What I find unfortunate is that there's no capacity (that I've seen) to have a prolonged and rational discussion on the subject.
It inevitably comes down to people either attacking or being attacked (or even just perceiving that they're being attacked), and rather than a genuine conversation about the game - it becomes toxic.
Yes I agree, and I also think this is unfortunate. But there is a reason for that. This situation with BG3 is very much all or nothing, and there is no space for a middle ground. Some people get all/close to all of what they want; others get nothing. So it should be understandable that the people who are on the side of getting nothing are going to be seriously pissed. And when people try to tell us we should just get over it and accept this amazing gift Larian is giving us, that's only going to inflame people even more.
So - I think this is also a matter of perspective. I would emphatically disagree with the idea that we are getting"all/close to all of what they want"
Most of the posters on this board have said multiple times they prefer RTwP over TB. Even the ones that are excited about BG3. The difference is that those of us who are excited are mostly fine with TB as well. Maybe it's not what we want - but we can accept/tolerate it in order to play BG3.
I would prefer if BG3 was made by the same OG team that made BG1 or 2. Or even Beamdog's SoD team. I would prefer it be RTwP. I would prefer that it find a clever way to pick up close to where BG2 ToB left off without rehashing the old story. I would prefer if the bhaalspawn wasnt Adrian Abdel. I would prefer if the "cannon" was decided based on an imported save (Failing that, since it's probably unrealistic) - it would be based on set of choices we make in a 3rd party program or at the very beginning.
None of those appear to be explicitly the case. I'm still optimistic because I liked Larian's other games, I recongize their skill at making those kinds of games, and see them on an upward trajectory that will hopefully create a great game.
Part of the problem I see with the personalization of the franchise is that some people fixate on things we dont really know. The whole "It's designed to be MP first and singleplayer second" canard doesnt really mean anything yet. We dont know what the developer intends yet. So deciding that it has ruined the game doesnt make sense to me.
Does that mean you dont get the full "gameplay" experience if you dont play MP? We dont know. Does it mean the game is literally just optimized for MP so that iyou can have a seamless MP integration, but that playing the game singleplayer is fundamentally no different than it would be if it was SP only? We. Dont. Know. We cannot know.
All of this is fine and true with games in general. None of this is true for a game that is a direct sequel to a cherished old series of games. If you are making a new game in an old much loved franchise, you do have an obligation to try and satisfy as many of the fans of those old games as possible. The moment Larian decided to name their game BG3, they incurred an obligation to try and satisfy as many fans of BG1&2 as possible. But instead, Larian chose their D:OS fans as the target audience they will choose to satisfy. That's just plain wrong. And the obvious and correct way for Larian to have avoided incurring that obligation was to have not named their game BG3. If the game remained exactly the same as it is, but just carried some other name, we would not be having this debate.
I would disagree with this, I think. I don't really think Larian have an obligation to do anything for anyone but themselves and whoever invested money in this project. While I certainly agree that the name "BG3" comes with a few expectations, Larian are still free to try and live up to those in any way they see fit. I may not agree with how they seem to be going about it, but we're still a long way from release so I can't really condemn them for throwing old-time fans under the bus.
@BallpointMan "Sure. If they had made BG3 into a game in the mold of something like Skyrim, I would still consider it to be a sequel"
Wow.
@JuliusBorisov "The source material Larian works with are not BG1 and BG2 games, - that material is DnD."
Problem. Larian has repeatedly said that this is direct continuation of BG1 and 2. If 1 and 2 are not the source material, the game fails as a sequel. Full stop. You cannot make a sequel to Star Trek and say that science fiction was the source material and not star trek.
"As for the FPS question, @ThacoBell, the Fallout franchise experienced nearly what you're asking about"
Remember how divisive that was? And still is? Fallouts 3 and 4 are considered the worst games of the franchise by a rather large number of fans. If they even acknowledge that they exist at all.
I can only see the most cynical of reasons for Larian taking up the license. They won't budge from turn based, the game looks like dragon age, and the everything about the structure we've seen hearkens back to divinity more than anything else. Its like they DON'T WANT to make a BG game, and just want the name to make mad bank on.
You're entitled to your stance that you feel BG3's changes are a betrayal, but I just wish you would fully own that this is *your* decision. With respect, it's your decision to buy or not buy the game because of a design choice. It's your decision to make angry posts about it. I think it's a bit of an immature stance to say that a game studio has to cater to your taste above others.
Clearly, as you can see, there's a decent sized chunk of the community here that is willing to play a TB BG3. Clearly, as you can see from sales figures, choices by non-Larian studios, and reviewer praise that there's an appetite for TB in the marketplace. So Larian's decision is not an outrageous one. Comparing the switch from RTwP to an FPS is an absurd and unfair comparison. Both the OS games and PoE games are classed within the same genre and even subgenre of tactical-combat RPG's. Plenty of people bought both games and poured tons of hours into both games. It's not the extreme switch, to me, some are making it out to be. It doesn't even feel radically different to play the two series, for me anyways. They scratch similar itches, for me.
