Going to be interesting how the leveling aspect of this game is going to be received, especially on early access. From what Larian is describing, we're getting a game that's longer than Original Sin 2, but only levels 1-10. That's going to be a profoundly slower progression than CRPG's players have seen in a long, long time.
For me, it actually makes me hugely hyped for the game. One of the things I love about the original BG is how slow the leveling is (on a typical playthrough).
@ThacoBell so you have read between some imaginary lines and that is the interpretation that you have come up with. It’s not a fact. Just your own interpretation.
@ThacoBell so you have read between some imaginary lines and that is the interpretation that you have come up with. It’s not a fact. Just your own interpretation.
So I guess we're just changing the meaning of what a sequel is to justify Larian's fraud now.
I'm still confounded by what some folks are trying to accomplish here. I mean, it sounds to me like there are two forumers here who have little to no interest in this game, and are unlikely to be satisfied with any version of it.
I was a big fan of the original Fallout games, and even liked 3 to an extent. And I loved New Vegas. But when 4 was coming out, I saw it was moving much more towards some Skyrim-style design that didn't interest me. I didn't go around and argue on a bunch of forums about how the game was a fraud, or how these design choices screwed me over. I didn't buy the game, and got on with my life.
I don't understand why some folks here can't do the same. If you have next to no interest in this game, what are you doing here exactly? It seems like you're just creating some needless drama and voicing some rather unfounded and gross attacks on Larian.
@DinoDin the ironic part is that the only fraud I’ve seen was his claim that Sven specifically answered his question on the AMA with ‘Baldur’s Gate 3 is a direct sequel to Baldur’s Gate 2’.
Let's stipulate that if there IS fraud or betrayal going on here (and I don't believe there is) then it's Wizards of the Coast who are responsible, not Larian. No studio was going to turn this down when RPGs are their bread and butter.
Again, I go back to what I've learned since I started to go for a full collection of 5th Edition material. WoTC is taking a multi-pronged approach to expanding D&D's fanbase into the mainstream of culture. It's evident from what they put out. Sure there are repurposed old adventure modules, and sourcebooks, but the real genius of how they have expanded is what ELSE they have incorporated into the fold. Two books are directly related to the content created by massively popular podcasts (Critical Role and Penny Arcade). Two more directly connect D&D to the Magic: The Gathering universe (Ravinca and Theros). Descent into Avernus will be directly referenced in the game, as that campaign is set in Baldur's Gate. My point is, they are taking big swings and refusing to be constrained by old limits. It doesn't surprise me at all that they didn't want Baldur's Gate 3 to be a relic from the year 2000. Even if that's what most of us are comfortable with.
I actually think we're sort of the same mind here! Like I said in my other post, I don't want super special snowflakes, I just think most human and elves characters would be more interesting if they were shorter/had fangs or something similar. I man, halflings are supposed to be everywhere in the Realms while elves tend to be more secluded, but somehow we usually end up with a lot more elves in our parties.
Fangs I can live without, for sure, but agreed, I would love to see more halflings, dwarves and gnomes. We rarely get more than one of each of the shorties, but we usually get more than one elf.
Not really my cup of tea, but If they do the same as in previous games you can recruit mercenaries with the setup you see fit, personalized looks and voices, give them a backstory and create a different party every time.
Since dialogues react to race, etc and there are exploration banters (as shown in the gameplay) they will have an amount of dialogues ingame similar to some of the bg1 characters.
Yeah, not my cup of tea either, but maybe it will be better than I think. The reactions, at least, will be cool. I just don't think I could ever bring myself to not use the characters the designers made, which it seems like will be very much tied to the story (which is another reason they probably don't want to create too many). For me, seeing the NPCs react to the events of the story is what really brings them to life. It's one of the things I think NWN2 did, especially at the beginning of the game, and one of the things I'd love more of from the BG NPCs (especially 1, but even 2).
So basically, I'm just greedy and want more more more
Let's stipulate that if there IS fraud or betrayal going on here (and I don't believe there is) then it's Wizards of the Coast who are responsible, not Larian. No studio was going to turn this down when RPGs are their bread and butter.
Again, I go back to what I've learned since I started to go for a full collection of 5th Edition material. WoTC is taking a multi-pronged approach to expanding D&D's fanbase into the mainstream of culture. It's evident from what they put out. Sure there are repurposed old adventure modules, and sourcebooks, but the real genius of how they have expanded is what ELSE they have incorporated into the fold. Two books are directly related to the content created by massively popular podcasts (Critical Role and Penny Arcade). Two more directly connect D&D to the Magic: The Gathering universe (Ravinca and Theros). Descent into Avernus will be directly referenced in the game, as that campaign is set in Baldur's Gate. My point is, they are taking big swings and refusing to be constrained by old limits. It doesn't surprise me at all that they didn't want Baldur's Gate 3 to be a relic from the year 2000. Even if that's what most of us are comfortable with.
I'm not even sure what's wrong with trying to make money. Yes, I think it's undeniable that they're using the BG franchise to make money and to help launch some products to follow. I still fail to see what's so terrible about this? The game is still a tactical, party-based RPG, with ostensibly a rich storyline, deep companion interaction, etc. If they truly only cared about cashing-in, they would make an action RPG, in the style of the Witcher or Skyrim. Those kinds of games sell much, much more. And more easily portable/marketable to consoles.
