BelgarathMTH's experiences are very similar to mine.
The only recent CRPGs that I thought got everything right were Shadowrun Dragonfall and Hong Kong. And they're very different from the rest, but for me they emphasised what I sought in this type of game the most.
And they were modest productions, which I think was a boon for them in some ways, there wasn't a particular need for the storytelling style or subject matter to have wide, conventional appeal, which usually means going big and epic because there's an expectation for that instead of doing it where it makes sense.
So removed from everything else, my impression of Baldur's Gate 3 is it opens with the cinematic destruction of a city, and then the graphic violation of a character by a parasite.
I won't lie, Larian are being pretty edgy up front, and keen to flaunt that they have the muscle to make a big cinematic where big things are happening, so pay attention.
I come at most things from a writing perspective and these are not often great signs, it indicates a desire to focus on spectacle over depth. And if these events are very necessary to the story, there's lots of different ways you could present that, but they have chosen a very bland way to do it.
On the positives, the characters seem varied in personality, have striking designs, and the dialogue trees seem to be quite dense. Those are positive signs.
In the end its going to come down to the story, if that ends up strong I can probably deal with other things that bother me.
I don't think I can change my vote but I think I'd be on Neither now. Neutrally I'm willing to give this game a chance and largely disassociate my expectations from the old games. It still has to be good itself and that is it's own battle.
so far the only crpgs from the 2010's i actually liked was shadow run dragonfall, hong kong, sod, and disco Elysium.
What Larian fan (who is ENTIRELY being catered to at the expense of the IP), is going to play BG3 as their first "Baldur's Gate" game and be excited by the originals? The games are going to be completely different in how the player interacts with them. RTwP and Turnbased are different playstyles that feel completely diffrent.
The people who came into this new aren't going to enjoy BG1 or 2 for the most part. And with WotC deliberately downplaying the originals, to the point that new content for them is forbidden, the BG series as we know it is probably dead.
the larian fans that get into bg 3 are never gonna play the originals. it will be the same situation as Bethesda fans getting into fallout through 3 and never touching 1 or 2 and thinking nv is a worse game.
What Larian fan (who is ENTIRELY being catered to at the expense of the IP), is going to play BG3 as their first "Baldur's Gate" game and be excited by the originals? The games are going to be completely different in how the player interacts with them. RTwP and Turnbased are different playstyles that feel completely diffrent.
The people who came into this new aren't going to enjoy BG1 or 2 for the most part. And with WotC deliberately downplaying the originals, to the point that new content for them is forbidden, the BG series as we know it is probably dead.
BG series was doing just fine even before EE's. It's the mods that's giving it the fuel. BG3 won't change that.
What Larian fan (who is ENTIRELY being catered to at the expense of the IP), is going to play BG3 as their first "Baldur's Gate" game and be excited by the originals? The games are going to be completely different in how the player interacts with them. RTwP and Turnbased are different playstyles that feel completely diffrent.
The people who came into this new aren't going to enjoy BG1 or 2 for the most part. And with WotC deliberately downplaying the originals, to the point that new content for them is forbidden, the BG series as we know it is probably dead.
the larian fans that get into bg 3 are never gonna play the originals. it will be the same situation as Bethesda fans getting into fallout through 3 and never touching 1 or 2 and thinking nv is a worse game.
I would be willing to bet the majority of players who got into Fallout 3 as their first fallout game were at least familiar with the fallout franchise in some fashion, regardless of if they had played it or not.
I think BG will be the same. Regardless of if BG3 players have never played BG1 or 2, they'll understand that it's a part of a franchise that is well regarded.
As for your last point: People are entitled to their opinion. They arent wrong or right about nv being worse. They can feel that way if they want.
I really wouldn't blame a young gamer who plays BG3 and can't get into BG1 or SoA anyways. I mean, did a bunch of OS fans rediscover Ultima 7? Hell, I was a huge fan of U7 and have absolutely no desire to go back to that dated style of gameplay.
I was one of those people who's first Fallout was 3. Then I played New Vegas and thought it was far better, then I played the original and loved it, and I got sidetracked from 2 but I'll get to it because I do really like all the games from that period of CRPGs.
I like the graphics, I like the general tone, I like that they've had supportive communities keeping them alive. I feel potentially for a lot of people there's a great experience there to be had if they gave them a chance.
