@Zaxares I suspect that they will use the current D&D canon which will mean that Charname will be referee to as Abdel I believe. This will not be popular with some people and I get that. It really doesn’t bother me to much as I generally am happy to consider what happened after Baldur’s Gate 2 as cannon and Abdel became a duke of Buldur’s Gate and then died in Baldur’s Gate as one of the two last Bhaal Spawn fighting Viakang (sorry If spelt wrong). The winner of that fight wasn’t confirmed I believe ( would be interesting if you could somehow find that out in BG3) but it doesn’t matter as the winner turned into the slayer and was killed by a group of adventurers I believe.
My point being that Baldur’s Gate would be the perfect setting to carry things on after Bhaal’s resurrection seeing as it seems it was there that it happened.
I would also love some function where you could define who your version of Charname was but I’m not gonna lose any sleep if they don’t allow it.
The last interview specifically mentions that the world is shaped taking into account how the bhaalspawn saga impacted the world. They are incorporating that into the story, and there will be familiar faces and places.
Sounds like a good basis for a sequel with a new protagonist to me, but those disclosures seem to be discarded so fast by certain posters; I am amazed at the zeal of some of you (positively and negatively).
Show me, don’t tell me.
Also Devs are backtracking.
It was a direct sequel to the D&D Module Decent into Avernus. Now it’s a direct sequel to Baldur’s Gate 2. Which is it?
Baldur’s Gate also didn’t really have any consequences with the Bhaalspawn Saga. As Gorion’s Ward moved south, so too did the destruction their presence caused. I don’t see how a potential war over an iron shortage that is now long passed is going to shape the strory more now than say Spell Plague or are they just going to ignore the 100 years of Forgotten Realm lore to shoehorn in the connection?
But in FR canon Gorion's ward moved back to Baldur's Gate and became a Duke there. Bhaal's resurrection took place in Baldur's Gate. There's also a significant cult of the Dead Three in the city. So the connection is not shoehorned in by Larian.
(I personally don't really like newer FR realm lore and think they are putting in more drastic and epic changes to the setting in a short time that is healthy for a setting, especially as many of them had a retcon feel. But that is a separate discussion).
theres some implication that the bhaal spawn from that module was not gorion's ward. the fact they are considered two separate characters in a card game does not help matter.
The last interview specifically mentions that the world is shaped taking into account how the bhaalspawn saga impacted the world. They are incorporating that into the story, and there will be familiar faces and places.
Sounds like a good basis for a sequel with a new protagonist to me, but those disclosures seem to be discarded so fast by certain posters; I am amazed at the zeal of some of you (positively and negatively).
Show me, don’t tell me.
Also Devs are backtracking.
It was a direct sequel to the D&D Module Decent into Avernus. Now it’s a direct sequel to Baldur’s Gate 2. Which is it?
Baldur’s Gate also didn’t really have any consequences with the Bhaalspawn Saga. As Gorion’s Ward moved south, so too did the destruction their presence caused. I don’t see how a potential war over an iron shortage that is now long passed is going to shape the strory more now than say Spell Plague or are they just going to ignore the 100 years of Forgotten Realm lore to shoehorn in the connection?
But in FR canon Gorion's ward moved back to Baldur's Gate and became a Duke there. Bhaal's resurrection took place in Baldur's Gate. There's also a significant cult of the Dead Three in the city. So the connection is not shoehorned in by Larian.
(I personally don't really like newer FR realm lore and think they are putting in more drastic and epic changes to the setting in a short time that is healthy for a setting, especially as many of them had a retcon feel. But that is a separate discussion).
theres some implication that the bhaal spawn from that module was not gorion's ward. the fact they are considered two separate characters in a card game does not help matter.
True, I think FR lore is a inconsistent mess right now, especially concerning the history of the Bhaalspawn. Then there are all the changes to the feel of the city of Baldur's Gate itself. It's not really something I would like to pick up as DM. 5th Edition rules are great, but the FR setting is in a sorry state (my opinion, of course).
The last interview specifically mentions that the world is shaped taking into account how the bhaalspawn saga impacted the world. They are incorporating that into the story, and there will be familiar faces and places.
Sounds like a good basis for a sequel with a new protagonist to me, but those disclosures seem to be discarded so fast by certain posters; I am amazed at the zeal of some of you (positively and negatively).
Show me, don’t tell me.
Also Devs are backtracking.
It was a direct sequel to the D&D Module Decent into Avernus. Now it’s a direct sequel to Baldur’s Gate 2. Which is it?
