant and it must be frustrating for the people that are of the same opinion as you.
I do not think that there really is a disagreement here. I think in order: the game will be a critical and commercial success, it could have been a slightly larger commercial success if they had done some low effort messaging to pick up the smaller group of original BG fans and that I will probably like it less than the original games.
Is anyone really saying the games will fail commercially?
Somehow it seems to be what many of the more optimistic fans *want* to hear from the detractors. I especially find the KOTOR comparison to "won't be a success since not taking place during the original triligy" to be quite an unflattering straw man.
It is a similar argument. "Calling it Baldur's Gate III will slightly reduce its success" isn't really much of a claim and probably isn't even worth saying, but claiming that it will be a hindrance at all really isn't much different from the guy on Usenet saying that not setting KOTOR during the films would be a hindrance. The difference is a matter of degree, not kind. Indeed, this strikes me as shifting the goalposts.
I also do not see how "They screwed up on marketing." indicates a slight loss. Calling it Baldur's Gate III seems to me to be a good move, marketing wise. Brand recognition gets them notice, and the fact that it's a D&D game set in the Forgotten Realms doesn't really mean that those particular expectations will go unmet. Turn based seems fine (and real time with pause is turn-based with a few layers of camouflage) and the distinction strikes me as largely a conversation involving purists.
Oh yeah: I'm an original Baldur's Gate fan and I have no idea why you're all trying so hard to die on this hill.
This entire time I have been looking at it from a marketing perspective. They screwed up on a marketing. They are going to lose sales because of it - that is a genuine fact. It has nothing to do with the quality of the game.
I mentioned this before, but you're coming across like a guy I saw on usenet in the early 2000s who insisted that KOTOR would fail because it wasn't set during the movies.
II especially find the KOTOR comparison to "won't be a success since not taking place during the original triligy" to be quite an unflattering straw man.
The argument isn't the same either.
KotOR was not a direct continuation of the Star Wars films' story, and was not marketed as such (to my knowledge). It is set in the same fictional universe, just in a different era.
BG3, from what we know thusfar, also isn't a direct continuation of the original story, but *IS* IN FACT marketed as such.
KotOR-guy is purely lamenting the time-frame. BG3 is getting flak (imho rightly so) for suggesting a connection that doesn't seem to exist. Maybe there will be more of a connection woven into the story, and we'll see that when it comes out, but I'm not having much hope.
@Sjerrie to be fair they have already hinted at connection to the previous games in the previous news letter (admittedly vague) but the hint is there. Obviously this depends on what side of the fence you stand on. If you think the story can’t continue without Charname then from the hints I’m getting the story will likely not satisfy you.
But if like me you see the series as a whole is not defined just by the story of charname but also by Bhaal himself then the hints of story connections may give hope that there will be some form of continuation in the sense that this could indeed show the aftermath of Bhaals resurrection which would be a direct result of the Bhaal Spawn crisis and therefore in ‘My Opinion’ a worthy continuation of the series. I for one would definitely be interested in seeing Bhaal and possibly even battling him
A cameo or even a party member from a the originals is not enough to call it a continuation of the story. Bhaal getting a prominent role is not enough either.
@Sjerrie I respect your opinion and you’re entitled to it
I am sorry the game isn’t hitting the right spot for you at the moment and I can only hope that time will change that but if it doesn’t then you have my condolences
Well, I heard on the grapevine today that apparently we'll have 7 in-game days to deal with the ceremorphosis issue, and then... I'm not sure what comes next. It's highly improbably that the entire events of BG3 will take place within those 7 days, so either the "solution" turns out not to be a permanent solution and we'll be continuing to find a cure/way to control the tadpole afterwards, or... If it IS a permanent solution then basically the entire ceremorphosis thing is a giant smokescreen and BG3 might turn out to have a very different focus after all. It SEEMS like a stretch that all of this publicity about the mind flayers and the PC being infected is just a ploy to disguise the true plot of the game, but it does open up some possibilities about the Bhaalspawn story having a bigger role in the game than we've been led to believe.
*shrugs* As I said, I’ll wait for reviews and the game actually being released to determine if it is a success or not. Claiming so now is pointless.
I am not too familiar with D:OS2 marketing or sales (I don’t need to hear it was one of the best RPGs released in its year - other factors play a role such as the saturation of RtwP games that came out at the same time as it) as I had it blocked on my Steam account as I personally had no interest in the game until I finished the first so I really can’t compare the market for BG3 to the market now. I could research it... or I can go attempt to find a way out of Fort Joy.
But once again, dismissing and not addressing concerns that fans who are emotionally invested in the product have is not a good thing. That vocal minority has a voice and that voice can persuade others to not buy the product.
~
The dead three, or a cult following them, is definitely going to be playing a role in the game. The first trailer teased at that. As I said, I am intrigued with the story hooks so far, and IMO, story and immersion are the most crucial parts of an RPG. Still not a pre-order or early access sale for me though.
BG3, from what we know thusfar, also isn't a direct continuation of the original story, but *IS* IN FACT marketed as such.
Where are they doing this?
I've seen at most that they're hinting at connections and appearances by characters like Minsc and Boo. But a continuation? I don't see it.
Still the same argument. They don't have to be 100% identical just to be the same kind of argument. Nitpicking perceived or actual differences doesn't make this argument more valid than the other. Both involve someone looking at a new installment to a beloved franchise and declaring it won't be as good because the new installment is "not sufficiently connected" to previous installments. I do acknowledge that no one here has said it will fail, at least.
@BallpointMan "First - I get that this is your opinion. How was Larian supposed to assuage you for an opinion on a subject that you cannot specifically enumerate? They can’t."
They CAN give a concrete answer though. Knowing exactly where they, and the game, stands is much better than them pretending that the BG sequel questions don't exist. What they are doing is infinitely more frustrating.
So you want a concrete answer to an issue that the disaffected do not seem to be able to concretely articulate? And when Larian isnt able to provide that to their satisfaction, they're "pretending that the BG sequel question doesnt exist".