There are lots of other games coming up in the near future, and it is very likely that some of them might appeal more to your tastes than the one we are talking about here. That's all I had to say.
But none of those other games will be a Baldur's Gate game, nor even a Forgotten Realms game. So my loss is a permanent loss and there's no way to spin that. Yet apparently this point is not understandable for many of you.
It's like saying to someone who wants filet mignon "Oh don't worry. It's ok. There's plenty of hamburger out there for you." How can this not be viewed as patronizing and insulting?
Are you aware that there are people dying of starvation every day on this planet ?
I'm shocked by your answer...
Hmm... I still think it's on you that the BG3 game is not to your tastes. It's not even out yet! And it's already being written off. That's why I think this is "not understandable" to many of us. If the game were already out, you gave it a shot, and just couldn't bring yourself to enjoy it any way, it'd be different. But this literal prejudice against the game is very much not understandable, and, for me, not something I'll ever be sympathetic to.
Haha. So now the standard has already shifted from "wait til the game is out" to "you have to play it before you can critique it." How very convenient, that Larian gets my money and gets to count me as part of its sales figures even though I hated the game. No. That's complete BS. I don't have to spend one penny of my money on this game to be able to legitimately criticize it.
@kanisatha I don't think you understand the difference between "friendly" / "comforting" and "patronizing" / "insulting". Users have been trying to provide you arguments, yet all we get is that you're not being heard and you're being insulted, both by the developers and commentators. This is the opposite of truth and I'm sad you don't see it.
Sorry, but I think you are being biased in how you are choosing to view the words of the pro-BG3 posters versus those of us who are critics. But whatever. Unfortunately, this isn't the first time I've been insulted or mocked on this forum, and I'm sure it won't be the last.
Hmm... I still think it's on you that the BG3 game is not to your tastes. It's not even out yet! And it's already being written off. That's why I think this is "not understandable" to many of us. If the game were already out, you gave it a shot, and just couldn't bring yourself to enjoy it any way, it'd be different. But this literal prejudice against the game is very much not understandable, and, for me, not something I'll ever be sympathetic to.
Haha. So now the standard has already shifted from "wait til the game is out" to "you have to play it before you can critique it." How very convenient, that Larian gets my money and gets to count me as part of its sales figures even though I hated the game. No. That's complete BS. I don't have to spend one penny of my money on this game to be able to legitimately criticize it.
And as for your "sympathy," I'm ok without it.
You have to play it before you can critique it strikes me as extremely reasonable.
The very same can be achieved by watching a Let's Play. People are indeed able to know if a product suits their needs, tastes or expectations before they try it. The alternative would be to buy it, test it for less than two hours and then refund it. Which is personally more hassle than it's worth it for a title I clearly wouldn't enjoy myself.
I pretty much intend to make use of lets plays and do my research on what people are thinking of the game.
The concept of "spoilers" is one I got past a long time ago, because to me what it amounts to is either confirming something is good, in which case it will be a good experience to have, or it will be bad and I can shrug my shoulders and move on.
I've never really thought stories that rely on twists as their only real value to be very good anyway. I think a good example to pull up is Psycho. Who doesn't know how that movie ends? I certainly knew pretty much every inch of the plot long before finally giving it a watch. It was still excellent to watch, because its an expertly crafted film.
On the other hand, The Usual Suspects is a film I watched surprisingly, having never been spoiled on it or really knowing much of anything about it, and after finishing it, I see no value in ever watching it again and I don't think it had any substance as a story, it was one clever idea that doesn't look so clever afterwards.
Or if you want a videogame example Bioshock. I was not impressed by that twist and the story in it as a whole is very lacking otherwise. Loved System Shock 2's story and I only played that for the first time recently (it's worth 10 of Bioshock) and that game's "twist"... I mean come on, SHODAN's on the damn cover. You're told what's going to happen by the other AI (its name escapes me right now). It banks a little more on the scenario itself being engaging without the need for a trick.
What Larian fan (who is ENTIRELY being catered to at the expense of the IP), is going to play BG3 as their first "Baldur's Gate" game and be excited by the originals? The games are going to be completely different in how the player interacts with them. RTwP and Turnbased are different playstyles that feel completely diffrent.