Yeah, they're not making Icewind Dale 3, or some new adventure with this, somewhat pilot project, because they want to make money and hype. As well, they kind of need to be safe. There's absolutely no way one of those other projects, launched now, would get this level of investment. I fail to see what's so terrible about this. As I've said before, the way you get spinoff D&D CRPG's like IWD or Planescape is because the big, safe titles prove there is a deep market for these games.
I also just don't get any CRPG fan complaining right now. There are so many freaking games and so many cheap ways to acquire them. I literally do not have enough time for amount decent to excellent games that are available right now -- all acquirable without having to leave my home. It's a damn golden age for this genre.
- Too (?) high level monsters. Help me out guys here, because know nothing about 5ed. Does it seem off to fight hook horrors and phase spiders on level 3? I get the goblins camp, these are perfectly fit for 3rd level party. But Underdark? Something's not right here, or am I missing something?
I have nearly a complete collection of 5th Edition hardcovers I recently started acquiring. Even epic, 400-500 page campaigns usually cap out at the 11th or 12th level. The only one I own that goes higher than that is the Dungeon of the Mad Mage, which takes you through ALL of Undermountain. 5th Edition basically caps out at 20, and it would take a year of play-time to get to that level. Nothing like the levels seen in Throne of Bhaal are even remotely possible in anything that's been released. Point being, you are fighting the likes of Frost and Fire Giants, Strahd and Acereak around levels 10-12. Phase spiders at level 3 doesn't seem out of place in that frame. 5th Edition's level ranges are much more condensed in regards to encounters. There really isn't any such thing as a "low-level" campaign. There are only low level parts.
Hmm, interesting. So, you're saying that there are no characters above 20 in FR 5ed setting? What about all those kick ass mages, like Elminster, Larloch, Szass Tam, Ioulaum, all of the Twisted Rune liches? Have they been nerfed, or are dead altogether? Is there no "epic level" concept anymore?
- Too (?) high level monsters. Help me out guys here, because know nothing about 5ed. Does it seem off to fight hook horrors and phase spiders on level 3? I get the goblins camp, these are perfectly fit for 3rd level party. But Underdark? Something's not right here, or am I missing something?
I have nearly a complete collection of 5th Edition hardcovers I recently started acquiring. Even epic, 400-500 page campaigns usually cap out at the 11th or 12th level. The only one I own that goes higher than that is the Dungeon of the Mad Mage, which takes you through ALL of Undermountain. 5th Edition basically caps out at 20, and it would take a year of play-time to get to that level. Nothing like the levels seen in Throne of Bhaal are even remotely possible in anything that's been released. Point being, you are fighting the likes of Frost and Fire Giants, Strahd and Acereak around levels 10-12. Phase spiders at level 3 doesn't seem out of place in that frame. 5th Edition's level ranges are much more condensed in regards to encounters. There really isn't any such thing as a "low-level" campaign. There are only low level parts.
Hmm, interesting. So, you're saying that there are no characters above 20 in FR 5ed setting? What about all those kick ass mages, like Elminster, Larloch, Szass Tam, Ioulaum, all of the Twisted Rune liches? Have they been nerfed, or are dead altogether? Is there no "epic level" concept anymore?
I'm simply saying there isn't any officially release content designed for player characters over level 20. A DM would have to come up with something absolutely insane to challenge of group of characters beyond that point, who would essentially be living gods like you are at the end of Throne of Bhaal. At that point, any group would likely want to start over with new characters. There are a couple of pages in the Dungeon Master's Guide about stuff after that level called "epic boons", but it's hardly even covered. I wouldn't say EVERYTHING is epic, but you are getting into fairly complex, meaty, memorable encounters when you are even halfway to that point. There just really isn't anything designed for players going past that point. I'm sure there are MONSTERS above that level, and maybe some NPCs, but I'd have to dive in far more than I've been able to. But as far as players are concerned, getting to level 20 would be like ascending to the Throne at the end of the Baldur's Gate saga. Mortal concerns would be of no interest to you at that point.
In short no, there´s not "Epic levels" over lvl20 as official material as in 3.5. There are creatures way over CR20, to challenge your lvl20 party.
5e has 5-6 years of development and there´s not news of that, so I will assume that that´s not a priority for WOTC.
They`re more into creating more content (Like the new IWD campaign) to use with new characters than creating more levels. There are some very well-made homebrews for that tho.
To be fair, you usually do not reach epic levels with your groups unless you start with a high-level party in PF or 3.5.
Hmm, so I'd say there is a romm for BG4 and even BG5 given the slow level progression. BG4 could end up on level 16-17 and BG5 on level 20. I'm starting to suspect we will only scratch the surface of the Underdark in BG3 and Larian will save the more dangerous parts for potential sequel.
Hmm, so I'd say there is a romm for BG4 and even BG5 given the slow level progression. BG4 could end up on level 16-17 and BG5 on level 20. I'm starting to suspect we will only scratch the surface of the Underdark in BG3 and Larian will save the more dangerous parts for potential sequel.