Surely you must see the issue there.
Larian should 100% be able to give THEIR concrete answer to the question. I wasn't looking for what I would have said, I KNOW what I would have said. I wanted to know why THEY think its faithful BG3 sequel. Which they refuse to say.
Its the "3" in the title. Also the whole thing where they keep calling it the sequel to BG2. You know Baldur's Gate, that series where Sod was a continuation of BG1, with BG2 being a continuation of BG1. Its a set pattern, and by not coming out and saying that this isn't a sequel. it carries the implication that it will be a continuation.
Its the "3" in the title. Also the whole thing where they keep calling it the sequel to BG2. You know Baldur's Gate, that series where Sod was a continuation of BG1, with BG2 being a continuation of BG1. Its a set pattern, and by not coming out and saying that this isn't a sequel. it carries the implication that it will be a continuation.
If we take their answer and fill in the blanks and implications with publicly known information, I think their answer comes out to be something along the lines of:
"It's a D&D game, it features the city of Baldur's Gate, it has some returning characters and/or cameos from previous games, and it has some vague story tie-ins, and we think those reasons are enough to justify it being a sequel to the first two games."
Of course, they're the only ones who actually know what's in their game at the moment, so if it has more concrete similarities or tie-ins that they haven't showed or talked about yet, they could have said so either in that interview or in a subsequent newsletter (without providing spoilers or specifics).
To me, this answer comes up short. And to be honest, having looked at BG3's gameplay there was no way for it not to come up short without them saying they will change the title and remove the sequel status.
Now, to those of us who voiced criticisms about the game not being a faithful sequel to the two OG BGs, we've seen some responses crop up that stated such criticisms were nebulous and we couldn't provide details. In order to raise a counterpoint, I'm now going to go into the details.
In July last year, I wrote a reply in this thread in which I provided an incomplete list of what gameplay mechanics features I thought a sequel needed to preserve from the Baldur's Gate games in order to remain faithful. Now that we've seen some of the gameplay, I can go back and check how many points BG3 actually checks out:
Individual and multiple character controls - No point.
Top-down, fixed camera isometric view - No point.
Dice-based combat - I can't give more than half a point here, as there seems to be some screwy business going on with the attack rolls.
Per rest and/or per encounter abilities (not cooldowns) - Point (probably).
Non-level-based item system - No info.
No randomized magic loot - No info.
Challenging learning curve (e.g. no hand holding) - No info.
While the above list may be incomplete, to me it already confirms that to me, gameplay-mechanics-wise BG3 fails to attain faithful sequel status on several levels. Some differences I could tolerate, as long as it could still feel like I'm playing Baldur's Gate. But that's way too much.
Story and character-wise I'm personally not in the camp that says they needed to continue the story or feature a lot of returning characters for it to be a faithful sequel. In fact, I think bringing back a character like Minsc could be rather hokey and overly fanservice-y if handled poorly. Though having a few characters return is fine and expected as long as their integration is organic and believable.
That said, I am a strong believer in the natural progression of lore and worldbuilding between the games in a fantasy franchise, and the 100-year-gap (also known as 200-year-gap in Skyrim, the 250-year-gap in Guild Wars 2 or the 1000-year-gap in Elder Scrolls Online) is a fantasy gaming trope that I absolutely cannot stand. I think fantasy writers generally introduce a gap of several generations between different installments of what is supposed to be a cohesive world when they've written themselves into a hole, they don't want to abide by the established lore, or they cannot think of a way to introduce the changes they want to the world organically. It's the ultimate slimy marketer's "we want a blank slate, but we also want to retain franchise name recognition" move, and to me it goes against everything fantasy is supposed to be about. Of course, I understand and fully appreciate that this is absolutely on Wizards and not on Larian. But its effects will still be felt in the game.
The visual style certainly doesn't look like either of the two Baldur's Gate games to me, but I'm willing to overlook this one as the original two (vanilla) also didn't look very much alike, so there's really no clear establishment of visual style as far as I'm concerned. However, BG3 does look very "overdesigned" to me, too much flare, especially for high fantasy. But I suppose that's a taste thing.
So yeah, that's kind of my response to the "you guys just don't like the game and you cannot define why it's not a faithful sequel" line of attack that we've seen crop up here from time to time.
I do not think that there really is a disagreement here. I think in order: the game will be a critical and commercial success, it could have been a slightly larger commercial success if they had done some low effort messaging to pick up the smaller group of original BG fans and that I will probably like it less than the original games.
Is anyone really saying the games will fail commercially?
Somehow it seems to be what many of the more optimistic fans *want* to hear from the detractors. I especially find the KOTOR comparison to "won't be a success since not taking place during the original triligy" to be quite an unflattering straw man.
I wouldn't say it's guaranteed to succeed commercially. If it gets bad reviews from users and media on its release, it will sell, but maybe not enough to recoup its large budget and a decent profit.
Its the "3" in the title. Also the whole thing where they keep calling it the sequel to BG2. You know Baldur's Gate, that series where Sod was a continuation of BG1, with BG2 being a continuation of BG1. Its a set pattern, and by not coming out and saying that this isn't a sequel. it carries the implication that it will be a continuation.
Ah, so they're not doing it anywhere. Thanks!
Ah, so you're going to be disengenuous about it. Thanks!
If we take their answer and fill in the blanks and implications with publicly known information, I think their answer comes out to be something along the lines of:
"It's a D&D game, it features the city of Baldur's Gate, it has some returning characters and/or cameos from previous games, and it has some vague story tie-ins, and we think those reasons are enough to justify it being a sequel to the first two games."
Of course, they're the only ones who actually know what's in their game at the moment, so if it has more concrete similarities or tie-ins that they haven't showed or talked about yet, they could have said so either in that interview or in a subsequent newsletter (without providing spoilers or specifics).
To me, this answer comes up short. And to be honest, having looked at BG3's gameplay there was no way for it not to come up short without them saying they will change the title and remove the sequel status.
