Baldurs Gate 3

[Arrashi]

… and again, what “people” are you exactly talking about? Who are you exactly supposed to be representing here? I do see some people concerned about how the game might eventually turn out, which is completely understandable, however being “mad” over a false claims such as: "We are going to continue belowed franchise but actually change everything about it", I kind of only see you.

Now… again, do you feel like start being more specific about shit, such as what exactly are these “core mechanics” that “defined” BG that are supposedly getting changed, so we might have somewhat of a worthy discussion about it, or your just going to keep throwing around vague and over the top false statements about it while pretending it’s how “the people” feel about it? Cuz I ain't Endus, I'm not going to waste time with that sort of fucking nonesense.

I dunno, all the gatekeepers you and others keep talking about?

And things that are being changed...hmm i dunno.
Something like changing it to turn based game?
Or changing party size?

You know, small shit like that.

[Makabreska]

All the gatekeepers you guys are talking about.

Nah, you are speaking only for yourself. We had others here sharing your arguments, one guy peaced out after running out of counters, other admitted he was wrong after reading AMA. Only you remain with a "not a BG" thing.

[Aliven]

I dunno, all the gatekeepers you and others keep talking about?

And things that are being changed...hmm i dunno.
Something like changing it to turn based game?
Or changing party size?

You know, small shit like that.

So i would like to know - it is good DnD game and bad BG game? Because i think we need a distinction here.

[Askyl]

It's one of the most amazing fantasy settings taking place in a game based of the modern worlds best cRPG and people complain? Like daym, what more can you want?

I'm thrilled =)

[Arrashi]

So i would like to know - it is good DnD game and bad BG game? Because i think we need a distinction here.

Pretty much this. Noone would bat an eye if larian made new amazing D&D game, that could possibly be what BG was to RPGs back then. Hell, people would be happy that D&D is back. The entire topic wouldn't exist. because worst case scenario people simply wouldn't care. The thing is that most people don't doubt larian can make a good game, or even that they are the good choice to make D7D game.

What caused the problem is that by calling it BG3 people expected...BG3. Not a modern D&D game. What defined BG was its core elements like (hilariously enough) moving away from turn based gameplay, it was its open formula, its party composition, and most importantly that BG was more than sum of its components. Not that it had minsc or took place in baldurs gate.

The biggest irony of BG3 atm is that its closer to almost any other classic RPG of the time than it is to baldurs gate.

[NineSpine]

Pretty much this. Noone would bat an eye if larian made new amazing D&D game, that could possibly be what BG was to RPGs back then. Hell, people would be happy that D&D is back. The entire topic wouldn't exist. because worst case scenario people simply wouldn't care. The thing is that most people don't doubt larian can make a good game, or even that they are the good choice to make D7D game.

What caused the problem is that by calling it BG3 people expected...BG3. Not a modern D&D game. What defined BG was its core elements like (hilariously enough) moving away from turn based gameplay, it was its open formula, its party composition, and most importantly that BG was more than sum of its components. Not that it had minsc or took place in baldurs gate.

The biggest irony of BG3 atm is that its closer to almost any other classic RPG of the time than it is to baldurs gate.

Expecting the same dated gameplay from the 90s is naive at best. Other than that, we have absolutely no idea how much this will tie into the previous BG games, we don’t know how “open” the formula will be, we don’t know any of the things you are insisting make this game so dramatically different that it shouldn’t a BG game.

[Makabreska]

Pretty much this. Noone would bat an eye if larian made new amazing D&D game, that could possibly be what BG was to RPGs back then. Hell, people would be happy that D&D is back. The entire topic wouldn't exist. because worst case scenario people simply wouldn't care. The thing is that most people don't doubt larian can make a good game, or even that they are the good choice to make D7D game.

What caused the problem is that by calling it BG3 people expected...BG3. Not a modern D&D game. What defined BG was its core elements like (hilariously enough) moving away from turn based gameplay, it was its open formula, its party composition, and most importantly that BG was more than sum of its components. Not that it had minsc or took place in baldurs gate.

The biggest irony of BG3 atm is that its closer to almost any other classic RPG of the time than it is to baldurs gate.

And once again, you keep speaking for others. I DID expect a MODERN take on BG, not an outdated/obsolete game with an outdated/obsolete solutions. Same for my friends. Guess what, real-time-turn-based was a product of it's times, when every other RPG was turn-based, so Black Isle took a more action oriented route. But now people had enough of it (Deadfire shit sales, Kingmaker getting turn based-mode). And you keep harping at party structure, is 5 man instead of 6 man team such a deal breaker for you?

[Arrashi]

And once again, you keep speaking for others. I DID expect a MODERN take on BG, not an outdated/obsolete game with an outdated/obsolete solutions. Same for my friends. Guess what, real-time-turn-based was a product of it's times, when every other RPG was turn-based, so Black Isle took a more action oriented route. But now people had enough of it (Deadfire shit sales, Kingmaker getting turn based-mode). And you keep harping at party structure, is 5 man instead of 6 man team such a deal breaker for you?