Baldur’s Gate also didn’t really have any consequences with the Bhaalspawn Saga. As Gorion’s Ward moved south, so too did the destruction their presence caused. I don’t see how a potential war over an iron shortage that is now long passed is going to shape the strory more now than say Spell Plague or are they just going to ignore the 100 years of Forgotten Realm lore to shoehorn in the connection?
But in FR canon Gorion's ward moved back to Baldur's Gate and became a Duke there. Bhaal's resurrection took place in Baldur's Gate. There's also a significant cult of the Dead Three in the city. So the connection is not shoehorned in by Larian.
(I personally don't really like newer FR realm lore and think they are putting in more drastic and epic changes to the setting in a short time that is healthy for a setting, especially as many of them had a retcon feel. But that is a separate discussion).
Awesome. None of that happened in the first two games that this is now a ‘direct’ sequel to. So I am less reassured if this is what they are relying on.
There maybe tie ins to the Bhaalspawn saga, because that is Forgotten Realms lore. But it doesn’t tie into the actual story of the first Baldur’s Gate video game or the second.
The current lore status is very unclear anyway, since initially FR established a canon version of the Bhaalspawn story in the horrible novels which was quite different from the games and later retconned some parts of the novels like Minsc to be closer to the games. I could see Larian being quite vague for that reason.
IMO, even if you're somehow upset by the particulars of this title, it could be a very promising thing for a new generation of D&D CRPG's. It's been awhile since there's been a good one.
If BG3 is a success, every other contemporary D&D cRPG will be just like it. How is this a promising thing for me as someone who does not like BG3?
IMO, even if you're somehow upset by the particulars of this title, it could be a very promising thing for a new generation of D&D CRPG's. It's been awhile since there's been a good one.
If BG3 is a success, every other contemporary D&D cRPG will be just like it. How is this a promising thing for me as someone who does not like BG3?
Yes, BG3 can be a genre-defining RPG. But I firmly believe that you should like or not like it only after the game is released, not at this stage and not during the Early Access period.
Even if you will hate BG3 so much that ALL the aspects of it will seem awful to you, there is a chance another developer will use certain aspects of BG3 in another context to create another game which might become your favourite.
Just look at how P:WotR gets a lot of attention from RtwP fans these days - because players' feedback is not unheard by developers.
It’s a shame really as I personally feel that what we are hearing so far and all the potential tie ins are setting this up to be more then a worthy sequel. There are a few here that are just not going to change their opinion no matter how much this game links to the previous games. I feel very sad for them as I was hoping some of them would come around a bit after it was clarified that there would be links. It really does suck that anyone feels that way. I guess at the end of the day that’s the beauty of free will. Not everyone likes the same things. I’m just happy on this occasion that so far the reception has been majorly positive as I am really looking forward to this.
I must say that once I sat back and decided to try not to engage in any heated debate as much and just watch and read people’s opinions that it has been very interesting to see how passionate a lot of people are here about their points of view.
You’re a passionate bunch and I respect most of you for that
IMO, even if you're somehow upset by the particulars of this title, it could be a very promising thing for a new generation of D&D CRPG's. It's been awhile since there's been a good one.
If BG3 is a success, every other contemporary D&D cRPG will be just like it. How is this a promising thing for me as someone who does not like BG3?
Yes, BG3 can be a genre-defining RPG. But I firmly believe that you should like or not like it only after the game is released, not at this stage and not during the Early Access period.
Even if you will hate BG3 so much that ALL the aspects of it will seem awful to you, there is a chance another developer will use certain aspects of BG3 in another context to create another game which might become your favourite.
Just look at how P:WotR gets a lot of attention from RtwP fans these days - because players' feedback is not unheard by developers.
Fair enough. Nothing I would disagree with, except that I don't need to buy/play a game to know if I will like it. I won't be contributing to the sales numbers of a game I don't like.
Furthermore, as someone who wants RTwP games in a market where 9 out of 10 cRPGs are TB, how does a RTwP fan send a message to game developers other than by not buying the TB games? If the RTwP fans "suck it up" and buy the TB games because that is all they're given, what incentive do developers have to provide us with RTwP games?
I don't see any RTwP D&D cRPGs anywhere in the foreseeable future. Feel free to try and convince me otherwise.
If you decide whether to buy/like the game by the combat mode it's using - it's your decision. I enjoy both RtwP and TB games, as it's the story, characters, world exploration which mean a lot more to me than the combat mode.
If you decide whether to buy/like the game by the combat mode it's using - it's your decision. I enjoy both RtwP and TB games, as it's the story, characters, world exploration which mean a lot more to me than the combat mode.