Now, to those of us who voiced criticisms about the game not being a faithful sequel to the two OG BGs, we've seen some responses crop up that stated such criticisms were nebulous and we couldn't provide details. In order to raise a counterpoint, I'm now going to go into the details.
In July last year, I wrote a reply in this thread in which I provided an incomplete list of what gameplay mechanics features I thought a sequel needed to preserve from the Baldur's Gate games in order to remain faithful. Now that we've seen some of the gameplay, I can go back and check how many points BG3 actually checks out:
Individual and multiple character controls - No point.
Top-down, fixed camera isometric view - No point.
Dice-based combat - I can't give more than half a point here, as there seems to be some screwy business going on with the attack rolls.
Per rest and/or per encounter abilities (not cooldowns) - Point (probably).
Non-level-based item system - No info.
No randomized magic loot - No info.
Challenging learning curve (e.g. no hand holding) - No info.
While the above list may be incomplete, to me it already confirms that to me, gameplay-mechanics-wise BG3 fails to attain faithful sequel status on several levels. Some differences I could tolerate, as long as it could still feel like I'm playing Baldur's Gate. But that's way too much.
Story and character-wise I'm personally not in the camp that says they needed to continue the story or feature a lot of returning characters for it to be a faithful sequel. In fact, I think bringing back a character like Minsc could be rather hokey and overly fanservice-y if handled poorly. Though having a few characters return is fine and expected as long as their integration is organic and believable.
That said, I am a strong believer in the natural progression of lore and worldbuilding between the games in a fantasy franchise, and the 100-year-gap (also known as 200-year-gap in Skyrim, the 250-year-gap in Guild Wars 2 or the 1000-year-gap in Elder Scrolls Online) is a fantasy gaming trope that I absolutely cannot stand. I think fantasy writers generally introduce a gap of several generations between different installments of what is supposed to be a cohesive world when they've written themselves into a hole, they don't want to abide by the established lore, or they cannot think of a way to introduce the changes they want to the world organically. It's the ultimate slimy marketer's "we want a blank slate, but we also want to retain franchise name recognition" move, and to me it goes against everything fantasy is supposed to be about. Of course, I understand and fully appreciate that this is absolutely on Wizards and not on Larian. But its effects will still be felt in the game.
The visual style certainly doesn't look like either of the two Baldur's Gate games to me, but I'm willing to overlook this one as the original two (vanilla) also didn't look very much alike, so there's really no clear establishment of visual style as far as I'm concerned. However, BG3 does look very "overdesigned" to me, too much flare, especially for high fantasy. But I suppose that's a taste thing.
So yeah, that's kind of my response to the "you guys just don't like the game and you cannot define why it's not a faithful sequel" line of attack that we've seen crop up here from time to time.
i think i saw somewhere saying that your party will be your character and up to 4 more party members, so you will have 5 altogether
If we take their answer and fill in the blanks and implications with publicly known information, I think their answer comes out to be something along the lines of:
"It's a D&D game, it features the city of Baldur's Gate, it has some returning characters and/or cameos from previous games, and it has some vague story tie-ins, and we think those reasons are enough to justify it being a sequel to the first two games."
Of course, they're the only ones who actually know what's in their game at the moment, so if it has more concrete similarities or tie-ins that they haven't showed or talked about yet, they could have said so either in that interview or in a subsequent newsletter (without providing spoilers or specifics).
To me, this answer comes up short. And to be honest, having looked at BG3's gameplay there was no way for it not to come up short without them saying they will change the title and remove the sequel status.
Now, to those of us who voiced criticisms about the game not being a faithful sequel to the two OG BGs, we've seen some responses crop up that stated such criticisms were nebulous and we couldn't provide details. In order to raise a counterpoint, I'm now going to go into the details.
In July last year, I wrote a reply in this thread in which I provided an incomplete list of what gameplay mechanics features I thought a sequel needed to preserve from the Baldur's Gate games in order to remain faithful. Now that we've seen some of the gameplay, I can go back and check how many points BG3 actually checks out:
Individual and multiple character controls - No point.
Top-down, fixed camera isometric view - No point.
Dice-based combat - I can't give more than half a point here, as there seems to be some screwy business going on with the attack rolls.
Per rest and/or per encounter abilities (not cooldowns) - Point (probably).
Non-level-based item system - No info.
No randomized magic loot - No info.
Challenging learning curve (e.g. no hand holding) - No info.
While the above list may be incomplete, to me it already confirms that to me, gameplay-mechanics-wise BG3 fails to attain faithful sequel status on several levels. Some differences I could tolerate, as long as it could still feel like I'm playing Baldur's Gate. But that's way too much.
Story and character-wise I'm personally not in the camp that says they needed to continue the story or feature a lot of returning characters for it to be a faithful sequel. In fact, I think bringing back a character like Minsc could be rather hokey and overly fanservice-y if handled poorly. Though having a few characters return is fine and expected as long as their integration is organic and believable.
That said, I am a strong believer in the natural progression of lore and worldbuilding between the games in a fantasy franchise, and the 100-year-gap (also known as 200-year-gap in Skyrim, the 250-year-gap in Guild Wars 2 or the 1000-year-gap in Elder Scrolls Online) is a fantasy gaming trope that I absolutely cannot stand. I think fantasy writers generally introduce a gap of several generations between different installments of what is supposed to be a cohesive world when they've written themselves into a hole, they don't want to abide by the established lore, or they cannot think of a way to introduce the changes they want to the world organically. It's the ultimate slimy marketer's "we want a blank slate, but we also want to retain franchise name recognition" move, and to me it goes against everything fantasy is supposed to be about. Of course, I understand and fully appreciate that this is absolutely on Wizards and not on Larian. But its effects will still be felt in the game.
The visual style certainly doesn't look like either of the two Baldur's Gate games to me, but I'm willing to overlook this one as the original two (vanilla) also didn't look very much alike, so there's really no clear establishment of visual style as far as I'm concerned. However, BG3 does look very "overdesigned" to me, too much flare, especially for high fantasy. But I suppose that's a taste thing.
