Baldurs Gate 3

[Delekii]

Most people did.

There's a small cadre of really loud gatekeeping "fans" who try and ruin that enjoyment every chance they get, however. And it's not because they played FO 1/2 first; I started with those games myself, and I'm not part of that crowd, at all.

Sue me for still enjoying things, I guess. They'll bring it up out of the blue. "You enjoyed a thing, and formed your own opinion! Heathen!"

You keep calling those people gate-keepers when you spend at least as much energy telling them that their opinion is invalid in the same way.

I usually agree with most of what you say but claiming that other people are acting like gate-keepers in the context of your input in this thread is laughable.

[Makabreska]

Is this still a thing? And is it still 5e? If so, is there a 5e page list of races and classes?

Ofc there is a list, Google it.

[Endus]

You keep calling those people gate-keepers when you spend at least as much energy telling them that their opinion is invalid in the same way.

If you paid attention, you'll note that I never try and argue that they should like a thing. I'm not trying to tell them their opinion is invalid.

I'm telling them their argument that backs up their opinion is invalid.

There's a difference. If you try and tell me that BG3 is just Divinity: OS 3, I'm going to tell you that you're wrong, because you are wrong. Objectively. As wrong as if you were claiming 2+2=5. That's not "gatekeeping", that's sticking to actual facts and logic.

I never make a case that someone should subjectively like a thing. But those people are constantly giving me grief because I won't agree with their hating of it. But don't take my word for it, here, from this very thread;

I see Endus has a new "defend this game at all costs for no reason other than sake of arguing and being contrarian."

There is a difference between being a fan and being a blind fanboy. In the FO76 thread, you were the latter.

It isn't why I liked things about the game, just that I did. I never make arguments like that. It's always about the "why"; you're free to think BG3 is gonna be dogshit. If you're gonna ask me to agree, I'm gonna need factual evidence, and yes, I'm gonna feel free to critique whatever argument you offer.

I consider it "gatekeeping", because they're trying to establish some standard for being a "real fan", and if you don't meet that standard, then you're out of the club, and you're not a "real fan". Which is textbook gatekeeping. You're excited about Larian's BG3? You're not a "real" BG fan, you're just a D:OS fan and probably never played the originals. That shit is toxic and pointless, and that's what I'm arguing against.

[NineSpine]

You keep calling those people gate-keepers when you spend at least as much energy telling them that their opinion is invalid in the same way.

I usually agree with most of what you say but claiming that other people are acting like gate-keepers in the context of your input in this thread is laughable.

Fandoms, especially online, are almost universally hostile to newcomers. It’s bizarre to argue otherwise.

[Arrashi]

Fandoms, especially online, are almost universally hostile to newcomers. It’s bizarre to argue otherwise.

Except peoples concers with BG3 have nothing to do with gate keeping or hostility to newcomers.

[Echeyakee]

I know the feelin...

[IMG]snip[/IMG]

... oh wait =P

pff

[NineSpine]

Except peoples concers with BG3 have nothing to do with gate keeping or hostility to newcomers.

Is that why so much of it takes the form of criticizing people for perceived lack of history with the series?

Or criticizing BG3 for being more like d&d than BG1 and BG2?

[FlubberPuddy]

Except peoples concers with BG3 have nothing to do with gate keeping or hostility to newcomers.

When a lot of "old fans" are making comments like "the game looks like DOS3/should be called DOS3" "it's obviously meant to use a big name to capture audiences" or "RTwP is how it should be, it's just Turn-based because that's what DOS fans are used to"

then yes it's absolutely gatekeeping and hostile to newcomers.

Look in this thread alone how many "you don't understand, it doesn't feel like BG" despite the major complaints some have being destroyed (not related to BG1/2 at all, characters not fitting their aesthetic, "not dark/gritty enough" [this one is extremely stupid since BG games have their fair share of humor/sillyness], etc)

[Gaidax]

My body is ready.

DoS3? That's a big pro for me here.