The people who came into this new aren't going to enjoy BG1 or 2 for the most part. And with WotC deliberately downplaying the originals, to the point that new content for them is forbidden, the BG series as we know it is probably dead.
Hmm, I don't know. I also frequent the BG Reddit, and I see posts from a lot of new BG players over there. Here at Beamdog, I think we're mostly the "old guard". Newer players seem to frequent Reddit more than here.
I've seen a lot of posts that start out with something like "I'm excited by the previews of BG3, so I wanted to play the originals to get ready for it." That can provoke a few responses along the lines of "BG3 has nothing to do with the originals, so you're wasting your time if you like those previews", but most people are positive and encouraging, I'd say.
And the original poster almost always continues on later with comments along the lines of "Wow, this is really great, I should have played these games years ago," and stuff like that. I see a few rage posts like "I can't believe I got killed by a wolf...I'm getting face stomped every fight, what is this $#!@!" or "How the (bleep) am I supposed to solve this riddle in the sewers to get the sword, I get electrocuted every time I click a pipe, this is (bleep) (bleep)." But a lot of people, maybe most, who try BG as new players seem very positively impressed with it.
I guess my point is that it's probably a mistake to make too many generalizations about how other people feel or can be predicted to feel. Also, we get a pretty skewed view of what "most people" think if we only read opinions here at this Beamdog forum.
I think the early posts in this thread summed it up for me. It will probably be a good game, but it won't be a Baldur's Gate game.
I have personal issues with Larian (Early Access should be a prosecutable offense), but they make good games. And I will probably play BG3 eventually. After it goes on a major sale three years down the line. I'm eager to see what the community does with the modding aspect of it, and as someone who has primarily played 5e P&P D&D, the system should feel very familiar to me. But I also have a tenuous affection for D:OS2, and I have major critiques about the story we've seen thus far from the BG3 trailers.
We'll have to see. I expect it to score well with reviewers and players alike, but I expect the old guard of BG to be either disappointed or to be slack-jawed fanboys who only sing the praises of the game because they accept whatever they're given. I exaggerate, of course, but I expect those two groups to be the vocal members of the community.
@Elrandir I appreciate that you do say you are exaggerating so please don’t take this as an annoyed response so much as just a response correcting you’re over generalising of a group of people, but I 100% consider myself a member of the old guard of players of Baldur's Gate. I am also very impressed with what I’ve seen so far of Baldur’s Gate 3. I can assure you that this does not make me a ‘Slack Jawed Fan Boy’ and I would never praise a game just because ‘I will happily accept what I am given’.
Someone can be a diehard fan of the originals and also be optimistic about what they have seen of BG3 so far. If something happens along the way that makes me feel more negative about BG3 I would openly admit it. They are just games at the end of the day.
You're fine @byrne20. I expected someone to comment thusly. I fully admit my "two groups" was not only exaggerated, but also leaned more aggressively against the group I find to likely be the "opposition". Had I been more unbiased I would have said "I expect the old guard of BG to be either venom-spewing trolls with vindictive remarks to make or to be slack-jawed fanboys who only sing the praises of the game because they accept whatever they're given."
I would, however, draw careful attention to my line "... but I expect those two groups to be the vocal members of the community." I have no doubt that there'll be many middle-of-the-road neutrals who are willing to point out both flaw and strength alike. I just don't expect them to be the most vocal. At least not on initial release. At release I expect many to take their preconceived opinions and dig in their heels, insisting on enjoying the game or loathing it because it's what they expected. Yet another reason why I am happy to wait three years before purchase for opinions to mellow and people to accept more nuanced views on the subject.
The very same can be achieved by watching a Let's Play. People are indeed able to know if a product suits their needs, tastes or expectations before they try it. The alternative would be to buy it, test it for less than two hours and then refund it. Which is personally more hassle than it's worth it for a title I clearly wouldn't enjoy myself.
This is not only 100% correct, but it is also exactly how people ought to behave with respect to buying things generally. It's certainly how I buy things, and things like video games in particular. It is why I have only a couple of games in my Steam library I deeply regret having bought (D:OS being one of them). It is ridiculous to claim one can critique something only after having spent their money buying it and their time trying it, and claiming any such thing is just a scheme to boost the sales and the appearance of popularity of a bad game.