So yeah, that's kind of my response to the "you guys just don't like the game and you cannot define why it's not a faithful sequel" line of attack that we've seen crop up here from time to time.
i think i saw somewhere saying that your party will be your character and up to 4 more party members, so you will have 5 altogether
I thought so too, after I saw a screenshot that showed what looked like a cinematic scene showing five adventurers standing in a group.
Some of those mechanical faithful BG sequel points seem artificial though.
For example. A 6 man party. So if we have 5, it's zero points? If we have 7, it'd be zero points, too? Anyone who decides to play BG1 and 2 with only 1 person, or any party configuration that isnt exactly 6 isnt playing the correct way? It's problematic if we shoe-horn things too much.
Fixed isometric view: It's not fixed, but you can play it in the isometric view. So why is that a 0? If you never change it from that one view, how is it so terribly different?
Also, you're maybe underrating some aspects. Challenging learning curve: You did see that Sven had a TPK on his first fight, right? The first battle did not appear to be easy. By all accounts here, that looks to be more likely the case than not (As a side note: D:OS2 was a challenging game. At the beginning, you have to find fights you can actually win, because most of them are too hard right off the back).
If we asked every member of the community to define 10 mechanical aspects of the game without seeing each other answers, I suspect every single list would be different. So I still think it suggests we cannot clearly define what mechanical features are a requirement for this to be a good faith sequel.
Its the "3" in the title. Also the whole thing where they keep calling it the sequel to BG2. You know Baldur's Gate, that series where Sod was a continuation of BG1, with BG2 being a continuation of BG1. Its a set pattern, and by not coming out and saying that this isn't a sequel. it carries the implication that it will be a continuation.
Ah, so they're not doing it anywhere. Thanks!
Ah, so you're going to be disengenuous about it. Thanks!
Nope.
Calling it "Baldur's Gate III" does not actually imply that it will continue the storyline in Baldur's Gate I and II, not the least because to anyone who's played those games the story is blatantly obviously and profoundly over.
They've also said it's not a continuation of the original story and that it would be its own story. Your claim that absence of evidence against it must be evidence for it is not a compelling argument. Especially since people from Larian have said this will have its own story, meaning that there is no actual absence of such evidence.
I thought so too, after I saw a screenshot that showed what looked like a cinematic scene showing five adventurers standing in a group.
Yep, there was a leaked screenshot that showed 5 portraits in the party bar, although of course this could be subject to change prior to release, the last portrait was a temporary party ally and not a true party member, a Dominated ally etc. etc. Still, hopefully that does mean that there's technical capability behind the scenes that the party size is capable of going higher than 4.
Some of those mechanical faithful BG sequel points seem artificial though.
For example. A 6 man party. So if we have 5, it's zero points? If we have 7, it'd be zero points, too?
If the game has an abundance of companions as both BG games have had up to this point, it wouldn't have been difficult to balance the game around 6 party members. Them changing it for the sake of changing it is arbitrary and does the game no favors in the "does this feel like a sequel?" test.
Of course, it may have been changed based on a consideration of how slow the game plays in turn-based mode with a full 6-member party, but that just goes to show you that it's not just an artificial number and it does actually have real gameplay implications.
On a side note, it also has sentimental implications. The character dynamics feel different in a 6-man party than they do in a 5-man party or a 7-man party—changing the population of a group also changes the extents of intimacy and camaraderie felt inside the group. When alternating between a 5-man and 6-man party, your total potential number of intra-party character relationships alternates between 10 and 15. That's not an insignificant change by any means.
Anyone who decides to play BG1 and 2 with only 1 person, or any party configuration that isnt exactly 6 isnt playing the correct way?
Playing solo or with less than 6 party members was an option in BG 1 and 2. Playing with 6 party members was also an option in BG 1 and 2. Playing with 6 party members is not an option in BG3. This isn't about what is or isn't the correct way to play the game, it's about the sequel either preserving or discarding established gameplay standards from the previous installments.
Fixed isometric view: It's not fixed, but you can play it in the isometric view. So why is that a 0? If you never change it from that one view, how is it so terribly different?
Level design. If the camera can be moved, the camera needs to be moved in order to avoid obstructions and to show objects that would otherwise be obscured. In fixed camera games the levels are designed in a specific layout with the camera position in mind.
This of course also has visual design implications. Just look at how backgrounds are designed in PoE versus how levels are designed in D:OS2. They're two very different approaches—we're talking the difference between designing a 2D plane versus designing a 3D space.
Also, you're maybe underrating some aspects. Challenging learning curve: You did see that Sven had a TPK on his first fight, right? The first battle did not appear to be easy. By all accounts here, that looks to be more likely the case than not (As a side note: D:OS2 was a challenging game. At the beginning, you have to find fights you can actually win, because most of them are too hard right off the back).
I wasn't confident enough to give a point there, but to be fair I did skim the timeline of the gameplay video a bit, so maybe I would have if I saw the entire thing. However, giving a point to a "no info" list element doesn't change the outcome. The reason behind my "not faithful" rating are the missing points, not the points that I thought we don't yet have enough information about.
If we asked every member of the community to define 10 mechanical aspects of the game without seeing each other answers, I suspect every single list would be different. So I still think it suggests we cannot clearly define what mechanical features are a requirement for this to be a good faith sequel.
Sure, but those would be based on their preferences and their points of view, and there are based on mine. You keep conflating one person making their own subjective criticisms with that person claiming they are making everyone's objective criticisms.
"Adam tells me he’s a Senior Writer on BG 3 and is one of a team of 14 writers working on the game. He is responsible for one of the pre-built Origin characters, certain scenes, quests and key story moments.
What are some of your influences ?
Adam Smith : It's mostly D&D, and the actual source books. When we first started working on BG3 we spent a huge amount of time researching.
We knew what our main plot was, we knew we wanted Mind Flayers and to be strongly tied to the first two games.