You are correct. I should've worded it slightly differently. I don't really care for games using D&D rules. But I do love the FR setting and want to play games in that setting. So I should've said "FR games" and not "D&D games."
As for playing TB games, I have played TB games in the past and was always open to TB games, even if I didn't like them in my cRPGs (though I do enjoy strategic games which tend to be TB). Ironically, where D:OS is held by TB fans as the epitamy of TB combat systems, it is precisely playing D:OS that has killed my inclination to even try a TB cRPG. For me, that combat system was irredeemably tedious, aggravating, and all-around aweful.
I heard certain players found the TB implementation in D:OS 1 a bit slow, but it was fastened in D:OS 2 (which contributed to a much bigger success of this game), and it'll be further fastened in BG3 (thus the phase-based system). Quickening the combat is not the only difference between D:OS 1 and D:OS 2 fights, - the gameplay generally really improved.
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.
How can it possibly get bad reviews? The gaming media has its lips firmly planted on Larian's ass right now, much like it did at one time for Bethesda and Bioware. Larian can literally create garbage and the media reviewers will fawn about how amazing it is.
It's always weird to me that people can post the most disrespectful, dismissive takes about certain kinds of people on these forums, so long as those people aren't on these forums.
I know right? I've been called senile, pathetic, worthless, AND a terrorist here! I can't believe how toxic some of these people are.
The last interview specifically mentions that the world is shaped taking into account how the bhaalspawn saga impacted the world. They are incorporating that into the story, and there will be familiar faces and places.
Sounds like a good basis for a sequel with a new protagonist to me, but those disclosures seem to be discarded so fast by certain posters; I am amazed at the zeal of some of you (positively and negatively).
Show me, don’t tell me.
Also Devs are backtracking.
It was a direct sequel to the D&D Module Decent into Avernus. Now it’s a direct sequel to Baldur’s Gate 2. Which is it?
Baldur’s Gate also didn’t really have any consequences with the Bhaalspawn Saga. As Gorion’s Ward moved south, so too did the destruction their presence caused. I don’t see how a potential war over an iron shortage that is now long passed is going to shape the strory more now than say Spell Plague or are they just going to ignore the 100 years of Forgotten Realm lore to shoehorn in the connection?
But in FR canon Gorion's ward moved back to Baldur's Gate and became a Duke there. Bhaal's resurrection took place in Baldur's Gate. There's also a significant cult of the Dead Three in the city. So the connection is not shoehorned in by Larian.
(I personally don't really like newer FR realm lore and think they are putting in more drastic and epic changes to the setting in a short time that is healthy for a setting, especially as many of them had a retcon feel. But that is a separate discussion).
A connection with P&P, not with the games. So no, there is still no details on how the heck Larian thinks this connects to BG1 and 2 whatsoever.
I heard certain players found the TB implementation in D:OS 1 a bit slow, but it was fastened in D:OS 2 (which contributed to a much bigger success of this game), and it'll be further fastened in BG3 (thus the phase-based system). Quickening the combat is not the only difference between D:OS 1 and D:OS 2 fights, - the gameplay generally really improved.
I agree that Larian has tried to improve the combat system in BG3 with team initiative (though some TB purists on the Larian forum are now campaigning to have this reversed). The team initiative change is definietly what makes this combat system even remotely palatable to me. However, unlike for some people, I have been clear from the beginning that my problems with BG3 go beyond any one issue. For me, party size reduction by 1/3 is a huge negative. For me my roleplaying pleasure is not only about developing my PC but equally also about developing my companions. It is why I do not like playing solo games (i.e. Skyrim) because the party size there is 1! So going to a party of 4 is literally a 33% reduction in my fun/pleasure. The game's emphasis of multiplayer over single player is another huge issue. And yes, I also agree that at this point (though I agree this could change) the game looks like a D:OS clone in its appearance and tone.
If the game remains largely as it currently is, it's a hard no for me. If team initiative is retained, if avoiding combat encounters altogether through a range of other means is strengthened, if party size can optionally be increased to 6, and if the game looks and feels like a game using the FR setting rather than the Rivellon setting, then I would be open to trying it.
@ThacoBell@DinoDin For the record: please don't discuss other users and their behavior. Flag the offending posts, and leave the rest to the moderators.
I heard certain players found the TB implementation in D:OS 1 a bit slow, but it was fastened in D:OS 2 (which contributed to a much bigger success of this game), and it'll be further fastened in BG3 (thus the phase-based system). Quickening the combat is not the only difference between D:OS 1 and D:OS 2 fights, - the gameplay generally really improved.