I also would have preferred RTwP, I feel have to reiterate, since this frequently gets misrepresented.
Again, if you have very very specific standards about games you'll play, that's fine! Maybe you don't have a lot of time or don't want to spend money on a product you won't play much. I get it. But no game studio can satisfy everyone, and no game studio should try imo. Game studios that have tried to make everyone happy in their titles have frequently failed to make anyone happy.
All of this is fine and true with games in general. None of this is true for a game that is a direct sequel to a cherished old series of games. If you are making a new game in an old much loved franchise, you do have an obligation to try and satisfy as many of the fans of those old games as possible. The moment Larian decided to name their game BG3, they incurred an obligation to try and satisfy as many fans of BG1&2 as possible. But instead, Larian chose their D:OS fans as the target audience they will choose to satisfy. That's just plain wrong. And the obvious and correct way for Larian to have avoided incurring that obligation was to have not named their game BG3. If the game remained exactly the same as it is, but just carried some other name, we would not be having this debate.
I've asked this before but haven't really seen any proof. What evidence do you have that most fans of the old games are unhappy with this decision?
Secondly, they do not actually have an obligation to do what you said. Their obligation is the same as any game -- satisfy the marketplace.
If you are excited about playing the game, you are getting what you want. Period.
This is simply not true - and while you are free to express your opinions on what you want, you do *not* get to decide the opinions of what other people want.
When you say things like this - it is you and only you preventing meaningful conversation on the subject.
You have consistently been offended whenever anyone presumes to tell you how you should feel about the subject. You are literally now doing that to others.
@ThacoBell - Fallout 3 and 4 have plenty of fans. Probably more than 1 and 2 at this point . Your opinion is no more valid that theirs.
All of this is fine and true with games in general. None of this is true for a game that is a direct sequel to a cherished old series of games. If you are making a new game in an old much loved franchise, you do have an obligation to try and satisfy as many of the fans of those old games as possible. The moment Larian decided to name their game BG3, they incurred an obligation to try and satisfy as many fans of BG1&2 as possible. But instead, Larian chose their D:OS fans as the target audience they will choose to satisfy. That's just plain wrong. And the obvious and correct way for Larian to have avoided incurring that obligation was to have not named their game BG3. If the game remained exactly the same as it is, but just carried some other name, we would not be having this debate.
I would disagree with this, I think. I don't really think Larian have an obligation to do anything for anyone but themselves and whoever invested money in this project. While I certainly agree that the name "BG3" comes with a few expectations, Larian are still free to try and live up to those in any way they see fit. I may not agree with how they seem to be going about it, but we're still a long way from release so I can't really condemn them for throwing old-time fans under the bus.
This is well said. It's also important to note some important facts here.
1. The video game market has evolved a great deal since ToB. It's a lot harder to compete in the market with a team and resources only the size of what Bioware was, or even what Beamdog is today. It's just a fact.
2. Many fans of the original game have moved on or are not the core market anymore for video games. Even if you made a title that satisfied all active, gameplaying fans of old, it would pale in comparison to the current market of CRPG players. The success of the game is *not* going to fall on original players of the 20 year old game.
3. Larian is taking all the risk here. They're the ones investing millions in employee salaries and contracting outsiders before a single unit has shipped. And video game industry is super precarious, plenty of studios with strings of hits have collapsed because one or a few titles bombed. Just from a straight cold-blooded analysis, it's not smart to put all their eggs into fans of the original title basket.
Lastly, something about the game should change right? I mean, we could extend this logic of "you have to satisfy as many fans of the old games as possible" to mean that you have to make a clone of the old game. How far does this logic extend?
If you are excited about playing the game, you are getting what you want. Period.
This is simply not true - and while you are free to express your opinions on what you want, you do *not* get to decide the opinions of what other people want.
When you say things like this - it is you and only you preventing meaningful conversation on the subject.
You have consistently been offended whenever anyone presumes to tell you how you should feel about the subject. You are literally now doing that to others.
@ThacoBell - Fallout 3 and 4 have plenty of fans. Probably more than 1 and 2 at this point . Your opinion is no more valid that theirs.
Neither is mine, by the way.
Worth adding that plenty of hardcore fans of 1&2 felt New Vegas was a worthy "spiritual sequel" even if they disliked 3 and 4. And New Vegas has far greater gameplay divergence from 1&2 than what we're getting here with BG3.
If you are excited about playing the game, you are getting what you want. Period.
This is simply not true - and while you are free to express your opinions on what you want, you do *not* get to decide the opinions of what other people want.