One of the questions that comes up again and again is, 'why is it called Baldur's Gate 3?' and it's because it is a true sequel.
All the events of the past games, we studied thoroughly and what their impact in the world was. I'm a huge horror buff so and you can imagine how delighted I was about the teaser trailer and the Mind Flayer transformation because I actually wrote the transformation stuff.
<...>
Other than the titular city Baldur's Gate, do we see any other locations from the previous games?
Adam Smith : We're on the Sword Coast. So we start 200 miles east of Baldur's Gate. You're not gonna travel the whole 200 miles, but you're going to see a lot of stuff on the way there.
Then when you get there, there's going to be things that are recognized within the city, there'll be specific places, and taverns.
You'll see things and say "I recognize that. Oh, that's changed a little bit", or "what's happened here", and you can dig into that. Some of it will just be visual, some of it will be in dialogue.
There's other parts of the Sword Coast that we were really excited to go to as well. It's funny, one point was when Sven [Larian co-founder] went into a place underneath a Druid Grove. You know in Dungeons and Dragons, that you start going downwards, there are certain places you might end up.
<...>
Are any of the original voice cast returning? I'm hoping for Jim Cummings as Minsk
Adam Smith: I'm saying nothing.
(in my opinion, when replies are like that it means they can't say No because it's not a No).
<...>
Which would make sense as that story of those games concludes.
Adam Smith : Yeah, exactly. Well, this is a really important point. I think that that story was told, and told incredibly well. What we don't want to do is go back and change that and start saying 'oh but what if this?'. So instead, we take that as an incredibly important historical event that has left scars on the city or the world.
And there are people who remember it like Volo, but there are other people from the old games that will make appearances and we can't name them.
We're 100 years later and some people live a very long time in Faerun, and some races are naturally long lived. And also magic helps people to live like Volo. Canonically he is alive and there's a long story behind that which he'll probably tell you, but he is the canonically existing in published material. Volo is still around and it's kind of a miracle because he just gets himself into some much trouble.
We wanted to have very strong links to past games, like the the sense of embracing darkness. The sense of having something inside you. Something about yourself that is unfamiliar, that may offer power burden with consequences. That idea of choice and consequences baked into it, but also that sense of feeling something about yourself being wrong, and having the choice of saying 'would I want that power?', or the choice to turn away from it, and there'll be consequences for both.
How do you strike a balance between honouring the original games, and creating something new and innovative?
Adam Smith: I mean, all of it's hard. But it's just exciting. I think one is that if you stay true to D&D then you stay true to Baldur's Gate, and we're incredibly true to D&D. So there's a lot of things where there are elements of Divinity that you will see. But a lot of that is in terms of how we treat the environment. And a lot of the reasons that stuff works in Divinity is because that's how the world works.
Baldur's Gate wouldn't have existed unless a few brilliant people hadn't said 'we want to make our own game'. We want to make our own story. If we were trying to copy, we're trying to be too beholden to [the previous games], we wouldn't be doing the game because BG 1 and 2 are wildly different. That's important to us, that we say we know the core values of what the name Baldur's Gate means: to do something innovative and to do something that feels fresh."
@BelleSorciere "Calling it "Baldur's Gate III" does not actually imply that it will continue the storyline in Baldur's Gate I and II, not the least because to anyone who's played those games the story is blatantly obviously and profoundly over."
I disagree. We all know how sequels usually work. They continue the story of the installments before. Star Wars anyone? Heck, the major changes in the new trilogy was a major sticking point for a lot of people. There's zero chance that you cannot see the reasoning and implications being presented here. But I agree, the story is complete. "BG3" honestly should never be made. Just change the title.
@JuliusBorisov Posted in the new interview, "One of the questions that comes up again and again is, 'why is it called Baldur's Gate 3?' and it's because it is a true sequel."
Okay, but what MAKES it a true sequel, and what do Larian consider to be necessary aspects of a true sequel? Because I don't see it from what we've been shown.
The more I read those Larian interviews, the more I get the feeling that BG3 will be a "true sequel" of the PnP modules Heroes of Baldur's Gate and Baldur's Gate: Descent Into Avernus. As for the classy BG Trilogy though? Not so much.
@BelleSorciere "Calling it "Baldur's Gate III" does not actually imply that it will continue the storyline in Baldur's Gate I and II, not the least because to anyone who's played those games the story is blatantly obviously and profoundly over."
I disagree. We all know how sequels usually work. They continue the story of the installments before. Star Wars anyone? Heck, the major changes in the new trilogy was a major sticking point for a lot of people. There's zero chance that you cannot see the reasoning and implications being presented here. But I agree, the story is complete. "BG3" honestly should never be made. Just change the title.
@JuliusBorisov Posted in the new interview, "One of the questions that comes up again and again is, 'why is it called Baldur's Gate 3?' and it's because it is a true sequel."
Okay, but what MAKES it a true sequel, and what do Larian consider to be necessary aspects of a true sequel? Because I don't see it from what we've been shown.
Agreed that the interview is pretty vague and "it's BG since it D&D" and "it's BG 3 since it is a true sequel", without defining that. It's still better than the one with the combat designer.
Here is my take again:
The original series wrapped up nicely, and I think few people wanted a direct sequel story-wise. At least I would have been perfectly fine with there never being a BG 3.
People who are familiar with FR lore in the recent years know that there could not have been a meaningful continuation of CHARNAME's story and should not be surprised.
It's not a surprise that the many fans of BG who are not FR lore buffs would have expected a direct sequel story-wise given the title of the game. So I can understand them.
I am not at all upset that BG 3 is not a direct sequel, since I was aware of the status of the lore and never hoped for a sequel anyway.
What remains for me is a fair bit of a disappointment that they went for the low fruit title here, instead of starting their very own FR realms series ideally in a fresher part of the Realms. It's the safe, most lucrative choice, so I get it.
At the same time a bit of boldness would have gone a long way for me here. Bioware did not chicken out and take us back to Phlan and the Moonsea.