I agree that Larian has tried to improve the combat system in BG3 with team initiative (though some TB purists on the Larian forum are now campaigning to have this reversed). The team initiative change is definietly what makes this combat system even remotely palatable to me. However, unlike for some people, I have been clear from the beginning that my problems with BG3 go beyond any one issue. For me, party size reduction by 1/3 is a huge negative. For me my roleplaying pleasure is not only about developing my PC but equally also about developing my companions. It is why I do not like playing solo games (i.e. Skyrim) because the party size there is 1! So going to a party of 4 is literally a 33% reduction in my fun/pleasure. The game's emphasis of multiplayer over single player is another huge issue. And yes, I also agree that at this point (though I agree this could change) the game looks like a D:OS clone in its appearance and tone.
If the game remains largely as it currently is, it's a hard no for me. If team initiative is retained, if avoiding combat encounters altogether through a range of other means is strengthened, if party size can optionally be increased to 6, and if the game looks and feels like a game using the FR setting rather than the Rivellon setting, then I would be open to trying it.
All these complaints are not related to RtwP, which was the point I tried to address when you said:
IMO, even if you're somehow upset by the particulars of this title, it could be a very promising thing for a new generation of D&D CRPG's. It's been awhile since there's been a good one.
If BG3 is a success, every other contemporary D&D cRPG will be just like it. How is this a promising thing for me as someone who does not like BG3?
IMO, even if you're somehow upset by the particulars of this title, it could be a very promising thing for a new generation of D&D CRPG's. It's been awhile since there's been a good one.
If BG3 is a success, every other contemporary D&D cRPG will be just like it. How is this a promising thing for me as someone who does not like BG3?
Yes, BG3 can be a genre-defining RPG. But I firmly believe that you should like or not like it only after the game is released, not at this stage and not during the Early Access period.
Even if you will hate BG3 so much that ALL the aspects of it will seem awful to you, there is a chance another developer will use certain aspects of BG3 in another context to create another game which might become your favourite.
Just look at how P:WotR gets a lot of attention from RtwP fans these days - because players' feedback is not unheard by developers.
Fair enough. Nothing I would disagree with, except that I don't need to buy/play a game to know if I will like it. I won't be contributing to the sales numbers of a game I don't like.
Furthermore, as someone who wants RTwP games in a market where 9 out of 10 cRPGs are TB, how does a RTwP fan send a message to game developers other than by not buying the TB games? If the RTwP fans "suck it up" and buy the TB games because that is all they're given, what incentive do developers have to provide us with RTwP games?
I don't see any RTwP D&D cRPGs anywhere in the foreseeable future. Feel free to try and convince me otherwise.
In other words, your feedback re/ party size ; MP ; Rivellon setting ; D:OS assets - it doesn't mean other companies will have to do the same. So BG3 won't mean other fantasy or even FR games will be the same in this context.
To cite one example, the BG series (and IE games as a whole) give pretty poor combat feedback on some things that are kind of essential. And can only be figured out via the manual or looking things up online.
Or, and I know this is going to be a big retro throwback, by paying attention and experimenting.
A lot of older games—and even some newer ones—don't give you full on solutions to every task you need to accomplish to progress, sometimes they try to engage you to an extent that goes beyond giving you simple instructions to follow and actually requires some level of problem solving to figure out. I don't fault games for challenging players in this way, in fact I massively prefer that they do.
[/quote]
This, pretty much, and it's actually even more in-line with PnP DnD.
After all, the player might know exactly what subtype of what monster they're facing. The player might know every possible spell an enemy might throw at them, and the mechanics on how to avoid the effects. Would their character?
The nature of traps is a pretty crude system, especially contrasted against what Larian accomplished in that specific mechanic in the OS games.
The trap system in D:OS is certainly neat, but I wouldn't expect (or want) every CRPG to include trap-disarming emulation minigames going forward. It's a good gimmick to shake things up, but it's not what RPGs are about. The convention of RPGs is to simplify complex systems and let your character's skills determine the outcomes instead of you having to micromanage trivial actions like trap disarming.
A mini-game to disarm traps or pick locks imo would undermine the stat it's connected to, and by extension the RP. For those actions you'd basically add the dexterity of, again, the player.
Also, it would slow down the game even more. We have TB-combat for that already.
IMO, even if you're somehow upset by the particulars of this title, it could be a very promising thing for a new generation of D&D CRPG's. It's been awhile since there's been a good one.