When you say things like this - it is you and only you preventing meaningful conversation on the subject.
You have consistently been offended whenever anyone presumes to tell you how you should feel about the subject. You are literally now doing that to others.
@ThacoBell - Fallout 3 and 4 have plenty of fans. Probably more than 1 and 2 at this point . Your opinion is no more valid that theirs.
Neither is mine, by the way.
Worth adding that plenty of hardcore fans of 1&2 felt New Vegas was a worthy "spiritual sequel" even if they disliked 3 and 4. And New Vegas has far greater gameplay divergence from 1&2 than what we're getting here with BG3.
Thank you for confirming my point, because Obsidian was honorable and decent enough to NOT call their game Fallout 3.
I watched the gameplay again earlier for Baldur’s Gate 3 and just thought I’d drop by and say again how much I can’t wait for this sequel. I am really looking forward to seeing more once they are ready to show it. Good times are ahead
The point about Fallout 3 and 4 being generally considered "worse" than 1 and 2 is generally correct among what we'll call "serious" RPG fans, but that is absolutely NOT the case with New Vegas, which is widely recognized as being on par with the first two games despite being in the same engine as 3.
The point about Fallout 3 and 4 being generally considered "worse" than 1 and 2 is generally correct among what we'll call "serious" RPG fans, but that is absolutely NOT the case with New Vegas, which is widely recognized as being on par with the first two games despite being in the same engine as 3.
Yup, and its also not trying to be a numbered sequel. Something we keep bringing up, but gets ignored. The massive re-boots that were claiming to be direct sequels are constantly bashed (bring them up in any Fallout forum, I dare you), and the one that doesn't and is named like a spin off is widely praised.
Calling Larian's game "BG3" is 100% of the problem.
Calling Larian's game "BG3" is 100% of the problem.
Indeed. If the game had not been titled BG3 none of us would be having any of these arguments or fights, not only here but anywhere. But then again, isn't that exactly why they decided to call it BG3? Because the game does not have much ability to stand on its own merits, and without the (controversial) BG3 title it would be just another game that many would simply ignore.
A good place to remind people that recently Josh Sawyer of Obsidian revealed that when he was working on the true ToB sequel "Black Hound" project, the one thing he insisted on with WotC was that the game would NOT be titled BG3.
And yet it was supposed to be called that. BG3 from Black Isle was called BG3. That is the reality, and those are rightholders' demands.
And it's wrong to call that game a "true ToB sequel " as that game had nothing to do with BG, or ToB if anything, it was a sequel to IWD2.
Actually no. Or at least that's my understanding from what Sawyer said, that it was to be titled BG: something. But maybe someone within Beamdog with connections to Black Isle has provided to you some inside info that I am not aware of.
And when I said true sequel, I just meant it was being made right after the release of ToB. But yes, it was a completely separate game, and that's exactly why not calling it BG3 was the right call. Same thing for Larian's BG3. Yes I know they've recently thrown out some comments about connections to the old games. I don't buy any of that for even a second. I fully expect any so-called "connections" to be superficial, laughable, and utterly contrived - done purely as a way to help justify the title.
I come for news of interesting inside and a few pages later you are all still going on about the number and tb discussions?
There are plenty of successful games with a numbered sequel that have nothing to do with the first game. There are also plenty failures.
The publisher (pretty sure not Larian) decided to use baldurs gate as well as the number 3. They also decided to push for turn based. Fine, their IP, their rules.
As customer you are free to not buy the product. Deal with your issues, grab tissues, if you don't like it, ignore it like many people do with the books or consider this: < 3
Some simple examples of successful sequels with numbers?
- FO+FO2: same gameplay, different protagonist, separate story (descendants whatever, if you call that related then Larians bg3 that may refer to the bhaalspawn saga counts just as well).
- Nwn+nwn2: same gameplay, different protagonist. Time wise some modules are even unable to even if you retcon it for yourself.
- TES all: same gameplay, different protagonists.
- Final fantasy: different story, different gameplay, different protagonists
Yes I know they've recently thrown out some comments about connections to the old games. I don't buy any of that for even a second. I fully expect any so-called "connections" to be superficial, laughable, and utterly contrived - done purely as a way to help justify the title.
It's comments like this that make me believe that some critics on here are grasping at a pretext--any pretext--in order to criticize the game. We, rightfully, know almost nothing of the game's plot. And yet someone has already decided that it's going to be bad.
Yes I know they've recently thrown out some comments about connections to the old games. I don't buy any of that for even a second. I fully expect any so-called "connections" to be superficial, laughable, and utterly contrived - done purely as a way to help justify the title.
It's comments like this that make me believe that some critics on here are grasping at a pretext--any pretext--in order to criticize the game. We, rightfully, know almost nothing of the game's plot. And yet someone has already decided that it's going to be bad.