[Arrashi]

When a lot of "old fans" are making comments like "the game looks like DOS3/should be called DOS3" "it's obviously meant to use a big name to capture audiences" or "RTwP is how it should be, it's just Turn-based because that's what DOS fans are used to"

then yes it's absolutely gatekeeping and hostile to newcomers.

Look in this thread alone how many "you don't understand, it doesn't feel like BG" despite the major complaints some have being destroyed (not related to BG1/2 at all, characters not fitting their aesthetic, "not dark/gritty enough" [this one is extremely stupid since BG games have their fair share of humor/sillyness], etc)

That's not what gatekeeping is....

[FlubberPuddy]

That's not what gatekeeping is....

Oh I'm sorry I didn't know I had to spell out the connection for you.

Those same veteran fans make comments such as "for true BG fans you gotta understand these things are bad" etc etc and other vague shit where they try to rationalize why "true BG fans" don't/won't like this stuff over newcomers. Aka gatekeeping.

It's even more funny when there are veteran fans who speak up and say they like the changes they're seeing. Thus what really is a "true fan"/"og fan" if not someone trying to gatekeep?

[Arrashi]

Oh I'm sorry I didn't know I had to spell out the connection for you.

Those same veteran fans make comments such as "for true BG fans you gotta understand these things are bad" etc etc and other vague shit where they try to rationalize why "true BG fans" don't/won't like this stuff over newcomers. Aka gatekeeping.

It's even more funny when there are veteran fans who speak up and say they like the changes they're seeing. Thus what really is a "true fan"/"og fan" if not someone trying to gatekeep?

But its not about that at all. The only ones talking about gatekeeping (nice buzzword btw) are larians white knights. People are pissed because BG3 in no way shape or form resembles BG games. And that was something larian and WotC was clearly aware will happen, so i don't see anything wrong with people voicing their opinions.

[FlubberPuddy]

But its not about that at all. The only ones talking about gatekeeping (nice buzzword btw) are larians white knights. People are pissed because BG3 in no way shape or form resembles BG games. And that was something larian and WotC was clearly aware will happen, so i don't see anything wrong with people voicing their opinions.

You keep repeating the bold without further mention of why, especially since after the AMA came out.

People can voice their opinions, no one gives a shit about that. Opinions can also have an ignorant basis and it's easy to be shown so. Just as Endus alluded to, someone can go ahead and say 2+2=5 as an opinion.

Doesn't make that opinions any less stupid/ignorant.

[Endus]

But its not about that at all. The only ones talking about gatekeeping (nice buzzword btw) are larians white knights. People are pissed because BG3 in no way shape or form resembles BG games. And that was something larian and WotC was clearly aware will happen, so i don't see anything wrong with people voicing their opinions.

Except it's clearly very similar to the previous games. Shared setting, some extension of the storyline directly, same isometric RPG system, mechanical changes to reflect the game's current edition being 5e, not 2e.

You have no actual basis for this claim. You're using it to try and block off "real Baldur's Gate" from this new iteration, and argue that fans of the first two games cannot or should not be fans of this chapter.

And that's gatekeeping.

You're free to decide you will never like BG3, despite knowing next to nothing about it to base that judgement off of.

You're not free to make up horseshit like "doesn't resemble BG games", which you're making up based on nothing. Not without people like myself pointing out that you're making it up in a kneejerk response that isn't based on any actual specifics that bear scrutiny.

[Makabreska]

But its not about that at all. The only ones talking about gatekeeping (nice buzzword btw) are larians white knights. People are pissed because BG3 in no way shape or form resembles BG games. And that was something larian and WotC was clearly aware will happen, so i don't see anything wrong with people voicing their opinions.

What people? How many? For who do you speak? All I can see is an irrational vocal minority, and you can find those anytime there are made any changes in any form of entertainment. Not to mention, that many of their arguments been alr debunked (UI, Volo's beard).

[Arrashi]

What people? How many? For who do you speak? All I can see is an irrational vocal minority, and you can find those anytime there are made any changes in any form of entertainment. Not to mention, that many of their arguments been alr debunked (UI, Volo's beard).

All the gatekeepers you guys are talking about.