A sequel, for sure. I suspect that's the entire idea behind capping it at 10. I wouldn't be shocked if they had a 10-year roadmap at this point. It's worth pointing out that WoTC themselves don't refer to it as 5th Edition. It's now just "D&D". It was meant to be an amalgamation of everything good about all the previous editions. It was play-tested to death and that is the general consensus, among fans of everyone from 1st Edition to 4th Edition. There don't seem to be any actual plans to move to a new edition on the horizon, even though it's been out for half a decade. This is a result of getting it right.
Because you and others keep ignoring what I have repeatedly said, which is how much I love FR, that FR is my favorite RPG setting of all, and I very badly miss playing games in FR and want to play FR games. Exactly how many FR games do I have available to play (old games don't count)? How many FR games can I reasonably expect to have available to play in the coming years?
As I said to you initially: You have very particular tastes in games, obviously. It's like you want to play something with the gameplay of Torment Tides of Numenara but set in the D&D Forgotten Realms world. And are mad at the world for not giving this to you.
At some point, you should recognize who is responsible for this issue.
funny you say this as i just played torment very recently. and it's one of the few modern crpgs where i don't mind the turn based combat. it helps there isnt as much combat in tides and it's not as slow as say dos.
thats really my issue with dos the combat is to slow. i did not mind the combat in shadow run either. so it's not like i hate turn based combat i just hate slow turnbased combat.
@DinoDin the ironic part is that the only fraud I’ve seen was his claim that Sven specifically answered his question on the AMA with ‘Baldur’s Gate 3 is a direct sequel to Baldur’s Gate 2’.
Not once did Sven say that. Fact!
Oh yeah, Sven never said that he considered BG3 was a sequel when he said that BG3 was a sequel. Spare me.
@DinoDin "I also just don't get any CRPG fan complaining right now. There are so many freaking games and so many cheap ways to acquire them."
No there isn't. Pillars is the only RPG in recent memory that's remotely like BG. And it seems unlikely we will be getting another one. There might be a lot of RPGs to play if you like turn based...
"I'm not even sure what's wrong with trying to make money."
Don't even pretend that you'd be fine if someone spent months telling you that that they were gonna bring you a Ferrari, but the time comes and you're given bicycle instead.
@ThacoBell “Oh yeah, Sven never said that he considered BG3 was a sequel when he said that BG3 was a sequel. Spare me”
And yet again! He never used those words. You also previously claimed he said “Direct Sequel” so now you are changing your story... You can continue to lie all you want but the fact remains that his answer to your question was -
“You can’t see this from anything we’ve shown so far because we don’t want to spoil it but we do touch upon the story of BG 1 & 2 in deeply meaningful ways and there are returning characters. The city plays a massive part and like in the originals, you’ll play an adventure in which the party is the heart and soul with protagonists who will be afflicted by the Gods against their will”.
As I have said in a previous post you are reading between the lines and making your own conclusion which is fine if that is how ‘you’ want to see it but don’t keep speaking as if it’s a fact when the fact remains that it isn’t.
@ThacoBell ”we were promised BG3 and given Divinity”
The above is your opinion and again you are welcome to it. I happen to disagree but that is just my opinion
There don't seem to be any actual plans to move to a new edition on the horizon, even though it's been out for half a decade. This is a result of getting it right.
FWIW, there was an interview with someone from WotC sometime last year or early this year in which they confirm that 6e is being worked on but is quite a ways away from being announced.
funny you say this as i just played torment very recently. and it's one of the few modern crpgs where i don't mind the turn based combat. it helps there isnt as much combat in tides and it's not as slow as say dos.
thats really my issue with dos the combat is to slow. i did not mind the combat in shadow run either. so it's not like i hate turn based combat i just hate slow turnbased combat.
@megamike15 I agree about T:ToN, and I've said so previously in this subforum precisely to counter claims that I just don't like any TB game. T:ToN is a game I really like despite it being TB because, just like you, I loved that combat was not pervasive, almost every combat encounter including the final boss battle had a nice, meaningful, and viable alternative non-combat path, and when you did engage in combat it went by VERY fast. That's a well-made TB combat system.
@ThacoBell “Oh yeah, Sven never said that he considered BG3 was a sequel when he said that BG3 was a sequel. Spare me”
And yet again! He never used those words. You also previously claimed he said “Direct Sequel” so now you are changing your story... You can continue to lie all you want but the fact remains that his answer to your question was -
“You can’t see this from anything we’ve shown so far because we don’t want to spoil it but we do touch upon the story of BG 1 & 2 in deeply meaningful ways and there are returning characters. The city plays a massive part and like in the originals, you’ll play an adventure in which the party is the heart and soul with protagonists who will be afflicted by the Gods against their will”.
As I have said in a previous post you are reading between the lines and making your own conclusion which is fine if that is how ‘you’ want to see it but don’t keep speaking as if it’s a fact when the fact remains that it isn’t.
@ThacoBell ”we were promised BG3 and given Divinity”
The above is your opinion and again you are welcome to it. I happen to disagree but that is just my opinion
No, we were promised what we were shown on previous and the latest gameplay. On both gamplays it is BG3. In fact there is less DoS in this new gameplay than it was on the previous one. So, I'm fairly positive Vincke takes players feedback very seriously. What I'm disappointed is that none of those interviewers asked about FR lore, as if only game mechanics and aesthetics matters. It's a bit sad.
