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.
Calling Larian's game "BG3" is 100% of the problem.
Look. I get it that people are talking in hyperbole. I wouldnt call someone else for being hyperbole when it's being done in both places. It makes the conversation seem disingenuous.
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.
On the surface, I have no issues with this - but unfortunately I dont know that this is always being done in good faith. For example - one of the writers gave and interview (and it was later confirmed in the AMA) that the companion origin stories and the player generated characters would be as close as possible to having the same amount of content.
What followed were skeptics assuming based on no evidence that the interviewer and AMA replies were lying just to support their criticism that companion origin stories were going to be much bigger than player generated ones.
We should absolutely use what we know about the game to infer on the subjects we dont know, but we shouldnt be selective on what information we use in an attempt to confirm our priors.
Edit: To add a little "both siderism", even though I kind of hate the need to do that. I think the skeptics were correct to jump on Sven's comment that rolling to hit is boring in CRPGs. It was the only real piece of evidence we had to go on about the combat system, and even as someone who is genuinely excited for the same - I was skeptical of that decision. In the end, to hit rolls are still in the game, but for a while it was fair to criticize the choice based on the available evidence.
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.
Calling Larian's game "BG3" is 100% of the problem.
I don't get your point with this. It merely confirms what I said in my post - that "3" in the title is the problem, and without that none of us critics would be feeling the kind of anger that we are feeling. It in no way says that without the "3" the game would be perfect.
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
.
There's a big difference here though. Every single one of those properties ALWAYS changed up protaganists, stories and locations for each sequel. That was always their pattern. BG did not such thing. With each sequel being a direct continuation. This isn't an equivalence.
Even IF this is completely ignored (which it has been, its been brought up before), every SINGLE one of those games you listed are far closer to the games they follow than Larian's game is to BG. Every single one of those games carried over mechanics, themes, and the same or similar art styles. You can look at them and go, "Yup, they came from the same series." You cannot do that with Divinity Origins 3.
I would argue that Neverwinter Nights 1 and Neverwinter Nights 2 do not resemble each other in any way other than the being named after the city of Neverwinter and actually going to the city obviously.
And yet I still have no issue with that game being a sequel. I’m probably one of the few people that prefer Neverwinter Nights 2 over the 1st. If you can get over it’s glitchy as hell ways it’s actually a very entertaining game.
My opinion obviously but I found the two to be very different. I 100% would not connect them together if I had not played either before and had never heard of them.
I would argue that Neverwinter Nights 1 and Neverwinter Nights 2 do not resemble each other in any way other than the being named after the city of Neverwinter and actually going to the city obviously.
And yet I still have no issue with that game being a sequel. I’m probably one of the few people that prefer Neverwinter Nights 2 over the 1st. If you can get over it’s glitchy as hell ways it’s actually a very entertaining game.
My opinion obviously but I found the two to be very different. I 100% would not connect them together if I had not played either before and had never heard of them.
To me the only major difference between the two is henchmen versus true party. In fact, to this day I routinely get the expansions to the two games constantly mixed up in terms of which are from which game. But I get your point that these perceptions can vary from person to person.
That’s fine. Not everyone sees the same things when they look at a game and yes it is indeed 100% a matter of perception and I feel that at the end of the day that’s exactly how it will be with Baldur’s Gate 3. Some people will perceive it as a worthy sequel whilst others will perceive it as an unworthy sequel. Then there are people that will perceive it as not even a sequel at all.
None of the above ways of feeling are wrong. It’s all a matter of perception and everyone is entitled to feel how they feel.
Hmmm. I considered responding but the fact of the matter is this.
In the dedicated topic on other games I find useful news and interesting discussions.
For BG3 there is a whole subforum. However, this is the only thread that keeps updating in this subforum. Yet the thread title suggests it should not have been posted here in the first place at all.
So I even wonder why I got my hopes up for meaningful news or any useful discussion in this complain thread. I do not want to have accounts over multiple forums but given nothing of use is happening here I am now certain that I'll go for news on this game elsewhere and start to ignore this subforum.
There is just no point in discussion on what everyone else thinks is acceptable on what a worthy sequel is (2D vs 3D, 3 or no 3, 2.5E vs 5E, subtitle vs main title, personal story vs origin story). It does not feel me anything about what the game in development is going to be like.
For BG3 there is a whole subforum. However, this is the only thread that keeps updating in this subforum.
So I even wonder why I got my hopes up for meaningful news or any useful discussion in this complain thread.
There is just no point in discussion on what everyone else thinks is acceptable on what a worthy sequel is
What the hell? My thread is the only thread that keeps updating....? I'm flattered.
First, you're welcome to come and discuss, but I don't think this is the right place that you should hope for your "meaningful news or any useful discussion". And second, I'm not complaining. And third, of course there is just right point in "discussion on what everyone else think is acceptable on what a worthy sequel is", if it's not, then why there are so many people come and discuss?
Somewhat off-topic, but I think while MM did upgrades to the engine at several points it mainly remained first person, party-based with turn-based (later on with a real-time option) combat.
Story wise they are connected by more than easter eggs: all of MM1-5 is stopping Sheltem on whatever planet/ship he is at the moment. MM6 seems somewhat unrelated except the ancient connection, but MM7 is heavily tied to MM3 with pretty much all the plot being related to the MM3 arrival on the planet.