If BG3 is a success, every other contemporary D&D cRPG will be just like it. How is this a promising thing for me as someone who does not like BG3?
Depends on why you don't like BG3.
Personally I would welcome any new Forgotten Realms cRPG. Should BG3 fare well enough it might spawn progeny set in FR places we have previously only dreamed of going. If I have a good feeling about it I might even try it, even if it's TB.
@ThacoBell@DinoDin For the record: please don't discuss other users and their behavior. Flag the offending posts, and leave the rest to the moderators.
FWIW, it was not my intention to block or censor anyone from making insulting posts. Instead, I merely wanted to stop and note that dismissive, insulting, and overgeneralizing arguments were not only acceptable to certain posters on here, but applauded -- so long as the targets aren't here.
I'm not trying to get personal here, but I do think it's important to note that there is something of an unspoken assumption in the arguments here: game reviewers can be dismissed, a game's or series' popularity among the general public (sales) can be dismissed. Because only some CRPG players matter. Or, at the very least, they matter more than others. That's a deeply mistaken assumption folks are making. It's certainly not a philosophy any game company should adopt or be expected to adopt.
If you think a post is insulting, please flag it. Don't discuss it in the thread as it only derails the thread and brings more attention to something that doesn't need attention. It's unacceptable to violate the rules here and applaud such violations. The moderation team has been doing some work to navigate the BG3 discussion ship during these rough weeks. If you think something needs our attention, just flag it.
I heard certain players found the TB implementation in D:OS 1 a bit slow, but it was fastened in D:OS 2 (which contributed to a much bigger success of this game), and it'll be further fastened in BG3 (thus the phase-based system). Quickening the combat is not the only difference between D:OS 1 and D:OS 2 fights, - the gameplay generally really improved.
I agree that Larian has tried to improve the combat system in BG3 with team initiative (though some TB purists on the Larian forum are now campaigning to have this reversed). The team initiative change is definietly what makes this combat system even remotely palatable to me. However, unlike for some people, I have been clear from the beginning that my problems with BG3 go beyond any one issue. For me, party size reduction by 1/3 is a huge negative. For me my roleplaying pleasure is not only about developing my PC but equally also about developing my companions. It is why I do not like playing solo games (i.e. Skyrim) because the party size there is 1! So going to a party of 4 is literally a 33% reduction in my fun/pleasure. The game's emphasis of multiplayer over single player is another huge issue. And yes, I also agree that at this point (though I agree this could change) the game looks like a D:OS clone in its appearance and tone.
If the game remains largely as it currently is, it's a hard no for me. If team initiative is retained, if avoiding combat encounters altogether through a range of other means is strengthened, if party size can optionally be increased to 6, and if the game looks and feels like a game using the FR setting rather than the Rivellon setting, then I would be open to trying it.
All these complaints are not related to RtwP, which was the point I tried to address when you said:
IMO, even if you're somehow upset by the particulars of this title, it could be a very promising thing for a new generation of D&D CRPG's. It's been awhile since there's been a good one.
If BG3 is a success, every other contemporary D&D cRPG will be just like it. How is this a promising thing for me as someone who does not like BG3?
IMO, even if you're somehow upset by the particulars of this title, it could be a very promising thing for a new generation of D&D CRPG's. It's been awhile since there's been a good one.
If BG3 is a success, every other contemporary D&D cRPG will be just like it. How is this a promising thing for me as someone who does not like BG3?
Yes, BG3 can be a genre-defining RPG. But I firmly believe that you should like or not like it only after the game is released, not at this stage and not during the Early Access period.
Even if you will hate BG3 so much that ALL the aspects of it will seem awful to you, there is a chance another developer will use certain aspects of BG3 in another context to create another game which might become your favourite.
Just look at how P:WotR gets a lot of attention from RtwP fans these days - because players' feedback is not unheard by developers.
Fair enough. Nothing I would disagree with, except that I don't need to buy/play a game to know if I will like it. I won't be contributing to the sales numbers of a game I don't like.
Furthermore, as someone who wants RTwP games in a market where 9 out of 10 cRPGs are TB, how does a RTwP fan send a message to game developers other than by not buying the TB games? If the RTwP fans "suck it up" and buy the TB games because that is all they're given, what incentive do developers have to provide us with RTwP games?
I don't see any RTwP D&D cRPGs anywhere in the foreseeable future. Feel free to try and convince me otherwise.
In other words, your feedback re/ party size ; MP ; Rivellon setting ; D:OS assets - it doesn't mean other companies will have to do the same. So BG3 won't mean other fantasy or even FR games will be the same in this context.