And seems to me you just can't bear anyone saying anything negative about the game. There's an easy solution: just ignore my comment. It's what I often do. The majority of people on this forum think BG3 is the Second Coming or something and post over-the-top positive comments about the game. But I don't feel any compulsion to respond to every single one of them.
I come for news of interesting inside and a few pages later you are all still going on about the number and tb discussions?
There are plenty of successful games with a numbered sequel that have nothing to do with the first game. There are also plenty failures.
The publisher (pretty sure not Larian) decided to use baldurs gate as well as the number 3. They also decided to push for turn based. Fine, their IP, their rules.
As customer you are free to not buy the product. Deal with your issues, grab tissues, if you don't like it, ignore it like many people do with the books or consider this: < 3
Some simple examples of successful sequels with numbers?
- FO+FO2: same gameplay, different protagonist, separate story (descendants whatever, if you call that related then Larians bg3 that may refer to the bhaalspawn saga counts just as well).
- Nwn+nwn2: same gameplay, different protagonist. Time wise some modules are even unable to even if you retcon it for yourself.
- TES all: same gameplay, different protagonists.
- Final fantasy: different story, different gameplay, different protagonists
.
Couldnt agree more. Talking about the number is boring. It's been done over and over, and literally it cannot change.
There is no good evidence to support that the number was ever an issue for other games/franchises (Sometimes they do well, other times they dont) - so we're just going off of subjective opinions. That are being repeated. Over. and over.
Yes I know they've recently thrown out some comments about connections to the old games. I don't buy any of that for even a second. I fully expect any so-called "connections" to be superficial, laughable, and utterly contrived - done purely as a way to help justify the title.
It's comments like this that make me believe that some critics on here are grasping at a pretext--any pretext--in order to criticize the game. We, rightfully, know almost nothing of the game's plot. And yet someone has already decided that it's going to be bad.
And seems to me you just can't bear anyone saying anything negative about the game. There's an easy solution: just ignore my comment. It's what I often do. The majority of people on this forum think BG3 is the Second Coming or something and post over-the-top positive comments about the game. But I don't feel any compulsion to respond to every single one of them.
I've actually voiced a couple of criticisms of what I've seen of the game on these forums. As well I've agreed with others' critiques. What I'm going to point out are critiques of elements that we cannot know for what they are.
I come for news of interesting inside and a few pages later you are all still going on about the number and tb discussions?
There are plenty of successful games with a numbered sequel that have nothing to do with the first game. There are also plenty failures.
The publisher (pretty sure not Larian) decided to use baldurs gate as well as the number 3. They also decided to push for turn based. Fine, their IP, their rules.
As customer you are free to not buy the product. Deal with your issues, grab tissues, if you don't like it, ignore it like many people do with the books or consider this: < 3
Some simple examples of successful sequels with numbers?
- FO+FO2: same gameplay, different protagonist, separate story (descendants whatever, if you call that related then Larians bg3 that may refer to the bhaalspawn saga counts just as well).
- Nwn+nwn2: same gameplay, different protagonist. Time wise some modules are even unable to even if you retcon it for yourself.
- TES all: same gameplay, different protagonists.
- Final fantasy: different story, different gameplay, different protagonists
.
Couldnt agree more. Talking about the number is boring. It's been done over and over, and literally it cannot change.
There is no good evidence to support that the number was ever an issue for other games/franchises (Sometimes they do well, other times they dont) - so we're just going off of subjective opinions. That are being repeated. Over. and over.
I'm also skeptical of the notion that peoples' objection is the "3". If this were Baldur's Gate: The New Saga or something, I'm still hard-pressed to believe that people would not be objecting to the switch to turn-based, the inclusion of greater item/environment interactivity or the myriad other complaints.
And yet it was supposed to be called that. BG3 from Black Isle was called BG3. That is the reality, and those are rightholders' demands.
And it's wrong to call that game a "true ToB sequel " as that game had nothing to do with BG, or ToB if anything, it was a sequel to IWD2.
Actually no. Or at least that's my understanding from what Sawyer said, that it was to be titled BG: something. But maybe someone within Beamdog with connections to Black Isle has provided to you some inside info that I am not aware of.
And when I said true sequel, I just meant it was being made right after the release of ToB. But yes, it was a completely separate game, and that's exactly why not calling it BG3 was the right call. Same thing for Larian's BG3. Yes I know they've recently thrown out some comments about connections to the old games. I don't buy any of that for even a second. I fully expect any so-called "connections" to be superficial, laughable, and utterly contrived - done purely as a way to help justify the title.
Yes I know they've recently thrown out some comments about connections to the old games. I don't buy any of that for even a second. I fully expect any so-called "connections" to be superficial, laughable, and utterly contrived - done purely as a way to help justify the title.