I do not think that there really is a disagreement here. I think in order: the game will be a critical and commercial success, it could have been a slightly larger commercial success if they had done some low effort messaging to pick up the smaller group of original BG fans and that I will probably like it less than the original games.
Is anyone really saying the games will fail commercially?
Somehow it seems to be what many of the more optimistic fans *want* to hear from the detractors. I especially find the KOTOR comparison to "won't be a success since not taking place during the original triligy" to be quite an unflattering straw man.
I wouldn't say it's guaranteed to succeed commercially. If it gets bad reviews from users and media on its release, it will sell, but maybe not enough to recoup its large budget and a decent profit.
Commercial success is never strictly guaranteed, but Larian has a huge fan base who reacted positively and the initial press impressions were gushing with praise. I don't see the press doing a 180 turn here.
At this point they have to really screw up to flop. I am ~95% confident that it will be a financial success.
Comments
Who says I am mad?
This entire time I have been looking at it from a marketing perspective. They screwed up on a marketing. They are going to lose sales because of it - that is a genuine fact. It has nothing to do with the quality of the game.
I mentioned this before, but you're coming across like a guy I saw on usenet in the early 2000s who insisted that KOTOR would fail because it wasn't set during the movies. Or maybe all the people who said they were boycotting Modern Warfare 2 but were playing it on day one?
The question isn't how many people aren't going to buy their game, but how many are, and you have not made a substantial claim in that regard, just a nebuluous claim that some people won't buy it because of the name. Since the reality is that every possible customer does not buy every possible game, this isn't a compelling argument that it will turn out badly.
It’s sad that they are potentially going to lose some sales because of this but like I said i don’t anticipate the lost sales being anywhere near significant enough for it to affect the games performance. I am currently predicting that this will be more successful than DOS1&2 and could potentially do very very well for them. I could be wrong here as things can change and I’m not claiming to be an expert but I will be very shocked if this game is not a resounding success critically and in terms of sales.
I’m not saying this makes how you feel any less relevant and it must be frustrating for the people that are of the same opinion as you.
Is anyone really saying the games will fail commercially?
Somehow it seems to be what many of the more optimistic fans *want* to hear from the detractors. I especially find the KOTOR comparison to "won't be a success since not taking place during the original triligy" to be quite an unflattering straw man.
I also do not see how "They screwed up on marketing." indicates a slight loss. Calling it Baldur's Gate III seems to me to be a good move, marketing wise. Brand recognition gets them notice, and the fact that it's a D&D game set in the Forgotten Realms doesn't really mean that those particular expectations will go unmet. Turn based seems fine (and real time with pause is turn-based with a few layers of camouflage) and the distinction strikes me as largely a conversation involving purists.
Oh yeah: I'm an original Baldur's Gate fan and I have no idea why you're all trying so hard to die on this hill.
The argument isn't the same either.
KotOR was not a direct continuation of the Star Wars films' story, and was not marketed as such (to my knowledge). It is set in the same fictional universe, just in a different era.
BG3, from what we know thusfar, also isn't a direct continuation of the original story, but *IS* IN FACT marketed as such.
KotOR-guy is purely lamenting the time-frame. BG3 is getting flak (imho rightly so) for suggesting a connection that doesn't seem to exist. Maybe there will be more of a connection woven into the story, and we'll see that when it comes out, but I'm not having much hope.
But if like me you see the series as a whole is not defined just by the story of charname but also by Bhaal himself then the hints of story connections may give hope that there will be some form of continuation in the sense that this could indeed show the aftermath of Bhaals resurrection which would be a direct result of the Bhaal Spawn crisis and therefore in ‘My Opinion’ a worthy continuation of the series. I for one would definitely be interested in seeing Bhaal and possibly even battling him
A cameo or even a party member from a the originals is not enough to call it a continuation of the story. Bhaal getting a prominent role is not enough either.
Time will tell I guess.
I am sorry the game isn’t hitting the right spot for you at the moment and I can only hope that time will change that but if it doesn’t then you have my condolences
I am not too familiar with D:OS2 marketing or sales (I don’t need to hear it was one of the best RPGs released in its year - other factors play a role such as the saturation of RtwP games that came out at the same time as it) as I had it blocked on my Steam account as I personally had no interest in the game until I finished the first so I really can’t compare the market for BG3 to the market now. I could research it... or I can go attempt to find a way out of Fort Joy.
But once again, dismissing and not addressing concerns that fans who are emotionally invested in the product have is not a good thing. That vocal minority has a voice and that voice can persuade others to not buy the product.
~
The dead three, or a cult following them, is definitely going to be playing a role in the game. The first trailer teased at that. As I said, I am intrigued with the story hooks so far, and IMO, story and immersion are the most crucial parts of an RPG. Still not a pre-order or early access sale for me though.
Where are they doing this?
I've seen at most that they're hinting at connections and appearances by characters like Minsc and Boo. But a continuation? I don't see it.
Still the same argument. They don't have to be 100% identical just to be the same kind of argument. Nitpicking perceived or actual differences doesn't make this argument more valid than the other. Both involve someone looking at a new installment to a beloved franchise and declaring it won't be as good because the new installment is "not sufficiently connected" to previous installments. I do acknowledge that no one here has said it will fail, at least.
Larian should 100% be able to give THEIR concrete answer to the question. I wasn't looking for what I would have said, I KNOW what I would have said. I wanted to know why THEY think its faithful BG3 sequel. Which they refuse to say.
@BelleSorciere "Where are they doing this?"
Its the "3" in the title. Also the whole thing where they keep calling it the sequel to BG2. You know Baldur's Gate, that series where Sod was a continuation of BG1, with BG2 being a continuation of BG1. Its a set pattern, and by not coming out and saying that this isn't a sequel. it carries the implication that it will be a continuation.
it's like with mass effect Andromeda. say what you will about 3's ending but mass effect's story was over when 3 ended.
Ah, so they're not doing it anywhere. Thanks!