Yes, so long as it's being made by someone other than Larian. But why is WotC going to go to anyone else to make a D&D cRPG? They will approach other developers to make D&D games in other genres, sure, but not a cRPG because that would only duplicate what they're getting from BG3. The BG franchise and Larian will be the sole repository of D&D cRPGs.
IMO, even if you're somehow upset by the particulars of this title, it could be a very promising thing for a new generation of D&D CRPG's. It's been awhile since there's been a good one.
If BG3 is a success, every other contemporary D&D cRPG will be just like it. How is this a promising thing for me as someone who does not like BG3?
Depends on why you don't like BG3.
Personally I would welcome any new Forgotten Realms cRPG. Should BG3 fare well enough it might spawn progeny set in FR places we have previously only dreamed of going. If I have a good feeling about it I might even try it if it's TB.
But they would still be Larian games and as such have all the same flaws (as I see them) as BG3. If WotC finds success with Larian, why would they go to an Obsidian or a CDPR to make a rival cRPG?
WotC picked Larian after a few pitches based on the market research and available data in 2017. What they do after BG3 will be only defined by BG3, its reception and sales, as well as the gaming market in the appropriate year.
To cite one example, the BG series (and IE games as a whole) give pretty poor combat feedback on some things that are kind of essential. And can only be figured out via the manual or looking things up online.
Or, and I know this is going to be a big retro throwback, by paying attention and experimenting.
A lot of older games—and even some newer ones—don't give you full on solutions to every task you need to accomplish to progress, sometimes they try to engage you to an extent that goes beyond giving you simple instructions to follow and actually requires some level of problem solving to figure out. I don't fault games for challenging players in this way, in fact I massively prefer that they do.
This, pretty much, and it's actually even more in-line with PnP DnD.
After all, the player might know exactly what subtype of what monster they're facing. The player might know every possible spell an enemy might throw at them, and the mechanics on how to avoid the effects. Would their character?
The nature of traps is a pretty crude system, especially contrasted against what Larian accomplished in that specific mechanic in the OS games.
The trap system in D:OS is certainly neat, but I wouldn't expect (or want) every CRPG to include trap-disarming emulation minigames going forward. It's a good gimmick to shake things up, but it's not what RPGs are about. The convention of RPGs is to simplify complex systems and let your character's skills determine the outcomes instead of you having to micromanage trivial actions like trap disarming.
A mini-game to disarm traps or pick locks imo would undermine the stat it's connected to, and by extension the RP. For those actions you'd basically add the dexterity of, again, the player.
Also, it would slow down the game even more. We have TB-combat for that already.[/quote]
For traps and locks, I hope they stay away from rolls and just go with proficiency bonuses.
One thing I don’t like about P:K is that I only get one crack at opening or disarming something so I have to rely on save scumming to get it open or disarmed.
A flat out ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to open the things would not only be easier to code, but give a stronger influence to rogue’s expertise.
WotC picked Larian after a few pitches based on the market research and available data in 2017. What they do after BG3 will be only defined by BG3, its reception and sales, as well as the gaming market in the appropriate year.
Well, look, I desperately hope you are right. Given that WotC is resussitating the BG franchise, maybe they will do the same with the NwN franchise, and give that to Obsidian to make a RTwP game. That would indeed be fantastic.
But the realist in me just doesn't buy it. I am quite convinced that after BG3, and assuming BG3 does well, we will only get more of the same exclusively from Larian.
It’s worth considering that we don’t know if Larian wants to be tied down to the D&D system for forever. There’s every reason to believe that they’ll want to make a D:OS3 or a new IP some time in the future. If BG3 relaunches crpg excitement in FR and D&D - it only increase the likelihood of a new CRPG being made by a studio other than Larian (whereas, if it bombed, WotC might be less likely to have a new game made in that or adjacent properties).
One thing I don’t like about P:K is that I only get one crack at opening or disarming something so I have to rely on save scumming to get it open or disarmed.
Or just leave that container alone and proceed with the game. If you're meant to open everything, why lock it in the first place.
You can only get one pick locking attempt per level - yes. Just come back later when you get a new level. As for disarming - you get an unlimited amount of attempts.
Fans have been talking about Baldur's Gate 3 here at the show, but that title is going exclusively turn-based. How do you feel that some Baldur's Gate fans are now saying that Pathfinder is the true successor since it features realtime with pause combat?