I was following the interviews and community updates for a long time (most of the time thanks to the updates of @JuliusBorisov and I found one clear pattern: Larian was keeping a distance with previous games at all times.
I don`t think the fans of the old games are the main-and-only game target audience anymore. I mean, they are using D&D5e Assets, they are advertising modules of WOTC together (Descent into Avernus, etc), they are doing interviews together with WOTC CEOs, working with D&D5e creators, using the ruleset and the setting...
But I won't remember them referencing the old BG games in any interview unless asked first (In one interview even Sven Vincke and Mike Merle didn´t remember the canon ending of the baalspawn crises), they didn´t make videos of "Sven Vinke playing the old bg games", didnt´ hire any of the original game screenwriters, musicians,... didn´t use images of the old games and characters to advertise the game (Owlcat, for example, included two of the iconic characters of Pathfinder in the videogames, Amiri and Seelah in BG3 they spend a year to show us Volo, an iconic character of the entire D&D, not only from BG),... didn´t take people from Black isle into the game-cons,... and they do none of the things that the PR department use to do to rally the old game fans.
What I meant is that the target audience of the videogame is not "old-BG-games-fans-only" as in "we are not doing anything reminiscent to the original games and it was never intended to be". for múltiple reasons already posted in this thread (design, mechanics, colour palette, etc). And I´m sure that WOTC is more interested in selling his latest product, 5E, than resurrecting old myths, no matter how glorious they were.
I mean, the story of the baalspawn is already finished, it´s a different studio, do not share plot or common characters that we know of, It´s a turn-based game, 20 years and 3 different editions of D&D passed and they are using D&D5e game mechanics, lore and Artwork; and a setting 200 years after the baalspawn crisis, so... Do you really think they are worried about "deep and satisfying links to the original story arc that might justify the - -sequel tag- in terms of story-telling and game-play terms"?
I think Larian and WOTC wanted to make a 5e game in the Forgotten realms and in the city of Baldur´s gate, but not another IE game. It´s Baldurs gate, yes, but BG 5º edition and It was planned that way from the start.
Not that I have anything against that, I happen to like D&D5e, TB, the forgotten realms... etc so I´m happy with plenty of what they show us so far (Even tho I found weird some design choices) and, even I loved the old games I do not particularly care that much about the game to be similar to the old (and amazing) BG trilogy. I already played it dozens of times and I want to keep my legends as-It-is instead of "Mass effect Andromeda"-ing them.
funny you say this as i just played torment very recently. and it's one of the few modern crpgs where i don't mind the turn based combat. it helps there isnt as much combat in tides and it's not as slow as say dos.
thats really my issue with dos the combat is to slow. i did not mind the combat in shadow run either. so it's not like i hate turn based combat i just hate slow turnbased combat.
@megamike15 I agree about T:ToN, and I've said so previously in this subforum precisely to counter claims that I just don't like any TB game. T:ToN is a game I really like despite it being TB because, just like you, I loved that combat was not pervasive, almost every combat encounter including the final boss battle had a nice, meaningful, and viable alternative non-combat path, and when you did engage in combat it went by VERY fast. That's a well-made TB combat system.
Yeah, Numenera has different issues, combat is not one of them. It just looks like this project was too ambitious for In ile and turned out to be the poor cousin of PST. It's still a good game, but (except of combat) PST is better in every aspect. I still remember each and every NPC from PST, I doubt I'll remember any NPC from Numenera two years from now.
@JuliusBorisov "So you rather smartly put a part of the question which you're now trying to use "if he considers BG3 a direct sequel and why" here, while the actual question was: "makes BG3 a sequel to the first two BG games" - without the word "direct". And of course, the reply doesn't use that word as well, and actually, the reply is rather mild and far from "He answered that yes, it IS a direct sequel.""
That looks like claims of a direct sequel to me. I don't recall Larian ever calling it a "loose" or "spiritual" sequeal. What they did was slap a big old "3" on the end of Baldur's Gate. That's a claim of a direct sequel. Anything else is justification after the fact.
This is only your interpretation, not a fact.
How can the number '3' at the end of the title be any more of a fact that BG3 is marketed as a direct sequel, and not a loose sequel? There were multiple ways to play this, including ways that would still hark back the the glory days of the original games. They deliberately chose to include the '3' at the end, possibly in an attempt to capitalize on nostalgia (speculation).
- I have mentioned before that I do believe it has the potential to be a great game (opinion). The newer gameplay footage is actually putting my mind at ease in that respect.
- It is marketed as a direct sequel. Fact.
Whether it ends up being a good sequel (opinion) remains up in the air, mainly because opinions vary on what is good, but also on what is actually a sequel. My opinion:
- It being set in the city of Baldur's Gate is not enough. The story was never about the city (we never even set foot in the city in BG2) but about the internal struggle of a single individual, the Charname Bhaalspawn.
- One similar theme, internal struggle about in this case a tadpole in the brain, is not enough. It might as well have been the career criminal with the heart of gold trope.
- Having an insignificant forgettably tiny cameo character from the original games hang out in your camp is not enough. Yes, I'm talking about Volo, yes I am aware of him being an established character in FR lore, and yes I am calling his presence in the originals insignificant. Fight me.