"It's a D&D game, it features the city of Baldur's Gate, it has some returning characters and/or cameos from previous games, and it has some vague story tie-ins, and we think those reasons are enough to justify it being a sequel to the first two games."
Of course, they're the only ones who actually know what's in their game at the moment, so if it has more concrete similarities or tie-ins that they haven't showed or talked about yet, they could have said so either in that interview or in a subsequent newsletter (without providing spoilers or specifics).
To me, this answer comes up short. And to be honest, having looked at BG3's gameplay there was no way for it not to come up short without them saying they will change the title and remove the sequel status.
Now, to those of us who voiced criticisms about the game not being a faithful sequel to the two OG BGs, we've seen some responses crop up that stated such criticisms were nebulous and we couldn't provide details. In order to raise a counterpoint, I'm now going to go into the details.
In July last year, I wrote a reply in this thread in which I provided an incomplete list of what gameplay mechanics features I thought a sequel needed to preserve from the Baldur's Gate games in order to remain faithful. Now that we've seen some of the gameplay, I can go back and check how many points BG3 actually checks out:
While the above list may be incomplete, to me it already confirms that to me, gameplay-mechanics-wise BG3 fails to attain faithful sequel status on several levels. Some differences I could tolerate, as long as it could still feel like I'm playing Baldur's Gate. But that's way too much.
Story and character-wise I'm personally not in the camp that says they needed to continue the story or feature a lot of returning characters for it to be a faithful sequel. In fact, I think bringing back a character like Minsc could be rather hokey and overly fanservice-y if handled poorly. Though having a few characters return is fine and expected as long as their integration is organic and believable.
That said, I am a strong believer in the natural progression of lore and worldbuilding between the games in a fantasy franchise, and the 100-year-gap (also known as 200-year-gap in Skyrim, the 250-year-gap in Guild Wars 2 or the 1000-year-gap in Elder Scrolls Online) is a fantasy gaming trope that I absolutely cannot stand. I think fantasy writers generally introduce a gap of several generations between different installments of what is supposed to be a cohesive world when they've written themselves into a hole, they don't want to abide by the established lore, or they cannot think of a way to introduce the changes they want to the world organically. It's the ultimate slimy marketer's "we want a blank slate, but we also want to retain franchise name recognition" move, and to me it goes against everything fantasy is supposed to be about. Of course, I understand and fully appreciate that this is absolutely on Wizards and not on Larian. But its effects will still be felt in the game.
The visual style certainly doesn't look like either of the two Baldur's Gate games to me, but I'm willing to overlook this one as the original two (vanilla) also didn't look very much alike, so there's really no clear establishment of visual style as far as I'm concerned. However, BG3 does look very "overdesigned" to me, too much flare, especially for high fantasy. But I suppose that's a taste thing.
So yeah, that's kind of my response to the "you guys just don't like the game and you cannot define why it's not a faithful sequel" line of attack that we've seen crop up here from time to time.
I wouldn't say it's guaranteed to succeed commercially. If it gets bad reviews from users and media on its release, it will sell, but maybe not enough to recoup its large budget and a decent profit.
Ah, so you're going to be disengenuous about it. Thanks!
i think i saw somewhere saying that your party will be your character and up to 4 more party members, so you will have 5 altogether
I thought so too, after I saw a screenshot that showed what looked like a cinematic scene showing five adventurers standing in a group.
For example. A 6 man party. So if we have 5, it's zero points? If we have 7, it'd be zero points, too? Anyone who decides to play BG1 and 2 with only 1 person, or any party configuration that isnt exactly 6 isnt playing the correct way? It's problematic if we shoe-horn things too much.
Fixed isometric view: It's not fixed, but you can play it in the isometric view. So why is that a 0? If you never change it from that one view, how is it so terribly different?
Also, you're maybe underrating some aspects. Challenging learning curve: You did see that Sven had a TPK on his first fight, right? The first battle did not appear to be easy. By all accounts here, that looks to be more likely the case than not (As a side note: D:OS2 was a challenging game. At the beginning, you have to find fights you can actually win, because most of them are too hard right off the back).
If we asked every member of the community to define 10 mechanical aspects of the game without seeing each other answers, I suspect every single list would be different. So I still think it suggests we cannot clearly define what mechanical features are a requirement for this to be a good faith sequel.
Nope.
Calling it "Baldur's Gate III" does not actually imply that it will continue the storyline in Baldur's Gate I and II, not the least because to anyone who's played those games the story is blatantly obviously and profoundly over.
They've also said it's not a continuation of the original story and that it would be its own story. Your claim that absence of evidence against it must be evidence for it is not a compelling argument. Especially since people from Larian have said this will have its own story, meaning that there is no actual absence of such evidence.
Yep, there was a leaked screenshot that showed 5 portraits in the party bar, although of course this could be subject to change prior to release, the last portrait was a temporary party ally and not a true party member, a Dominated ally etc. etc. Still, hopefully that does mean that there's technical capability behind the scenes that the party size is capable of going higher than 4.
If the game has an abundance of companions as both BG games have had up to this point, it wouldn't have been difficult to balance the game around 6 party members. Them changing it for the sake of changing it is arbitrary and does the game no favors in the "does this feel like a sequel?" test.
Of course, it may have been changed based on a consideration of how slow the game plays in turn-based mode with a full 6-member party, but that just goes to show you that it's not just an artificial number and it does actually have real gameplay implications.
On a side note, it also has sentimental implications. The character dynamics feel different in a 6-man party than they do in a 5-man party or a 7-man party—changing the population of a group also changes the extents of intimacy and camaraderie felt inside the group. When alternating between a 5-man and 6-man party, your total potential number of intra-party character relationships alternates between 10 and 15. That's not an insignificant change by any means.
Playing solo or with less than 6 party members was an option in BG 1 and 2. Playing with 6 party members was also an option in BG 1 and 2. Playing with 6 party members is not an option in BG3. This isn't about what is or isn't the correct way to play the game, it's about the sequel either preserving or discarding established gameplay standards from the previous installments.