- - - Updated - - -

There isn't, no matter how ridiculous it may sound.

However, neither there’s anything wrong with others challenging that opinion of yours.

Especially when there is current evidence that points against it.

Also, “it’s just Larian white knights”, just doesn’t make much sense at all, it was already stated in multiple interviews that Wizards are heavily involved with the project’s development, this isn’t just a Larian’s project, trying to turn this into a “BG vs Divinity” kind of shit is just ridiculously childish.

See this is implying that WotC for some reason wants some "ultimate BG experience" and not just game that will sell and be good advert for D&D. They greenlit things like idle champions, so its not like they are super rigid with their IP. Just because they didn't reach GW levels of shotgun tactics yet, doesn't mean they have some sky high standards.

- - - Updated - - -

You're not free to make up horseshit like "doesn't resemble BG games", which you're making up based on nothing. Not without people like myself pointing out that you're making it up in a kneejerk response that isn't based on any actual specifics that bear scrutiny.

Except for 3 hour long presentation.

[Delekii]

If you paid attention, you'll note that I never try and argue that they should like a thing. I'm not trying to tell them their opinion is invalid.

I'm telling them their argument that backs up their opinion is invalid.

There's a difference. If you try and tell me that BG3 is just Divinity: OS 3, I'm going to tell you that you're wrong, because you are wrong. Objectively. As wrong as if you were claiming 2+2=5. That's not "gatekeeping", that's sticking to actual facts and logic.

I never make a case that someone should subjectively like a thing. But those people are constantly giving me grief because I won't agree with their hating of it. But don't take my word for it, here, from this very thread;

You are claiming that something that is not objective is objective. Whether or not the style of BG3 is remeniscent of D:OS1/2 is not an objective thing. If you're trying to claim that people have no basis for seeing the underpinnings of D:OS in BG3, and that it is not subjectively justifiable to hold that belief, you are absolutely out of your mind.

The majority of the time, the discussion goes something like this:
Person A: "X looks really out of place in the BG world"
Person B (usually Endus): "So what? People have different clothes, or different ears, or different heights"
Person A: "You can't be serious, this is meant to be a BG sequal"
Person B (usually Endus): "If you can't accept that its a modernised verison that's on you. It looks objectively like BG".

You talk as if it is just accepted fact that their "argument", as you call it, is wrong, rather than their opinion. In the context you're using it, the two are synonyms, and both are subjective. You don't have an objective opinion about the style, context, artwork, or anything else; some people (many, in this thread), disagree with you. You simply stating "you are objectively wrong" doesn't make it a fact.

You balk at being called contrarian, but that's essentially what you've been. You say "people want you to agree with them in their claims", but that's really not the case. Do you think you are convincing any of them to agree with you? Do you think you are winning people over with "facts and logic", that are actually just your subjective opinions? When someone says "BG3 looks like DOS3", and your response is "no, you're objectively wrong, it looks like BG3"; do you actually think that's a winning argument?

It isn't why I liked things about the game, just that I did. I never make arguments like that. It's always about the "why"; you're free to think BG3 is gonna be dogshit. If you're gonna ask me to agree, I'm gonna need factual evidence, and yes, I'm gonna feel free to critique whatever argument you offer.

I consider it "gatekeeping", because they're trying to establish some standard for being a "real fan", and if you don't meet that standard, then you're out of the club, and you're not a "real fan". Which is textbook gatekeeping. You're excited about Larian's BG3? You're not a "real" BG fan, you're just a D:OS fan and probably never played the originals. That shit is toxic and pointless, and that's what I'm arguing against.

I just searched for the word "fan" in the entire 43 pages of this thread. This simply hasn't happened. This is a stance that does not exist in this thread. The vast majority of people who are concerned about the direction of BG3 are stating they are personally concerned at the change in style and direction. The majority said they would still play the game despite the differences.