Anywho. My opinion is that, as of yet, there is insufficient information to determine if calling it a direct sequel is justified, despite being marketed as such, and most of the things we have seen points to the negative. Sven says there are things that do justify it but they don't want to spoil, which is entirely understandable, but I also understand how the manner in which he is being evasive and brushes aside questions can make people with legitimate concerns feel invalidated.
Time will tell if the designation 'sequel' is justified, but people with the fear/opinion that it isn't justified should not be derided for it.
Guys, maybe we simply have different understanding what *direct* sequel is? For me direct sequel means: the same protagonist, the same (and new) NPC's, the *continuation* of the plot picked up more or less where the previous game ended (can be fast forwarder few years for story reasons). It was never marketed like that. Yes, putting 3 in the name is playing a bit on nostalgia, but Larian never ever gave us any indication that this game will have a lot to do with original saga. It's a bit hilarious to see that some of you look *shocked* or *cheated* at the moment. It's not that this game is a complete secret and suddenly after release everyone is surprised that this game is not IE game but 3D game, that it's not RTwP but TB and the list goes on. Larian is open from the start what the game will looks like. The only thing they won't spoil are plot and lore, which is kinda understandable, even if those things are of the most importance to me.
Yes, putting 3 in the name is playing a bit on nostalgia, but Larian never ever gave us any indication that this game will have a lot to do with original saga.
The 3 in the name *is* the indication. Or at least creates the illusion.
Yes, putting 3 in the name is playing a bit on nostalgia, but Larian never ever gave us any indication that this game will have a lot to do with original saga.
The 3 in the name *is* the indication. Or at least creates the illusion.
Putting 3 in the name is just a nod to old time fans of BG saga. It's a damn shame it is the *only* nod thus far, this is a valid complaint, true. But the fact WoTC picked BG franchise means they are fully aware the cult status it has got after all those years.
Yes, putting 3 in the name is playing a bit on nostalgia, but Larian never ever gave us any indication that this game will have a lot to do with original saga.
The 3 in the name *is* the indication. Or at least creates the illusion.
This argument has been made to death. There are plenty of game franchises that iterate on the number and it means it's a direct continuation of the previous game's story. There are just as many game franchises that iterate on the number without any expectation that a story will be continued.
Larian has obliquely referenced that the events of BG1-2 will be relevant of BG3. We dont know how much. The number could be meaningful, or it could not be. Without knowing more, it feels like people are just doing a lot of hand-wringing to justify their own preconceptions about what the game will be.
There don't seem to be any actual plans to move to a new edition on the horizon, even though it's been out for half a decade. This is a result of getting it right.
FWIW, there was an interview with someone from WotC sometime last year or early this year in which they confirm that 6e is being worked on but is quite a ways away from being announced.
While I havent specifically read anything about that, it wouldnt surprise me in the least. 5e is in a really good spot, but selling rulebooks makes them a lot of money, and switching editions will always be the next step in making money.
I'm not sure what model I prefer(If either): The approach with 3.5 (dozen upon dozens of rulebooks releases, creating bloat but allowing the edition to live on for 10 years) or the current approach with less rulebooks but the likelihood of editions changing at a faster pace.
funny you say this as i just played torment very recently. and it's one of the few modern crpgs where i don't mind the turn based combat. it helps there isnt as much combat in tides and it's not as slow as say dos.
thats really my issue with dos the combat is to slow. i did not mind the combat in shadow run either. so it's not like i hate turn based combat i just hate slow turnbased combat.
@megamike15 I agree about T:ToN, and I've said so previously in this subforum precisely to counter claims that I just don't like any TB game. T:ToN is a game I really like despite it being TB because, just like you, I loved that combat was not pervasive, almost every combat encounter including the final boss battle had a nice, meaningful, and viable alternative non-combat path, and when you did engage in combat it went by VERY fast. That's a well-made TB combat system.
Yeah, Numenera has different issues, combat is not one of them. It just looks like this project was too ambitious for In ile and turned out to be the poor cousin of PST. It's still a good game, but (except of combat) PST is better in every aspect. I still remember each and every NPC from PST, I doubt I'll remember any NPC from Numenera two years from now.
Agreed, but I would say that although they were indeed over-ambitious, and also did it too rushed, the main source of the game's problems was a woefully inadequate budget. So I am hopeful (and have posted this on the inXile website) that someday they will go back to that franchise and do it right with a T:ToN2 that gets properly resourced by MS. The game's setting is fantastic, and the concept of that game has tremendous potential.
funny you say this as i just played torment very recently. and it's one of the few modern crpgs where i don't mind the turn based combat. it helps there isnt as much combat in tides and it's not as slow as say dos.
thats really my issue with dos the combat is to slow. i did not mind the combat in shadow run either. so it's not like i hate turn based combat i just hate slow turnbased combat.
@megamike15 I agree about T:ToN, and I've said so previously in this subforum precisely to counter claims that I just don't like any TB game. T:ToN is a game I really like despite it being TB because, just like you, I loved that combat was not pervasive, almost every combat encounter including the final boss battle had a nice, meaningful, and viable alternative non-combat path, and when you did engage in combat it went by VERY fast. That's a well-made TB combat system.