It's comments like this that make me believe that some critics on here are grasping at a pretext--any pretext--in order to criticize the game. We, rightfully, know almost nothing of the game's plot. And yet someone has already decided that it's going to be bad.
And seems to me you just can't bear anyone saying anything negative about the game. There's an easy solution: just ignore my comment. It's what I often do. The majority of people on this forum think BG3 is the Second Coming or something and post over-the-top positive comments about the game. But I don't feel any compulsion to respond to every single one of them.
I've actually voiced a couple of criticisms of what I've seen of the game on these forums. As well I've agreed with others' critiques. What I'm going to point out are critiques of elements that we cannot know for what they are.
There's nothing wrong with having hesitant expectations of a game. There's really no difference from having jubilous expectations of it. We draw conclusions from what we know to cover what we don't know. Consumer basics.
I had a thought based on some of the recent comments discussing numbered game series. I'm suddenly reminded of Might and Magic 1-10.
MM 1 and 2 were extremely old pre-Windows games based on DOS. MM 3-4-5 ushered in a new generation of computer crpg's, and their gameplay and plots were mostly unrelated to the first two games.
Then MM 6-7-8 came along and started yet another generation of games, with a completely different style from the first installments in the series. They were among the first 3-D crpg's, and they featured both turn-based and real time play options that could be toggled at will. That was pretty darn innovative for that day. Also, MM 6 started up a whole new game world that was tied in to the first two strategy games of the "Heroes of Might and Magic" series. The two related franchises would have interconnected plots and lore for the next several years, until 3D0 went out of business.
There were some lore easter eggs in 6-7-8 that referenced the previous setting - the implication was that all the games were happening in the same universe, but on different planets.
MM 9 tried to start a new generation of game mechanics and graphics yet again, with little reference to the previous games other than a few easter eggs. It was also rushed out the door since the developers were running out of cash and about to go bankrupt, and was released in an unfinished beta state. It was widely considered a flop and a terrible failure. Many fans prefer to ignore its existence, it was so bad.
MM 10 was Ubisoft's attempt to revive the franchise, and it was in an entirely different setting this time. It tried to capitalize on nostalgia for the grid-based exploration and combat mechanics of MM 3-4-5. I personally liked it and enjoyed it, but it was not well-received by most fans. It was a financial flop, and Ubisoft will be unlikely to make any more Might and Magic games, sadly, and doubly so since they still hold the IP rights.
What does all that have to do with BG 3? Well, I see some similarities in how the history of the BG franchise appears to be unfolding compared to what I saw with the MM series. Games in a numbered series do not historically have to tie in to the same characters, story, or setting throughout the series. I do think they try to capture a certain kind of gameplay feel consistently, though. In the case of MM, it is party-based roleplay with player created characters, with free open-world exploration, quests, and a main story that is not known at the beginning and is gradually revealed bit by bit. All MM games also start out as medieval high fantasy and gradually turn into sci-fi by the end, which is a unique, interesting, and traditional quirk of the series. There's even more to the history of MM that I won't go into here, but could be looked up by anyone interested.
I am part of @JuliusBorisov 's second group. I have many doubts and concerns about what I've seen so far from Larian, but I am trying to keep an open mind and hope for the best. If, over the next ten to fifteen years, we wind up with a whole series of BG, all the way to BG 10 and beyond, I think that would be a good thing, as long as they can keep the right gameplay feel, and be true to the franchise name. That's where I'm not sure Larian is going to be able to do it right. But again, I'm withholding judgement until I see a finished product, and I want to like it, and I want it to succeed, so we get a BG 4 and more.
There is pretty much zero chance it doesn't "succeed" by any modern metrics. They have a built in audience for not only the Original Sin games, but D&D fans who haven't had a decent title in (as mentioned) 15 years. The chance it's some kind of disaster is also pretty low. No one has to take critical reception into account if they don't want to, but there are no shortage of people who think D:OS II is a game that competes with or surpasses Baldur's Gate 2 as a CRPG. It was praised for being the closest thing to a tabletop experience since that game.
Now they have the license of D&D behind them, which is experiencing a MASS resurgence thanks to media like Stranger Things, Critical Role, and just the general sense that the geeks "won". 5th Edition is a smashing success. It's safe to say the game is more popular than it has been since the 1980s. The Player's Handbook is still the #1 seller of it's kind on Amazon 6 years on. It's been so successful that there isn't even any hint of a 6th Edition being contemplated, even though it's been over half a decade.
You combine these pedigrees in 2020, and I just don't think this is set-up for any kind of failure. Larian has put out two smash hits in a row, and the license itself is red-hot.
I come for news of interesting inside and a few pages later you are all still going on about the number and tb discussions?