The very same can be achieved by watching a Let's Play. People are indeed able to know if a product suits their needs, tastes or expectations before they try it. The alternative would be to buy it, test it for less than two hours and then refund it. Which is personally more hassle than it's worth it for a title I clearly wouldn't enjoy myself.
This is not only 100% correct, but it is also exactly how people ought to behave with respect to buying things generally. It's certainly how I buy things, and things like video games in particular. It is why I have only a couple of games in my Steam library I deeply regret having bought (D:OS being one of them). It is ridiculous to claim one can critique something only after having spent their money buying it and their time trying it, and claiming any such thing is just a scheme to boost the sales and the appearance of popularity of a bad game.
Actually I agree with this. Watching Lets Plays worked for me a couple of times (with not buying some games that seemed promising or buying games that I never heard of before).
@BelgarathMTH I don't fully disagree. My concern is that people who play "BG3" first and THEN go back to the games won't like the originals, because they are so different.
Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the players who went to play BG 1 and 2 to "prepare" for the new game end up not liking the new game as a result.
I think it's totally reasonable to use Let's Plays to judge if you'll like a game. It's not perfect - but it beats spending money on something you may not like (Demos are also not perfect, and the 2 hour steam window is too short in my estimation).
That said - I do think biases still factor in here. If you've spent the last 7 months being virtually certain you'll hate something, I dont think it really matters how good or bad that something is. The vast majority of people will justify their hate one way or another.
I do not think anyone wants you to like and buy the game if you currently have such a bad impression of it. I feel the recommendation is merely to check a source after the game has actually been released in order for you to verify your decisions to not buy it.
I do not think anyone wants you to like and buy the game if you currently have such a bad impression of it. I feel the recommendation is merely to check a source after the game has actually been released in order for you to verify your decisions to not buy it.
Worth noting that my original statement was: "It's not even out yet! And it's already being written off."
And this has been corrupted into me saying you have to play the game to even critique it. While I do think that even disagreeing there is somewhat absurd, it's also a far remove from what I actually said.
I sympathise. I have made the same objective statement in a few threads now but that will not be accepted by some posters. Their mind is made up, that's fine.
Comments
so far the only crpgs from the 2010's i actually liked was shadow run dragonfall, hong kong, sod, and disco Elysium.
the larian fans that get into bg 3 are never gonna play the originals. it will be the same situation as Bethesda fans getting into fallout through 3 and never touching 1 or 2 and thinking nv is a worse game.
BG series was doing just fine even before EE's. It's the mods that's giving it the fuel. BG3 won't change that.
I would be willing to bet the majority of players who got into Fallout 3 as their first fallout game were at least familiar with the fallout franchise in some fashion, regardless of if they had played it or not.
I think BG will be the same. Regardless of if BG3 players have never played BG1 or 2, they'll understand that it's a part of a franchise that is well regarded.
As for your last point: People are entitled to their opinion. They arent wrong or right about nv being worse. They can feel that way if they want.
I like the graphics, I like the general tone, I like that they've had supportive communities keeping them alive. I feel potentially for a lot of people there's a great experience there to be had if they gave them a chance.
And I am shocked by this.
Haha. So now the standard has already shifted from "wait til the game is out" to "you have to play it before you can critique it." How very convenient, that Larian gets my money and gets to count me as part of its sales figures even though I hated the game. No. That's complete BS. I don't have to spend one penny of my money on this game to be able to legitimately criticize it.
And as for your "sympathy," I'm ok without it.
Sorry, but I think you are being biased in how you are choosing to view the words of the pro-BG3 posters versus those of us who are critics. But whatever. Unfortunately, this isn't the first time I've been insulted or mocked on this forum, and I'm sure it won't be the last.
You have to play it before you can critique it strikes me as extremely reasonable.
Maybe you should read his point again. I thought it was pretty clear but that’s just me.
The concept of "spoilers" is one I got past a long time ago, because to me what it amounts to is either confirming something is good, in which case it will be a good experience to have, or it will be bad and I can shrug my shoulders and move on.
I've never really thought stories that rely on twists as their only real value to be very good anyway. I think a good example to pull up is Psycho. Who doesn't know how that movie ends? I certainly knew pretty much every inch of the plot long before finally giving it a watch. It was still excellent to watch, because its an expertly crafted film.