Yeah, Numenera has different issues, combat is not one of them. It just looks like this project was too ambitious for In ile and turned out to be the poor cousin of PST. It's still a good game, but (except of combat) PST is better in every aspect. I still remember each and every NPC from PST, I doubt I'll remember any NPC from Numenera two years from now.
Agreed, but I would say that although they were indeed over-ambitious, and also did it too rushed, the main source of the game's problems was a woefully inadequate budget. So I am hopeful (and have posted this on the inXile website) that someday they will go back to that franchise and do it right with a T:ToN2 that gets properly resourced by MS. The game's setting is fantastic, and the concept of that game has tremendous potential.
Yeah, the problem is it's supposed to be complex with a lot of branching, but... it doesn't seem to be the case. In fact, it's very much linear in my opinion. Also I read every single wall of text in PST with open mouth, but in Numenera once in a while I just skipped it, it's just not that interesting. I always thought that Avellone and McComb are brilliant writers, but T:ToN showed me how good both really are. PST is still the pinnacle of RPG writing. Disco Elysium is a close second, but still *second*.
Comments
For me, it actually makes me hugely hyped for the game. One of the things I love about the original BG is how slow the leveling is (on a typical playthrough).
also @JuliusBorisov
So I guess we're just changing the meaning of what a sequel is to justify Larian's fraud now.
I'm still confounded by what some folks are trying to accomplish here. I mean, it sounds to me like there are two forumers here who have little to no interest in this game, and are unlikely to be satisfied with any version of it.
I was a big fan of the original Fallout games, and even liked 3 to an extent. And I loved New Vegas. But when 4 was coming out, I saw it was moving much more towards some Skyrim-style design that didn't interest me. I didn't go around and argue on a bunch of forums about how the game was a fraud, or how these design choices screwed me over. I didn't buy the game, and got on with my life.
I don't understand why some folks here can't do the same. If you have next to no interest in this game, what are you doing here exactly? It seems like you're just creating some needless drama and voicing some rather unfounded and gross attacks on Larian.
Not once did Sven say that. Fact!
Again, I go back to what I've learned since I started to go for a full collection of 5th Edition material. WoTC is taking a multi-pronged approach to expanding D&D's fanbase into the mainstream of culture. It's evident from what they put out. Sure there are repurposed old adventure modules, and sourcebooks, but the real genius of how they have expanded is what ELSE they have incorporated into the fold. Two books are directly related to the content created by massively popular podcasts (Critical Role and Penny Arcade). Two more directly connect D&D to the Magic: The Gathering universe (Ravinca and Theros). Descent into Avernus will be directly referenced in the game, as that campaign is set in Baldur's Gate. My point is, they are taking big swings and refusing to be constrained by old limits. It doesn't surprise me at all that they didn't want Baldur's Gate 3 to be a relic from the year 2000. Even if that's what most of us are comfortable with.
https://dnd.wizards.com/products/tabletop-games/rpg-products/dungeons-dragons-vs-rick-and-morty
Fangs I can live without, for sure, but agreed, I would love to see more halflings, dwarves and gnomes. We rarely get more than one of each of the shorties, but we usually get more than one elf.
Yeah, not my cup of tea either, but maybe it will be better than I think. The reactions, at least, will be cool. I just don't think I could ever bring myself to not use the characters the designers made, which it seems like will be very much tied to the story (which is another reason they probably don't want to create too many). For me, seeing the NPCs react to the events of the story is what really brings them to life. It's one of the things I think NWN2 did, especially at the beginning of the game, and one of the things I'd love more of from the BG NPCs (especially 1, but even 2).
So basically, I'm just greedy and want more more more
I'm not even sure what's wrong with trying to make money. Yes, I think it's undeniable that they're using the BG franchise to make money and to help launch some products to follow. I still fail to see what's so terrible about this? The game is still a tactical, party-based RPG, with ostensibly a rich storyline, deep companion interaction, etc. If they truly only cared about cashing-in, they would make an action RPG, in the style of the Witcher or Skyrim. Those kinds of games sell much, much more. And more easily portable/marketable to consoles.
Yeah, they're not making Icewind Dale 3, or some new adventure with this, somewhat pilot project, because they want to make money and hype. As well, they kind of need to be safe. There's absolutely no way one of those other projects, launched now, would get this level of investment. I fail to see what's so terrible about this. As I've said before, the way you get spinoff D&D CRPG's like IWD or Planescape is because the big, safe titles prove there is a deep market for these games.
I also just don't get any CRPG fan complaining right now. There are so many freaking games and so many cheap ways to acquire them. I literally do not have enough time for amount decent to excellent games that are available right now -- all acquirable without having to leave my home. It's a damn golden age for this genre.
Hmm, interesting. So, you're saying that there are no characters above 20 in FR 5ed setting? What about all those kick ass mages, like Elminster, Larloch, Szass Tam, Ioulaum, all of the Twisted Rune liches? Have they been nerfed, or are dead altogether? Is there no "epic level" concept anymore?