For BG 3, I think it is fair enough to say that while Larian has the legal rights to do what they want, there has been always controversy for other titles with sequels going to another creative team, e.g. in Fallout and if EA were to do another Ultima without Richard Garriott it would be the same reaction.
My personal reaction is the same, I am not upset by what Larian is doing because the original games forms a cohesive story and that will be totally unaffected by whatever they add. At the same time I still feel it is a lazy choice to do BG3 instead of some other D&D title, as there are too many reboots and sequels to finished stories in the industry anyway. Especially as they try to top each other with every sequel so that what felt epic loses that special feelings - still think the mindflayers come too soon.
Comments
Nicely done. If you didn’t show the above I was getting close to doing it lol
See
Look. I get it that people are talking in hyperbole. I wouldnt call someone else for being hyperbole when it's being done in both places. It makes the conversation seem disingenuous.
On the surface, I have no issues with this - but unfortunately I dont know that this is always being done in good faith. For example - one of the writers gave and interview (and it was later confirmed in the AMA) that the companion origin stories and the player generated characters would be as close as possible to having the same amount of content.
What followed were skeptics assuming based on no evidence that the interviewer and AMA replies were lying just to support their criticism that companion origin stories were going to be much bigger than player generated ones.
We should absolutely use what we know about the game to infer on the subjects we dont know, but we shouldnt be selective on what information we use in an attempt to confirm our priors.
Edit: To add a little "both siderism", even though I kind of hate the need to do that. I think the skeptics were correct to jump on Sven's comment that rolling to hit is boring in CRPGs. It was the only real piece of evidence we had to go on about the combat system, and even as someone who is genuinely excited for the same - I was skeptical of that decision. In the end, to hit rolls are still in the game, but for a while it was fair to criticize the choice based on the available evidence.
I don't get your point with this. It merely confirms what I said in my post - that "3" in the title is the problem, and without that none of us critics would be feeling the kind of anger that we are feeling. It in no way says that without the "3" the game would be perfect.
There's a big difference here though. Every single one of those properties ALWAYS changed up protaganists, stories and locations for each sequel. That was always their pattern. BG did not such thing. With each sequel being a direct continuation. This isn't an equivalence.
Even IF this is completely ignored (which it has been, its been brought up before), every SINGLE one of those games you listed are far closer to the games they follow than Larian's game is to BG. Every single one of those games carried over mechanics, themes, and the same or similar art styles. You can look at them and go, "Yup, they came from the same series." You cannot do that with Divinity Origins 3.
And yet I still have no issue with that game being a sequel. I’m probably one of the few people that prefer Neverwinter Nights 2 over the 1st. If you can get over it’s glitchy as hell ways it’s actually a very entertaining game.
My opinion obviously but I found the two to be very different. I 100% would not connect them together if I had not played either before and had never heard of them.
To me the only major difference between the two is henchmen versus true party. In fact, to this day I routinely get the expansions to the two games constantly mixed up in terms of which are from which game. But I get your point that these perceptions can vary from person to person.
That’s fine. Not everyone sees the same things when they look at a game and yes it is indeed 100% a matter of perception and I feel that at the end of the day that’s exactly how it will be with Baldur’s Gate 3. Some people will perceive it as a worthy sequel whilst others will perceive it as an unworthy sequel. Then there are people that will perceive it as not even a sequel at all.
None of the above ways of feeling are wrong. It’s all a matter of perception and everyone is entitled to feel how they feel.
In the dedicated topic on other games I find useful news and interesting discussions.
For BG3 there is a whole subforum. However, this is the only thread that keeps updating in this subforum. Yet the thread title suggests it should not have been posted here in the first place at all.
So I even wonder why I got my hopes up for meaningful news or any useful discussion in this complain thread. I do not want to have accounts over multiple forums but given nothing of use is happening here I am now certain that I'll go for news on this game elsewhere and start to ignore this subforum.
There is just no point in discussion on what everyone else thinks is acceptable on what a worthy sequel is (2D vs 3D, 3 or no 3, 2.5E vs 5E, subtitle vs main title, personal story vs origin story). It does not feel me anything about what the game in development is going to be like.
Luckily I get the gazette.
At this moment, we're waiting for the June gaming conference to happen to hear, most likely, about the start of the beta and watch new gameplay.
What the hell? My thread is the only thread that keeps updating....? I'm flattered.
First, you're welcome to come and discuss, but I don't think this is the right place that you should hope for your "meaningful news or any useful discussion". And second, I'm not complaining. And third, of course there is just right point in "discussion on what everyone else think is acceptable on what a worthy sequel is", if it's not, then why there are so many people come and discuss?
Story wise they are connected by more than easter eggs: all of MM1-5 is stopping Sheltem on whatever planet/ship he is at the moment. MM6 seems somewhat unrelated except the ancient connection, but MM7 is heavily tied to MM3 with pretty much all the plot being related to the MM3 arrival on the planet.
For BG 3, I think it is fair enough to say that while Larian has the legal rights to do what they want, there has been always controversy for other titles with sequels going to another creative team, e.g. in Fallout and if EA were to do another Ultima without Richard Garriott it would be the same reaction.
My personal reaction is the same, I am not upset by what Larian is doing because the original games forms a cohesive story and that will be totally unaffected by whatever they add. At the same time I still feel it is a lazy choice to do BG3 instead of some other D&D title, as there are too many reboots and sequels to finished stories in the industry anyway. Especially as they try to top each other with every sequel so that what felt epic loses that special feelings - still think the mindflayers come too soon.