There are plenty of successful games with a numbered sequel that have nothing to do with the first game. There are also plenty failures.
The publisher (pretty sure not Larian) decided to use baldurs gate as well as the number 3. They also decided to push for turn based. Fine, their IP, their rules.
As customer you are free to not buy the product. Deal with your issues, grab tissues, if you don't like it, ignore it like many people do with the books or consider this: < 3
Some simple examples of successful sequels with numbers?
- FO+FO2: same gameplay, different protagonist, separate story (descendants whatever, if you call that related then Larians bg3 that may refer to the bhaalspawn saga counts just as well).
- Nwn+nwn2: same gameplay, different protagonist. Time wise some modules are even unable to even if you retcon it for yourself.
- TES all: same gameplay, different protagonists.
- Final fantasy: different story, different gameplay, different protagonists
.
Couldnt agree more. Talking about the number is boring. It's been done over and over, and literally it cannot change.
There is no good evidence to support that the number was ever an issue for other games/franchises (Sometimes they do well, other times they dont) - so we're just going off of subjective opinions. That are being repeated. Over. and over.
I'm also skeptical of the notion that peoples' objection is the "3". If this were Baldur's Gate: The New Saga or something, I'm still hard-pressed to believe that people would not be objecting to the switch to turn-based, the inclusion of greater item/environment interactivity or the myriad other complaints.
That cuts both ways. I am very skeptical about people's claim that certain things cannot be criticized now because we don't yet have all the details. I am quite certain that once we do know all the details, we will still be told that we cannot criticize the game for some blah blah new reason.
Furthermore, none of us ever said we would have no criticisms of the game if the "3" were not in the title. What we've said is that we would not care as passionately as we do if the "3" were absent, and so the discussions would be more dispassionate and with a lot more indifference. People would just say they don't like this or that aspect of the game and move on. But it wouldn't be personal and the feelings wouldn't be so raw.
Comments
So - I think this is also a matter of perspective. I would emphatically disagree with the idea that we are getting"all/close to all of what they want"
Most of the posters on this board have said multiple times they prefer RTwP over TB. Even the ones that are excited about BG3. The difference is that those of us who are excited are mostly fine with TB as well. Maybe it's not what we want - but we can accept/tolerate it in order to play BG3.
I would prefer if BG3 was made by the same OG team that made BG1 or 2. Or even Beamdog's SoD team. I would prefer it be RTwP. I would prefer that it find a clever way to pick up close to where BG2 ToB left off without rehashing the old story. I would prefer if the bhaalspawn wasnt Adrian Abdel. I would prefer if the "cannon" was decided based on an imported save (Failing that, since it's probably unrealistic) - it would be based on set of choices we make in a 3rd party program or at the very beginning.
None of those appear to be explicitly the case. I'm still optimistic because I liked Larian's other games, I recongize their skill at making those kinds of games, and see them on an upward trajectory that will hopefully create a great game.
Part of the problem I see with the personalization of the franchise is that some people fixate on things we dont really know. The whole "It's designed to be MP first and singleplayer second" canard doesnt really mean anything yet. We dont know what the developer intends yet. So deciding that it has ruined the game doesnt make sense to me.
Does that mean you dont get the full "gameplay" experience if you dont play MP? We dont know. Does it mean the game is literally just optimized for MP so that iyou can have a seamless MP integration, but that playing the game singleplayer is fundamentally no different than it would be if it was SP only? We. Dont. Know. We cannot know.
Anyways. It goes both ways.
I would disagree with this, I think. I don't really think Larian have an obligation to do anything for anyone but themselves and whoever invested money in this project. While I certainly agree that the name "BG3" comes with a few expectations, Larian are still free to try and live up to those in any way they see fit. I may not agree with how they seem to be going about it, but we're still a long way from release so I can't really condemn them for throwing old-time fans under the bus.
Wow.
@JuliusBorisov "The source material Larian works with are not BG1 and BG2 games, - that material is DnD."
Problem. Larian has repeatedly said that this is direct continuation of BG1 and 2. If 1 and 2 are not the source material, the game fails as a sequel. Full stop. You cannot make a sequel to Star Trek and say that science fiction was the source material and not star trek.
"As for the FPS question, @ThacoBell, the Fallout franchise experienced nearly what you're asking about"
Remember how divisive that was? And still is? Fallouts 3 and 4 are considered the worst games of the franchise by a rather large number of fans. If they even acknowledge that they exist at all.
I can only see the most cynical of reasons for Larian taking up the license. They won't budge from turn based, the game looks like dragon age, and the everything about the structure we've seen hearkens back to divinity more than anything else. Its like they DON'T WANT to make a BG game, and just want the name to make mad bank on.
I've asked this before but haven't really seen any proof. What evidence do you have that most fans of the old games are unhappy with this decision?