That's a difficult one. I actually enjoyed the footage for Baldur's Gate 3 and never had the chance to experience it on the floor. Our entire team is going to play that, I know for sure. When Larian announced that, it was like 'oh, they're doing Baldur's Gate 3' and we'll be playing that. But when you're making a game, eventually you see some things you could do better and it prevents you a little bit from enjoying your own creation.
Aside from that, I think there are places for many great RPGs on the market. Now, when I finish the latest one, usually there's a gap and then I'm going back to the games I liked and replay something before the next game on the market arrives. It's not like a shortage, but there is still a place for many different RPGs. Because of that, I think that there are a lot of people who love the genre and should play our game and should play Baldur's Gate 3 and any other great experience that is released on the market.
<...>
Has Owlcat Games been thinking about adding multiplayer in some way?
Yes, we thought [about] and calculated it. Our two previous games, Allods Online and Skyforge were two big MMORPGs. We know perfectly well how much it costs to provide a level of cooperative multiplayer experience similar to [Divinity:] Original Sin and it is a *lot*. It will take from the single player experience. We would have to assign resources to make this kind of game mode and we want to provide the best single player experience we possibly can, so no, not for now.
Comments
My point being that Baldur’s Gate would be the perfect setting to carry things on after Bhaal’s resurrection seeing as it seems it was there that it happened.
I would also love some function where you could define who your version of Charname was but I’m not gonna lose any sleep if they don’t allow it.
theres some implication that the bhaal spawn from that module was not gorion's ward. the fact they are considered two separate characters in a card game does not help matter.
True, I think FR lore is a inconsistent mess right now, especially concerning the history of the Bhaalspawn. Then there are all the changes to the feel of the city of Baldur's Gate itself. It's not really something I would like to pick up as DM. 5th Edition rules are great, but the FR setting is in a sorry state (my opinion, of course).
Awesome. None of that happened in the first two games that this is now a ‘direct’ sequel to. So I am less reassured if this is what they are relying on.
There maybe tie ins to the Bhaalspawn saga, because that is Forgotten Realms lore. But it doesn’t tie into the actual story of the first Baldur’s Gate video game or the second.
Yes, BG3 can be a genre-defining RPG. But I firmly believe that you should like or not like it only after the game is released, not at this stage and not during the Early Access period.
Even if you will hate BG3 so much that ALL the aspects of it will seem awful to you, there is a chance another developer will use certain aspects of BG3 in another context to create another game which might become your favourite.
Just look at how P:WotR gets a lot of attention from RtwP fans these days - because players' feedback is not unheard by developers.
I must say that once I sat back and decided to try not to engage in any heated debate as much and just watch and read people’s opinions that it has been very interesting to see how passionate a lot of people are here about their points of view.
You’re a passionate bunch and I respect most of you for that
Furthermore, as someone who wants RTwP games in a market where 9 out of 10 cRPGs are TB, how does a RTwP fan send a message to game developers other than by not buying the TB games? If the RTwP fans "suck it up" and buy the TB games because that is all they're given, what incentive do developers have to provide us with RTwP games?
I don't see any RTwP D&D cRPGs anywhere in the foreseeable future. Feel free to try and convince me otherwise.
I thought you don't want D&D games anymore, see https://forums.beamdog.com/discussion/comment/1118031/#Comment_1118031.
If you decide whether to buy/like the game by the combat mode it's using - it's your decision. I enjoy both RtwP and TB games, as it's the story, characters, world exploration which mean a lot more to me than the combat mode.
As for playing TB games, I have played TB games in the past and was always open to TB games, even if I didn't like them in my cRPGs (though I do enjoy strategic games which tend to be TB). Ironically, where D:OS is held by TB fans as the epitamy of TB combat systems, it is precisely playing D:OS that has killed my inclination to even try a TB cRPG. For me, that combat system was irredeemably tedious, aggravating, and all-around aweful.
I know right? I've been called senile, pathetic, worthless, AND a terrorist here! I can't believe how toxic some of these people are.
A connection with P&P, not with the games. So no, there is still no details on how the heck Larian thinks this connects to BG1 and 2 whatsoever.
If the game remains largely as it currently is, it's a hard no for me. If team initiative is retained, if avoiding combat encounters altogether through a range of other means is strengthened, if party size can optionally be increased to 6, and if the game looks and feels like a game using the FR setting rather than the Rivellon setting, then I would be open to trying it.
All these complaints are not related to RtwP, which was the point I tried to address when you said:
and
In other words, your feedback re/ party size ; MP ; Rivellon setting ; D:OS assets - it doesn't mean other companies will have to do the same. So BG3 won't mean other fantasy or even FR games will be the same in this context.
This, pretty much, and it's actually even more in-line with PnP DnD.