This idea of gatekeeping against BG3 is a construct in your mind. You're telling me I'm "objectively" wrong for having an opinion that I don't like that BG3's style is currently more remeniscent of DOS than of BG, even though it is an opinion that is repeatedly opined over and over in this thread. Do you think we are all just making it up? Who made you the boss of "is BG3 like DOS or like BG2"? When you say that us saying BG3 is like D:OS not BG2 is like saying "2+2=5", my mind honestly says "has he been hit in the head with a bat? How is it possible that someone could look at those screenshots and say BG not DOS?".

People have different opinions, and that's fine. You're happy with the direction of BG3, and that's fine. I'm not particularly happy with the direction of BG3, I don't think it follows on artistically or thematically well from BG1/2/tob and that's fine. You accusing other people of gate-keeping in the context of what has happened in this thread is absolutely not fine. You're the most prominent gate-keeper in this thread. Stop pretending you're arguing from a basis of fact, rather than from your opinion like everyone else. According to you, nobody is allowed to hold the opinion that BG3 does not represent BG, because you have decreed that they are objectively wrong. That's gatekeeping.

The only mentions of elitist fanning and gatekeeping in this thread up to this point are from you, as a means to discredit an opinion that has been stated by someone who disagrees with you. It's possible I missed one somewhere in the 40 pages, but the vast majority of the time when you try to claim gatekeeping or elitism it's in response to a post that did no such thing, but rather opined someone's own personal response to the available art for BG3.

[Arrashi]

What the hell is an “ultimate BG experience” anyway? …and who even gets to say what the “ultimate experience” even is? Just what the actual fuck you on about…

I still don’t really understand what’s your actual problem with this entire shit is, maybe it would help if you could stop being as vague as you can possibly be and do explain what exactly you don’t like about this entire thing.

Im not entirely sure whats difficult to understand about people being mad about "We are going to continue belowed franchise but actually change everything about it". The issue people have is that if they didn't tell us that this is baldurs gate 3, noone could get that based on footage shown.

They change core mechanics and everything that defined BG as a BG. And everytime people criticise it they say something vague how it will continue its legacy.

Maybe people are jaded after things like modern Star Wars and general "remake" culture, but its difficult to not see them calling it BG3 so they can make game that people waited 20 years for and not "just" a cool modern D&D game.

[Endus]

Except for 3 hour long presentation.

Not any presentation I've seen. The information Larian has put out has largely debunked the claims being made against BG3.

You are claiming that something that is not objective is objective. Whether or not the style of BG3 is remeniscent of D:OS1/2 is not an objective thing.

I work in design. Not game design, but still, design.

Design is absolutely an objective thing.

This is why you can have architectural styles, and determine whether a given building is Art Deco or Brutalist. Because those are objectively defined terms, qualifiable if not quantifiable. Whether you like a given building is subjective, but the components of the design itself? Those are objective.

If you're trying to claim that people have no basis for seeing the underpinnings of D:OS in BG3, and that it is not subjectively justifiable to hold that belief, you are absolutely out of your mind.

The similar UI, that Larian has already said was simply a placeholder since they haven't gotten to where they were designing the final UI? Sure, that's probably borrowed from Divinity: OS, but that's because D:OS is already very similar to Baldur's Gate games. You can see a lot of the underpinnings of D:OS in BG3 screens because you can see a lot of BG 1/2 underpinnings in D:OS overall, spiritually at least.

You balk at being called contrarian, but that's essentially what you've been. You say "people want you to agree with them in their claims", but that's really not the case. Do you think you are convincing any of them to agree with you? Do you think you are winning people over with "facts and logic", that are actually just your subjective opinions? When someone says "BG3 looks like DOS3", and your response is "no, you're objectively wrong, it looks like BG3"; do you actually think that's a winning argument?

People keep thinking I'm trying to "win them over". I've convinced maybe a half-dozen people to change their minds on a topic, in 60,000+ posts. That's never my goal.

We have an audience. This is a public debate, for that audience. I'm speaking to convince them, and that generally means pointing out how someone else's arguments don't hold up to scrutiny.

I just searched for the word "fan" in the entire 43 pages of this thread. This simply hasn't happened. This is a stance that does not exist in this thread. The vast majority of people who are concerned about the direction of BG3 are stating they are personally concerned at the change in style and direction. The majority said they would still play the game despite the differences.