Secondly, they do not actually have an obligation to do what you said. Their obligation is the same as any game -- satisfy the marketplace.
This is simply not true - and while you are free to express your opinions on what you want, you do *not* get to decide the opinions of what other people want.
When you say things like this - it is you and only you preventing meaningful conversation on the subject.
You have consistently been offended whenever anyone presumes to tell you how you should feel about the subject. You are literally now doing that to others.
@ThacoBell - Fallout 3 and 4 have plenty of fans. Probably more than 1 and 2 at this point . Your opinion is no more valid that theirs.
Neither is mine, by the way.
This is well said. It's also important to note some important facts here.
1. The video game market has evolved a great deal since ToB. It's a lot harder to compete in the market with a team and resources only the size of what Bioware was, or even what Beamdog is today. It's just a fact.
2. Many fans of the original game have moved on or are not the core market anymore for video games. Even if you made a title that satisfied all active, gameplaying fans of old, it would pale in comparison to the current market of CRPG players. The success of the game is *not* going to fall on original players of the 20 year old game.
3. Larian is taking all the risk here. They're the ones investing millions in employee salaries and contracting outsiders before a single unit has shipped. And video game industry is super precarious, plenty of studios with strings of hits have collapsed because one or a few titles bombed. Just from a straight cold-blooded analysis, it's not smart to put all their eggs into fans of the original title basket.
Lastly, something about the game should change right? I mean, we could extend this logic of "you have to satisfy as many fans of the old games as possible" to mean that you have to make a clone of the old game. How far does this logic extend?
Worth adding that plenty of hardcore fans of 1&2 felt New Vegas was a worthy "spiritual sequel" even if they disliked 3 and 4. And New Vegas has far greater gameplay divergence from 1&2 than what we're getting here with BG3.
Thank you for confirming my point, because Obsidian was honorable and decent enough to NOT call their game Fallout 3.
Yup, and its also not trying to be a numbered sequel. Something we keep bringing up, but gets ignored. The massive re-boots that were claiming to be direct sequels are constantly bashed (bring them up in any Fallout forum, I dare you), and the one that doesn't and is named like a spin off is widely praised.
Calling Larian's game "BG3" is 100% of the problem.
Indeed. If the game had not been titled BG3 none of us would be having any of these arguments or fights, not only here but anywhere. But then again, isn't that exactly why they decided to call it BG3? Because the game does not have much ability to stand on its own merits, and without the (controversial) BG3 title it would be just another game that many would simply ignore.
A good place to remind people that recently Josh Sawyer of Obsidian revealed that when he was working on the true ToB sequel "Black Hound" project, the one thing he insisted on with WotC was that the game would NOT be titled BG3.
And it's wrong to call that game a "true ToB sequel " as that game had nothing to do with BG, or ToB if anything, it was a sequel to IWD2.
Actually no. Or at least that's my understanding from what Sawyer said, that it was to be titled BG: something. But maybe someone within Beamdog with connections to Black Isle has provided to you some inside info that I am not aware of.
And when I said true sequel, I just meant it was being made right after the release of ToB. But yes, it was a completely separate game, and that's exactly why not calling it BG3 was the right call. Same thing for Larian's BG3. Yes I know they've recently thrown out some comments about connections to the old games. I don't buy any of that for even a second. I fully expect any so-called "connections" to be superficial, laughable, and utterly contrived - done purely as a way to help justify the title.
There are plenty of successful games with a numbered sequel that have nothing to do with the first game. There are also plenty failures.
The publisher (pretty sure not Larian) decided to use baldurs gate as well as the number 3. They also decided to push for turn based. Fine, their IP, their rules.
As customer you are free to not buy the product. Deal with your issues, grab tissues, if you don't like it, ignore it like many people do with the books or consider this: < 3
- FO+FO2: same gameplay, different protagonist, separate story (descendants whatever, if you call that related then Larians bg3 that may refer to the bhaalspawn saga counts just as well).
- Nwn+nwn2: same gameplay, different protagonist. Time wise some modules are even unable to even if you retcon it for yourself.
- TES all: same gameplay, different protagonists.
- Final fantasy: different story, different gameplay, different protagonists
It's comments like this that make me believe that some critics on here are grasping at a pretext--any pretext--in order to criticize the game. We, rightfully, know almost nothing of the game's plot. And yet someone has already decided that it's going to be bad.
And seems to me you just can't bear anyone saying anything negative about the game. There's an easy solution: just ignore my comment. It's what I often do. The majority of people on this forum think BG3 is the Second Coming or something and post over-the-top positive comments about the game. But I don't feel any compulsion to respond to every single one of them.
Couldnt agree more. Talking about the number is boring. It's been done over and over, and literally it cannot change.