I'm simply saying there isn't any officially release content designed for player characters over level 20. A DM would have to come up with something absolutely insane to challenge of group of characters beyond that point, who would essentially be living gods like you are at the end of Throne of Bhaal. At that point, any group would likely want to start over with new characters. There are a couple of pages in the Dungeon Master's Guide about stuff after that level called "epic boons", but it's hardly even covered. I wouldn't say EVERYTHING is epic, but you are getting into fairly complex, meaty, memorable encounters when you are even halfway to that point. There just really isn't anything designed for players going past that point. I'm sure there are MONSTERS above that level, and maybe some NPCs, but I'd have to dive in far more than I've been able to. But as far as players are concerned, getting to level 20 would be like ascending to the Throne at the end of the Baldur's Gate saga. Mortal concerns would be of no interest to you at that point.
5e has 5-6 years of development and there´s not news of that, so I will assume that that´s not a priority for WOTC.
They`re more into creating more content (Like the new IWD campaign) to use with new characters than creating more levels. There are some very well-made homebrews for that tho.
To be fair, you usually do not reach epic levels with your groups unless you start with a high-level party in PF or 3.5.
A sequel, for sure. I suspect that's the entire idea behind capping it at 10. I wouldn't be shocked if they had a 10-year roadmap at this point. It's worth pointing out that WoTC themselves don't refer to it as 5th Edition. It's now just "D&D". It was meant to be an amalgamation of everything good about all the previous editions. It was play-tested to death and that is the general consensus, among fans of everyone from 1st Edition to 4th Edition. There don't seem to be any actual plans to move to a new edition on the horizon, even though it's been out for half a decade. This is a result of getting it right.
I just don't like the underdark since it is just a bling environment that gets defaulted to whenever a new campaign is being defined.
funny you say this as i just played torment very recently. and it's one of the few modern crpgs where i don't mind the turn based combat. it helps there isnt as much combat in tides and it's not as slow as say dos.
thats really my issue with dos the combat is to slow. i did not mind the combat in shadow run either. so it's not like i hate turn based combat i just hate slow turnbased combat.
Oh yeah, Sven never said that he considered BG3 was a sequel when he said that BG3 was a sequel. Spare me.
@DinoDin "I also just don't get any CRPG fan complaining right now. There are so many freaking games and so many cheap ways to acquire them."
No there isn't. Pillars is the only RPG in recent memory that's remotely like BG. And it seems unlikely we will be getting another one. There might be a lot of RPGs to play if you like turn based...
"I'm not even sure what's wrong with trying to make money."
Don't even pretend that you'd be fine if someone spent months telling you that that they were gonna bring you a Ferrari, but the time comes and you're given bicycle instead.
We were promised BG3 and given Divinity.
And yet again! He never used those words. You also previously claimed he said “Direct Sequel” so now you are changing your story... You can continue to lie all you want but the fact remains that his answer to your question was -
“You can’t see this from anything we’ve shown so far because we don’t want to spoil it but we do touch upon the story of BG 1 & 2 in deeply meaningful ways and there are returning characters. The city plays a massive part and like in the originals, you’ll play an adventure in which the party is the heart and soul with protagonists who will be afflicted by the Gods against their will”.
As I have said in a previous post you are reading between the lines and making your own conclusion which is fine if that is how ‘you’ want to see it but don’t keep speaking as if it’s a fact when the fact remains that it isn’t.
@ThacoBell ”we were promised BG3 and given Divinity”
The above is your opinion and again you are welcome to it. I happen to disagree but that is just my opinion
FWIW, there was an interview with someone from WotC sometime last year or early this year in which they confirm that 6e is being worked on but is quite a ways away from being announced.
@megamike15 I agree about T:ToN, and I've said so previously in this subforum precisely to counter claims that I just don't like any TB game. T:ToN is a game I really like despite it being TB because, just like you, I loved that combat was not pervasive, almost every combat encounter including the final boss battle had a nice, meaningful, and viable alternative non-combat path, and when you did engage in combat it went by VERY fast. That's a well-made TB combat system.
No, we were promised what we were shown on previous and the latest gameplay. On both gamplays it is BG3. In fact there is less DoS in this new gameplay than it was on the previous one. So, I'm fairly positive Vincke takes players feedback very seriously. What I'm disappointed is that none of those interviewers asked about FR lore, as if only game mechanics and aesthetics matters. It's a bit sad.
I was following the interviews and community updates for a long time (most of the time thanks to the updates of @JuliusBorisov and I found one clear pattern: Larian was keeping a distance with previous games at all times.
I don`t think the fans of the old games are the main-and-only game target audience anymore. I mean, they are using D&D5e Assets, they are advertising modules of WOTC together (Descent into Avernus, etc), they are doing interviews together with WOTC CEOs, working with D&D5e creators, using the ruleset and the setting...
But I won't remember them referencing the old BG games in any interview unless asked first (In one interview even Sven Vincke and Mike Merle didn´t remember the canon ending of the baalspawn crises), they didn´t make videos of "Sven Vinke playing the old bg games", didnt´ hire any of the original game screenwriters, musicians,... didn´t use images of the old games and characters to advertise the game (Owlcat, for example, included two of the iconic characters of Pathfinder in the videogames, Amiri and Seelah in BG3 they spend a year to show us Volo, an iconic character of the entire D&D, not only from BG),... didn´t take people from Black isle into the game-cons,... and they do none of the things that the PR department use to do to rally the old game fans.