After all, the player might know exactly what subtype of what monster they're facing. The player might know every possible spell an enemy might throw at them, and the mechanics on how to avoid the effects. Would their character?
A mini-game to disarm traps or pick locks imo would undermine the stat it's connected to, and by extension the RP. For those actions you'd basically add the dexterity of, again, the player.
Also, it would slow down the game even more. We have TB-combat for that already.
Depends on why you don't like BG3.
Personally I would welcome any new Forgotten Realms cRPG. Should BG3 fare well enough it might spawn progeny set in FR places we have previously only dreamed of going. If I have a good feeling about it I might even try it, even if it's TB.
FWIW, it was not my intention to block or censor anyone from making insulting posts. Instead, I merely wanted to stop and note that dismissive, insulting, and overgeneralizing arguments were not only acceptable to certain posters on here, but applauded -- so long as the targets aren't here.
I'm not trying to get personal here, but I do think it's important to note that there is something of an unspoken assumption in the arguments here: game reviewers can be dismissed, a game's or series' popularity among the general public (sales) can be dismissed. Because only some CRPG players matter. Or, at the very least, they matter more than others. That's a deeply mistaken assumption folks are making. It's certainly not a philosophy any game company should adopt or be expected to adopt.
Yes, so long as it's being made by someone other than Larian. But why is WotC going to go to anyone else to make a D&D cRPG? They will approach other developers to make D&D games in other genres, sure, but not a cRPG because that would only duplicate what they're getting from BG3. The BG franchise and Larian will be the sole repository of D&D cRPGs.
But they would still be Larian games and as such have all the same flaws (as I see them) as BG3. If WotC finds success with Larian, why would they go to an Obsidian or a CDPR to make a rival cRPG?
WotC picked Larian after a few pitches based on the market research and available data in 2017. What they do after BG3 will be only defined by BG3, its reception and sales, as well as the gaming market in the appropriate year.
This, pretty much, and it's actually even more in-line with PnP DnD.
After all, the player might know exactly what subtype of what monster they're facing. The player might know every possible spell an enemy might throw at them, and the mechanics on how to avoid the effects. Would their character?
A mini-game to disarm traps or pick locks imo would undermine the stat it's connected to, and by extension the RP. For those actions you'd basically add the dexterity of, again, the player.
Also, it would slow down the game even more. We have TB-combat for that already.[/quote]
For traps and locks, I hope they stay away from rolls and just go with proficiency bonuses.
One thing I don’t like about P:K is that I only get one crack at opening or disarming something so I have to rely on save scumming to get it open or disarmed.
A flat out ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to open the things would not only be easier to code, but give a stronger influence to rogue’s expertise.
Well, look, I desperately hope you are right. Given that WotC is resussitating the BG franchise, maybe they will do the same with the NwN franchise, and give that to Obsidian to make a RTwP game. That would indeed be fantastic.
But the realist in me just doesn't buy it. I am quite convinced that after BG3, and assuming BG3 does well, we will only get more of the same exclusively from Larian.
https://wccftech.com/pathfinder-wrath-of-the-righteous-interview-multiplayer-would-require-a-lot-of-resources/
Fans have been talking about Baldur's Gate 3 here at the show, but that title is going exclusively turn-based. How do you feel that some Baldur's Gate fans are now saying that Pathfinder is the true successor since it features realtime with pause combat?
That's a difficult one. I actually enjoyed the footage for Baldur's Gate 3 and never had the chance to experience it on the floor. Our entire team is going to play that, I know for sure. When Larian announced that, it was like 'oh, they're doing Baldur's Gate 3' and we'll be playing that. But when you're making a game, eventually you see some things you could do better and it prevents you a little bit from enjoying your own creation.
Aside from that, I think there are places for many great RPGs on the market. Now, when I finish the latest one, usually there's a gap and then I'm going back to the games I liked and replay something before the next game on the market arrives. It's not like a shortage, but there is still a place for many different RPGs. Because of that, I think that there are a lot of people who love the genre and should play our game and should play Baldur's Gate 3 and any other great experience that is released on the market.
<...>
Has Owlcat Games been thinking about adding multiplayer in some way?
Yes, we thought [about] and calculated it. Our two previous games, Allods Online and Skyforge were two big MMORPGs. We know perfectly well how much it costs to provide a level of cooperative multiplayer experience similar to [Divinity:] Original Sin and it is a *lot*. It will take from the single player experience. We would have to assign resources to make this kind of game mode and we want to provide the best single player experience we possibly can, so no, not for now.