There is no good evidence to support that the number was ever an issue for other games/franchises (Sometimes they do well, other times they dont) - so we're just going off of subjective opinions. That are being repeated. Over. and over.
I've actually voiced a couple of criticisms of what I've seen of the game on these forums. As well I've agreed with others' critiques. What I'm going to point out are critiques of elements that we cannot know for what they are.
I'm also skeptical of the notion that peoples' objection is the "3". If this were Baldur's Gate: The New Saga or something, I'm still hard-pressed to believe that people would not be objecting to the switch to turn-based, the inclusion of greater item/environment interactivity or the myriad other complaints.
You are wrong, dear sirs.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldur's_Gate_III:_The_Black_Hound
The game was supposed to be called BG3. And have a name attached, like BG2: Shadows of Amn
BG3: The Black Hound
There's nothing wrong with having hesitant expectations of a game. There's really no difference from having jubilous expectations of it. We draw conclusions from what we know to cover what we don't know. Consumer basics.
https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/70059-the-black-hound/
MM 1 and 2 were extremely old pre-Windows games based on DOS. MM 3-4-5 ushered in a new generation of computer crpg's, and their gameplay and plots were mostly unrelated to the first two games.
Then MM 6-7-8 came along and started yet another generation of games, with a completely different style from the first installments in the series. They were among the first 3-D crpg's, and they featured both turn-based and real time play options that could be toggled at will. That was pretty darn innovative for that day. Also, MM 6 started up a whole new game world that was tied in to the first two strategy games of the "Heroes of Might and Magic" series. The two related franchises would have interconnected plots and lore for the next several years, until 3D0 went out of business.
There were some lore easter eggs in 6-7-8 that referenced the previous setting - the implication was that all the games were happening in the same universe, but on different planets.
MM 9 tried to start a new generation of game mechanics and graphics yet again, with little reference to the previous games other than a few easter eggs. It was also rushed out the door since the developers were running out of cash and about to go bankrupt, and was released in an unfinished beta state. It was widely considered a flop and a terrible failure. Many fans prefer to ignore its existence, it was so bad.
MM 10 was Ubisoft's attempt to revive the franchise, and it was in an entirely different setting this time. It tried to capitalize on nostalgia for the grid-based exploration and combat mechanics of MM 3-4-5. I personally liked it and enjoyed it, but it was not well-received by most fans. It was a financial flop, and Ubisoft will be unlikely to make any more Might and Magic games, sadly, and doubly so since they still hold the IP rights.
What does all that have to do with BG 3? Well, I see some similarities in how the history of the BG franchise appears to be unfolding compared to what I saw with the MM series. Games in a numbered series do not historically have to tie in to the same characters, story, or setting throughout the series. I do think they try to capture a certain kind of gameplay feel consistently, though. In the case of MM, it is party-based roleplay with player created characters, with free open-world exploration, quests, and a main story that is not known at the beginning and is gradually revealed bit by bit. All MM games also start out as medieval high fantasy and gradually turn into sci-fi by the end, which is a unique, interesting, and traditional quirk of the series. There's even more to the history of MM that I won't go into here, but could be looked up by anyone interested.
I am part of @JuliusBorisov 's second group. I have many doubts and concerns about what I've seen so far from Larian, but I am trying to keep an open mind and hope for the best. If, over the next ten to fifteen years, we wind up with a whole series of BG, all the way to BG 10 and beyond, I think that would be a good thing, as long as they can keep the right gameplay feel, and be true to the franchise name. That's where I'm not sure Larian is going to be able to do it right. But again, I'm withholding judgement until I see a finished product, and I want to like it, and I want it to succeed, so we get a BG 4 and more.
Now they have the license of D&D behind them, which is experiencing a MASS resurgence thanks to media like Stranger Things, Critical Role, and just the general sense that the geeks "won". 5th Edition is a smashing success. It's safe to say the game is more popular than it has been since the 1980s. The Player's Handbook is still the #1 seller of it's kind on Amazon 6 years on. It's been so successful that there isn't even any hint of a 6th Edition being contemplated, even though it's been over half a decade.
You combine these pedigrees in 2020, and I just don't think this is set-up for any kind of failure. Larian has put out two smash hits in a row, and the license itself is red-hot.
That cuts both ways. I am very skeptical about people's claim that certain things cannot be criticized now because we don't yet have all the details. I am quite certain that once we do know all the details, we will still be told that we cannot criticize the game for some blah blah new reason.
Furthermore, none of us ever said we would have no criticisms of the game if the "3" were not in the title. What we've said is that we would not care as passionately as we do if the "3" were absent, and so the discussions would be more dispassionate and with a lot more indifference. People would just say they don't like this or that aspect of the game and move on. But it wouldn't be personal and the feelings wouldn't be so raw.