What I meant is that the target audience of the videogame is not "old-BG-games-fans-only" as in "we are not doing anything reminiscent to the original games and it was never intended to be". for múltiple reasons already posted in this thread (design, mechanics, colour palette, etc). And I´m sure that WOTC is more interested in selling his latest product, 5E, than resurrecting old myths, no matter how glorious they were.
I mean, the story of the baalspawn is already finished, it´s a different studio, do not share plot or common characters that we know of, It´s a turn-based game, 20 years and 3 different editions of D&D passed and they are using D&D5e game mechanics, lore and Artwork; and a setting 200 years after the baalspawn crisis, so... Do you really think they are worried about "deep and satisfying links to the original story arc that might justify the - -sequel tag- in terms of story-telling and game-play terms"?
I think Larian and WOTC wanted to make a 5e game in the Forgotten realms and in the city of Baldur´s gate, but not another IE game. It´s Baldurs gate, yes, but BG 5º edition and It was planned that way from the start.
Not that I have anything against that, I happen to like D&D5e, TB, the forgotten realms... etc so I´m happy with plenty of what they show us so far (Even tho I found weird some design choices) and, even I loved the old games I do not particularly care that much about the game to be similar to the old (and amazing) BG trilogy. I already played it dozens of times and I want to keep my legends as-It-is instead of "Mass effect Andromeda"-ing them.
Just food for thought.
Yeah, Numenera has different issues, combat is not one of them. It just looks like this project was too ambitious for In ile and turned out to be the poor cousin of PST. It's still a good game, but (except of combat) PST is better in every aspect. I still remember each and every NPC from PST, I doubt I'll remember any NPC from Numenera two years from now.
How can the number '3' at the end of the title be any more of a fact that BG3 is marketed as a direct sequel, and not a loose sequel? There were multiple ways to play this, including ways that would still hark back the the glory days of the original games. They deliberately chose to include the '3' at the end, possibly in an attempt to capitalize on nostalgia (speculation).
- I have mentioned before that I do believe it has the potential to be a great game (opinion). The newer gameplay footage is actually putting my mind at ease in that respect.
- It is marketed as a direct sequel. Fact.
Whether it ends up being a good sequel (opinion) remains up in the air, mainly because opinions vary on what is good, but also on what is actually a sequel. My opinion:
- It being set in the city of Baldur's Gate is not enough. The story was never about the city (we never even set foot in the city in BG2) but about the internal struggle of a single individual, the Charname Bhaalspawn.
- One similar theme, internal struggle about in this case a tadpole in the brain, is not enough. It might as well have been the career criminal with the heart of gold trope.
- Having an insignificant forgettably tiny cameo character from the original games hang out in your camp is not enough. Yes, I'm talking about Volo, yes I am aware of him being an established character in FR lore, and yes I am calling his presence in the originals insignificant. Fight me.
Anywho. My opinion is that, as of yet, there is insufficient information to determine if calling it a direct sequel is justified, despite being marketed as such, and most of the things we have seen points to the negative. Sven says there are things that do justify it but they don't want to spoil, which is entirely understandable, but I also understand how the manner in which he is being evasive and brushes aside questions can make people with legitimate concerns feel invalidated.
Time will tell if the designation 'sequel' is justified, but people with the fear/opinion that it isn't justified should not be derided for it.
The 3 in the name *is* the indication. Or at least creates the illusion.
Putting 3 in the name is just a nod to old time fans of BG saga. It's a damn shame it is the *only* nod thus far, this is a valid complaint, true. But the fact WoTC picked BG franchise means they are fully aware the cult status it has got after all those years.
This argument has been made to death. There are plenty of game franchises that iterate on the number and it means it's a direct continuation of the previous game's story. There are just as many game franchises that iterate on the number without any expectation that a story will be continued.
Larian has obliquely referenced that the events of BG1-2 will be relevant of BG3. We dont know how much. The number could be meaningful, or it could not be. Without knowing more, it feels like people are just doing a lot of hand-wringing to justify their own preconceptions about what the game will be.
While I havent specifically read anything about that, it wouldnt surprise me in the least. 5e is in a really good spot, but selling rulebooks makes them a lot of money, and switching editions will always be the next step in making money.
I'm not sure what model I prefer(If either): The approach with 3.5 (dozen upon dozens of rulebooks releases, creating bloat but allowing the edition to live on for 10 years) or the current approach with less rulebooks but the likelihood of editions changing at a faster pace.
Agreed, but I would say that although they were indeed over-ambitious, and also did it too rushed, the main source of the game's problems was a woefully inadequate budget. So I am hopeful (and have posted this on the inXile website) that someday they will go back to that franchise and do it right with a T:ToN2 that gets properly resourced by MS. The game's setting is fantastic, and the concept of that game has tremendous potential.
Yeah, the problem is it's supposed to be complex with a lot of branching, but... it doesn't seem to be the case. In fact, it's very much linear in my opinion. Also I read every single wall of text in PST with open mouth, but in Numenera once in a while I just skipped it, it's just not that interesting. I always thought that Avellone and McComb are brilliant writers, but T:ToN showed me how good both really are. PST is still the pinnacle of RPG writing. Disco Elysium is a close second, but still *second*.