Well there is a reason why larian has to lock threads on forums so i guess there are more than just me.

Also Doom 2016 is also and outdated/obsolete game concept and it did just fine. Its almost as there was more to game success/failure.

[NineSpine]

Well there is a reason why larian has to lock threads on forums so i guess there are more than just me.

Also Doom 2016 is also and outdated/obsolete game concept and it did just fine. Its almost as there was more to game success/failure.

If you think Doom 2016 had the same combat as Doom 1, you are sorely mistaken.

The fact that toxic, entitled whiners are loud on forums does not mean there are a lot of them.

[Arrashi]

If you think Doom 2016 had the same combat as Doom 1, you are sorely mistaken.

The fact that toxic, entitled whiners are loud on forums does not mean there are a lot of them.

No, it has a combat of quake combined with brutal doom mod. Very modern indeed.

[Makabreska]

Well there is a reason why larian has to lock threads on forums so i guess there are more than just me.

Also Doom 2016 is also and outdated/obsolete game concept and it did just fine. Its almost as there was more to game success/failure.

What about Doom? A demon-killing FPS like it's always been, just like BG3 is an isometric, party based RPG set in Forgotten Realms, like it's always been. And locking troll/raging/repetitive threads means nothing. Don't delude yourself, that many gamers want to fight and die for 20y old solutions in an RPG.

[Arrashi]

What about Doom? A demon-killing FPS like it's always been, just like BG3 is an isometric, party based RPG set in Forgotten Realms, like it's always been. And locking troll/raging/repetitive threads means nothing. Don't delude yourself, that many gamers want to fight and die for 20y old solutions in an RPG.

Expect BG3 is like making doom a modern military FPS with cover. You still kill demons tho.

[Endus]

No, it has a combat of quake combined with brutal doom mod. Very modern indeed.

So wait, huge gameplay changes are super-cool and good for Doom, but not for Baldur's Gate?

Why aren't you arguing that a lack of verticality is a requirement for it to be "real Doom", and that adding the kill animations is way over the top and not what Doom's about?

- - - Updated - - -

Expect BG3 is like making doom a modern military FPS with cover. You still kill demons tho.

If they were making BG3 a single-character first-person exploration-based RPG like Skyrim, you might have a point.

They aren't.

It's still an isometric party-based map-driven RPG.

[NineSpine]

No, it has a combat of quake combined with brutal doom mod. Very modern indeed.

Doom 2016 is an extremely modern feeling FPS. You are literally demanding a dated, non-interactive combat system. it would be like objecting to the verticality of Doom 2016 because Doom 1 did not feature much verticality.

- - - Updated - - -

“How dare they put a d&d combat system in my d&d game?!?!?!”

[Endus]

Doom 2016 is an extremely modern feeling FPS.

Like, seriously. Serious Sam, Painkiller, Bulletstorm, Halo (all of them), all the new Wolfensteins, , Bioshock Infinite even.

There's a fuckload more to modern FPS games than the subgenre of cover-based shooters.

[Arrashi]

So wait, huge gameplay changes are super-cool and good for Doom, but not for Baldur's Gate?
Why aren't you arguing that a lack of verticality is a requirement for it to be "real Doom", and that adding the kill animations is way over the top and not what Doom's about?
- - - Updated - - -

The diffrence is that for doom it was getting over massive engine limitation (not to mention that it had "fake" verticality) and not deliberate choice.

If they were making BG3 a single-character first-person exploration-based RPG like Skyrim, you might have a point.
They aren't.
It's still an isometric party-based map-driven RPG.

So was neverwinter nights 2 and yet they didn't call it BG3.

[Endus]

The diffrence is that for doom it was getting over massive engine limitation (not to mention that it had "fake" verticality) and not deliberate choice.

And most of the complaints about aesthetic differences between BG 1/2 and BG 3 boil down to "getting over massive engine limitations", too.

So was neverwinter nights 2 and yet they didn't call it BG3.

Because it wasn't tied to the Baldur's Gate storyline, and wasn't set in Baldur's Gate.

BG3 is. That's why it's a sequel.

That's literally the point. This is a proper sequel to BG 1/2. It doesn't star the Bhaalspawn any more, but it's still continuing from that story.

[NineSpine]

Like, seriously. Serious Sam, Painkiller, Bulletstorm, Halo (all of them), all the new Wolfensteins, , Bioshock Infinite even.

There's a fuckload more to modern FPS games than the subgenre of cover-based shooters.

I think the problem here is that we have people whose understanding of d&d is clearly just BG and very similar games. You and I see this as part of a broader universe of games including tabletop.

It would be like they saying that it isn’t BG3 unless it uses d&d 2e rules.

[Makabreska]

The diffrence is that for doom it was getting over massive engine limitation (not to mention that it had "fake" verticality) and not deliberate choice.

And BG3 is not? From the super old 2d Infinite Engine to fully fleshed, vertical 3d maps and characters?

[Arrashi]

And BG3 is not? From the super old 2d Infinite Engine to fully fleshed, vertical 3d?

And how does that warranted change from Rtwp to TB?