On the other hand, The Usual Suspects is a film I watched surprisingly, having never been spoiled on it or really knowing much of anything about it, and after finishing it, I see no value in ever watching it again and I don't think it had any substance as a story, it was one clever idea that doesn't look so clever afterwards.
Or if you want a videogame example Bioshock. I was not impressed by that twist and the story in it as a whole is very lacking otherwise. Loved System Shock 2's story and I only played that for the first time recently (it's worth 10 of Bioshock) and that game's "twist"... I mean come on, SHODAN's on the damn cover. You're told what's going to happen by the other AI (its name escapes me right now). It banks a little more on the scenario itself being engaging without the need for a trick.
i think dos combat is to slow as such hold the same opinion about bg 3.
Hmm, I don't know. I also frequent the BG Reddit, and I see posts from a lot of new BG players over there. Here at Beamdog, I think we're mostly the "old guard". Newer players seem to frequent Reddit more than here.
I've seen a lot of posts that start out with something like "I'm excited by the previews of BG3, so I wanted to play the originals to get ready for it." That can provoke a few responses along the lines of "BG3 has nothing to do with the originals, so you're wasting your time if you like those previews", but most people are positive and encouraging, I'd say.
And the original poster almost always continues on later with comments along the lines of "Wow, this is really great, I should have played these games years ago," and stuff like that. I see a few rage posts like "I can't believe I got killed by a wolf...I'm getting face stomped every fight, what is this $#!@!" or "How the (bleep) am I supposed to solve this riddle in the sewers to get the sword, I get electrocuted every time I click a pipe, this is (bleep) (bleep)." But a lot of people, maybe most, who try BG as new players seem very positively impressed with it.
I guess my point is that it's probably a mistake to make too many generalizations about how other people feel or can be predicted to feel. Also, we get a pretty skewed view of what "most people" think if we only read opinions here at this Beamdog forum.
I have personal issues with Larian (Early Access should be a prosecutable offense), but they make good games. And I will probably play BG3 eventually. After it goes on a major sale three years down the line. I'm eager to see what the community does with the modding aspect of it, and as someone who has primarily played 5e P&P D&D, the system should feel very familiar to me. But I also have a tenuous affection for D:OS2, and I have major critiques about the story we've seen thus far from the BG3 trailers.
We'll have to see. I expect it to score well with reviewers and players alike, but I expect the old guard of BG to be either disappointed or to be slack-jawed fanboys who only sing the praises of the game because they accept whatever they're given. I exaggerate, of course, but I expect those two groups to be the vocal members of the community.
Someone can be a diehard fan of the originals and also be optimistic about what they have seen of BG3 so far. If something happens along the way that makes me feel more negative about BG3 I would openly admit it. They are just games at the end of the day.
I would, however, draw careful attention to my line "... but I expect those two groups to be the vocal members of the community." I have no doubt that there'll be many middle-of-the-road neutrals who are willing to point out both flaw and strength alike. I just don't expect them to be the most vocal. At least not on initial release. At release I expect many to take their preconceived opinions and dig in their heels, insisting on enjoying the game or loathing it because it's what they expected. Yet another reason why I am happy to wait three years before purchase for opinions to mellow and people to accept more nuanced views on the subject.
This is not only 100% correct, but it is also exactly how people ought to behave with respect to buying things generally. It's certainly how I buy things, and things like video games in particular. It is why I have only a couple of games in my Steam library I deeply regret having bought (D:OS being one of them). It is ridiculous to claim one can critique something only after having spent their money buying it and their time trying it, and claiming any such thing is just a scheme to boost the sales and the appearance of popularity of a bad game.
Actually I agree with this. Watching Lets Plays worked for me a couple of times (with not buying some games that seemed promising or buying games that I never heard of before).
Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the players who went to play BG 1 and 2 to "prepare" for the new game end up not liking the new game as a result.
That said - I do think biases still factor in here. If you've spent the last 7 months being virtually certain you'll hate something, I dont think it really matters how good or bad that something is. The vast majority of people will justify their hate one way or another.
Worth noting that my original statement was: "It's not even out yet! And it's already being written off."
And this has been corrupted into me saying you have to play the game to even critique it. While I do think that even disagreeing there is somewhat absurd, it's also a far remove from what I actually said.