Level design. If the camera can be moved, the camera needs to be moved in order to avoid obstructions and to show objects that would otherwise be obscured. In fixed camera games the levels are designed in a specific layout with the camera position in mind.
This of course also has visual design implications. Just look at how backgrounds are designed in PoE versus how levels are designed in D:OS2. They're two very different approaches—we're talking the difference between designing a 2D plane versus designing a 3D space.
I wasn't confident enough to give a point there, but to be fair I did skim the timeline of the gameplay video a bit, so maybe I would have if I saw the entire thing. However, giving a point to a "no info" list element doesn't change the outcome. The reason behind my "not faithful" rating are the missing points, not the points that I thought we don't yet have enough information about.
Sure, but those would be based on their preferences and their points of view, and there are based on mine. You keep conflating one person making their own subjective criticisms with that person claiming they are making everyone's objective criticisms.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/tech/baldurs-gate-3-writer-take-21600314
"Adam tells me he’s a Senior Writer on BG 3 and is one of a team of 14 writers working on the game. He is responsible for one of the pre-built Origin characters, certain scenes, quests and key story moments.
What are some of your influences ?
Adam Smith : It's mostly D&D, and the actual source books. When we first started working on BG3 we spent a huge amount of time researching.
We knew what our main plot was, we knew we wanted Mind Flayers and to be strongly tied to the first two games.
One of the questions that comes up again and again is, 'why is it called Baldur's Gate 3?' and it's because it is a true sequel.
All the events of the past games, we studied thoroughly and what their impact in the world was. I'm a huge horror buff so and you can imagine how delighted I was about the teaser trailer and the Mind Flayer transformation because I actually wrote the transformation stuff.
<...>
Other than the titular city Baldur's Gate, do we see any other locations from the previous games?
Adam Smith : We're on the Sword Coast. So we start 200 miles east of Baldur's Gate. You're not gonna travel the whole 200 miles, but you're going to see a lot of stuff on the way there.
Then when you get there, there's going to be things that are recognized within the city, there'll be specific places, and taverns.
You'll see things and say "I recognize that. Oh, that's changed a little bit", or "what's happened here", and you can dig into that. Some of it will just be visual, some of it will be in dialogue.
There's other parts of the Sword Coast that we were really excited to go to as well. It's funny, one point was when Sven [Larian co-founder] went into a place underneath a Druid Grove. You know in Dungeons and Dragons, that you start going downwards, there are certain places you might end up.
<...>
Are any of the original voice cast returning? I'm hoping for Jim Cummings as Minsk
Adam Smith: I'm saying nothing.
(in my opinion, when replies are like that it means they can't say No because it's not a No).
<...>
Which would make sense as that story of those games concludes.
Adam Smith : Yeah, exactly. Well, this is a really important point. I think that that story was told, and told incredibly well. What we don't want to do is go back and change that and start saying 'oh but what if this?'. So instead, we take that as an incredibly important historical event that has left scars on the city or the world.
And there are people who remember it like Volo, but there are other people from the old games that will make appearances and we can't name them.
We're 100 years later and some people live a very long time in Faerun, and some races are naturally long lived. And also magic helps people to live like Volo. Canonically he is alive and there's a long story behind that which he'll probably tell you, but he is the canonically existing in published material. Volo is still around and it's kind of a miracle because he just gets himself into some much trouble.
We wanted to have very strong links to past games, like the the sense of embracing darkness. The sense of having something inside you. Something about yourself that is unfamiliar, that may offer power burden with consequences. That idea of choice and consequences baked into it, but also that sense of feeling something about yourself being wrong, and having the choice of saying 'would I want that power?', or the choice to turn away from it, and there'll be consequences for both.
How do you strike a balance between honouring the original games, and creating something new and innovative?
Adam Smith: I mean, all of it's hard. But it's just exciting. I think one is that if you stay true to D&D then you stay true to Baldur's Gate, and we're incredibly true to D&D. So there's a lot of things where there are elements of Divinity that you will see. But a lot of that is in terms of how we treat the environment. And a lot of the reasons that stuff works in Divinity is because that's how the world works.
Baldur's Gate wouldn't have existed unless a few brilliant people hadn't said 'we want to make our own game'. We want to make our own story. If we were trying to copy, we're trying to be too beholden to [the previous games], we wouldn't be doing the game because BG 1 and 2 are wildly different. That's important to us, that we say we know the core values of what the name Baldur's Gate means: to do something innovative and to do something that feels fresh."
Sounding like its shaping to be an interesting sequel
I disagree. We all know how sequels usually work. They continue the story of the installments before. Star Wars anyone? Heck, the major changes in the new trilogy was a major sticking point for a lot of people. There's zero chance that you cannot see the reasoning and implications being presented here. But I agree, the story is complete. "BG3" honestly should never be made. Just change the title.
@JuliusBorisov Posted in the new interview, "One of the questions that comes up again and again is, 'why is it called Baldur's Gate 3?' and it's because it is a true sequel."
Okay, but what MAKES it a true sequel, and what do Larian consider to be necessary aspects of a true sequel? Because I don't see it from what we've been shown.
Agreed that the interview is pretty vague and "it's BG since it D&D" and "it's BG 3 since it is a true sequel", without defining that. It's still better than the one with the combat designer.
Here is my take again:
I am not at all upset that BG 3 is not a direct sequel, since I was aware of the status of the lore and never hoped for a sequel anyway.
What remains for me is a fair bit of a disappointment that they went for the low fruit title here, instead of starting their very own FR realms series ideally in a fresher part of the Realms. It's the safe, most lucrative choice, so I get it.
At the same time a bit of boldness would have gone a long way for me here. Bioware did not chicken out and take us back to Phlan and the Moonsea.
Commercial success is never strictly guaranteed, but Larian has a huge fan base who reacted positively and the initial press impressions were gushing with praise. I don't see the press doing a 180 turn here.
At this point they have to really screw up to flop. I am ~95% confident that it will be a financial success.