This idea of gatekeeping against BG3 is a construct in your mind.

What the fuck ever. I literally quoted two responses in this very thread that did exactly that.

Here's some more (names and direct links again removed, since I'm not trying to restart old arguments);

.. and you call yourself a "big Baldurs gate fan"... Jesus christ man.. how pathetic and dumb that comment is.... Please, pull your chair back, place your hands in your lap and rethink your whole life now. That comment made everyone dumber.

I hope somebody pisses on your favourite series one day.

And how larian fans refuse to acknowledge that larian did to BG exactly same thing bethesda did to fallout is hilarious.
But hey, larian are the good guys right? They would never do that, they are our friends and love BG.

More examples I found, also just by searching this thread for "fan" and flipping through the first few pages. And you should recognize at least one of them.

You're telling me I'm "objectively" wrong for having an opinion that I don't like that BG3's style is currently more remeniscent of DOS than of BG, even though it is an opinion that is repeatedly opined over and over in this thread. Do you think we are all just making it up?

I think if you mean the placeholder UI, you're being silly, because it's a placeholder and UI design, according to Larian, hasn't even begun.
I think if you mean the art in general, the only really significant shift has been that we have much higher-fidelity graphics, now. And I can only see that as a positive.

I've yet to see an argument on design that actually holds up to scrutiny.

You accusing other people of gate-keeping in the context of what has happened in this thread is absolutely not fine. You're the most prominent gate-keeper in this thread. Stop pretending you're arguing from a basis of fact, rather than from your opinion like everyone else. According to you, nobody is allowed to hold the opinion that BG3 does not represent BG, because you have decreed that they are objectively wrong. That's gatekeeping.

I've said multiple times that I'm not demanding anyone like what they see in BG3. Where they're wrong is when they make claims of fact that are not true. And yes; that can apply to claims regarding the design of the game. Art styles and such are objectively qualifiable. Whether you like a thing is completely separate from its objectively qualifiable properties. You might think something like the Geisel Library is "ugly", and that's subjective. Saying it's a "bad design", however, is not. It's a stand-out example of Brutalist architecture. You might not like Brutalist architecture, but that doesn't mean it's poorly designed.

So yeah; if you want to claim that BG3 is not a "real sequel", you're going to have to provide objectively determinative arguments, and those arguments will face critique. It isn't just a subjective opinion. It's like trying to claim that you don't think a cucumber is a "real vegetable", because you hate it.

- - - Updated - - -

They change core mechanics and everything that defined BG as a BG. And everytime people criticise it they say something vague how it will continue its legacy.

The "core mechanics" that are changing are an update from D&D 2e to D&D 5e. We haven't seen anything else. And frankly, 5e is closer to 2e than either 3.X or 4E were.

As for "everything that defined BG as BG";
1> Set in Baldur's Gate, in the Forgotten Realms
2> Based off events set in motion during BG 1/2
3> Returning characters/locations
4> Isometric RPG design

It's hitting at least as many notes as BG2 did. More, really, since BG2 wasn't set in Baldur's Gate at all, actually.

[Delekii]

A cucumber is a word that specifically delineates an object that is a vegetable.

Art Deco and Brutalist might be words that attempt to objectively categorise design, but there are any number of books written to argue that a given work belongs in a given category or another. People have a variety of opinions on a variety of artworks across a span or artistic styles too.

Furthermore, these are broad overarching categories spanning years or centuries, with large scope for variety. Nobody is claiming that BG3 isn't an rpg. By this argument you are trying to claim that there are a specific objective set of rules or constraints that defines what makes a game essentially "bg" and that this game fits that definition. Where can I find it, outside your head? Isn't this functionally what you are accusing others of doing? We don't get to define what makes bg bg, but you do?

People have an emotional, subjective response to the game that isn't malicious or considered, but just comes naturally, and you think they have to justify it for it to be "true", for some reason.

As for your examples of what constitutes "gatekeeping", I think I can safely leave that for others to interpret as they will, especially in the context of what they were replying to, which you of course left out.