Baldurs Gate 3

[jackofwind]

For people talking about a more typical action based Baldurs Gate that is similar to the PS2 era Dark Alliance games, there is a new Dark Alliance in development for release at the end of the year that is supposed to be a spiritual successor. The 2019 reveal trailer is pretty cringe though.

This was mentioned a few times already and it's true. An ARPG in the IP exists as a peripheral game. It's not a main title, but there's room for it, and potentially more, in the Dark Alliance series.

[kenn9530]

Your opinion is just that, and the overwhelming success of the previous games acts as evidence against you in this case.

You can bleat on about wanting action all you want, but not every game is designed to scratch the itch of every single prospective player. WoW doesn't need to launch a platforming expansion so that all the Mario Maker fans can get excited, nor does the next Final Fantasy need to be a 1st person shooter arena game so that playerbase feels included. The next Civilization game doesn't need to be an ARPG to entice Diablo fans, and the new Doom should most definitely not be designed to be played with a wheel just because some people like racing games.

BG is a monumentally successful franchise as is, and it pulls enough attention to draw people in without needing to change its core identity to do so. Your whole argument is idiotic.

Its hardly an overwhelming success with the limited amount of sales over the past 20 plus years so it has lots of room to grow, its on similar success to elite dangerous in terms of sale numbers.

If you only make a game for one group of players it limits the game in the long term, Not even DOS2 has done that great and is pretty much the same game as BG3 with just different lore.

[alchemistnb]

The trailer looks pretty cool I say

- - - Updated - - -

Really, like it)

[jackofwind]

Its hardly an overwhelming success with the limited amount of sales over the past 20 plus years so it has lots of room to grow, its on similar success to elite dangerous in terms of sale numbers.

If you only make a game for one group of players it limits the game in the long term, Not even DOS2 has done that great and is pretty much the same game as BG3 with just different lore.

It's over 30 years old, the game isn't expected to have a lot of active sales Besides, the last total sales count was done in 2006, and its 5 million copies sold to that point outstrips Elite Dangerous by a wide margin.

D:OS, for all its good things, is nowhere near the level of Baldur's Gate in terms of legacy and importance to the history of RPGs. Even its creators would readily admit that.

[kenn9530]

It's over 30 years old, the game isn't expected to have a lot of active sales Besides, the last total sales count was done in 2006, and its 5 million copies sold to that point outstrips Elite Dangerous by a wide margin.

D:OS, for all its good things, is nowhere near the level of Baldur's Gate in terms of legacy and importance to the history of RPGs. Even its creators would readily admit that.

Its just as successful as elite dangerous not great but not bad, 5 million units sold over 20 years for the whole franchise, elite has 4.3 million units sold without including the whole franchise, units sold is not the same as seperate players though.

The combat model is one of the factors that put many off the game, so if it had 2 combat options so you play the way you want then more will buy the game.

BG3 gameplay is going to be the same as DOS2, the brand will only go so far is the combat is not engaging.

[jackofwind]

Its just as successful as elite dangerous not great but not bad, 5 million units sold over 20 years for the whole franchise, elite has 4.3 million units sold without including the whole franchise, units sold is not the same as seperate players though.

The combat model is one of the factors that put many off the game, so if it had 2 combat options so you play the way you want then more will buy the game.

BG3 gameplay is going to be the same as DOS2, the brand will only go so far is the combat is not engaging.

BG itself has 5 milion sold. BG2, IWD, IWD2, BGEE and BGEE2 are all in the franchise and push that number up significantly. Not to mention the already existing BG ARPG games DA, DA2, and the new one coming out. You want BG + ARPG - play those titles, they exist for you.

The combat isn't engaging to you. Plenty of people love turn-based games, and the main series BG games should remain true to their D&D roots.

[kenn9530]

BG itself has 5 milion sold. BG2, IWD, IWD2, BGEE and BGEE2 are all in the franchise and push that number up significantly. Not to mention the already existing BG ARPG games DA, DA2, and the new one coming out. You want BG + ARPG - play those titles, they exist for you.

The combat isn't engaging to you. Plenty of people love turn-based games, and the main series BG games should remain true to their D&D roots.

The number last recorded for units sold for BG is the total series not just one game, BG3 is not going to be any different apart from story to DOS2.

Im not saying to remove turn based at all just the option for not having it which would attract even more players to the game, you think its a bad thing for the game to be sold to even more players.

[Mehrunes]

Its just as successful as elite dangerous not great but not bad, 5 million units sold over 20 years for the whole franchise, elite has 4.3 million units sold without including the whole franchise, units sold is not the same as seperate players though.

The combat model is one of the factors that put many off the game, so if it had 2 combat options so you play the way you want then more will buy the game.

BG3 gameplay is going to be the same as DOS2, the brand will only go so far is the combat is not engaging.

Elite's 4.3 million is very much including its expansion. Why are you wrong about pretty much everything and why did you even bring it up to a completely unrelated thread? Other than to shit at it as usual, that is. Especially since its sales still surpass the amount of backers of your divine Star Citizen. And BG franchise had already had over four million copies sold just by the end of 2002. Also, original Baldur's Gate games didn't even use the same combat as BG3 is going to use, which is only par for the course for your ongoing trend with wrongness.

[jackofwind]

The number last recorded for units sold for BG is the total series not just one game, BG3 is not going to be any different apart from story to DOS2.

Im not saying to remove turn based at all just the option for not having it which would attract even more players to the game, you think its a bad thing for the game to be sold to even more players.

It can't include the EE's because they weren't released when that number came out Also, it already has a number of features that make it different from DOS2, such as non-class-specific combat actions.

[Volatilis]

For people talking about a more typical action based Baldurs Gate that is similar to the PS2 era Dark Alliance games, there is a new Dark Alliance in development for release at the end of the year that is supposed to be a spiritual successor. The 2019 reveal trailer is pretty cringe though.

cheers ill check it out

[kenn9530]

Elite's 4.3 million is very much including its expansion. Why are you wrong about pretty much everything and why did you even bring it up to a completely unrelated thread? Other than to shit at it as usual, that is. Especially since its sales still surpass the amount of backers of your divine Star Citizen. And BG franchise had already had over four million copies sold just by the end of 2002. Also, original Baldur's Gate games didn't even use the same combat as BG3 is going to use, which is only par for the course for your ongoing trend with wrongness.

BG has been out for 22 years and still not recorded more than 5 million units sold thats fact, just need to use the numbers sold around the games release to get how popular the game actually is, each game doesnt have much more than 2 million players that bought the game.

Its you that is talking BS because nothing i have said is wrong, its the numbers available. I was also talking about units sold, 19 years with releasing a new BG game is a long time for old fans to lose interest so the potential playerbase should be at least who bought DOS2.

Why bring up SC since its actually more successful than the whole BG franchise.

It can't include the EE's because they weren't released when that number came out Also, it already has a number of features that make it different from DOS2, such as non-class-specific combat actions.

EE doesnt really add that many players just look at the average playerbase, the game has a limited playerbase and limiting the combat options just reduces who would want to play the game.

[burek]

BG itself has 5 milion sold. BG2, IWD, IWD2, BGEE and BGEE2 are all in the franchise and push that number up significantly. Not to mention the already existing BG ARPG games DA, DA2, and the new one coming out. You want BG + ARPG - play those titles, they exist for you.

The combat isn't engaging to you. Plenty of people love turn-based games, and the main series BG games should remain true to their D&D roots.

None of those games were turn-based, so your 3 page rant about BG being a successful turn-based franchise makes zero sense. Combat was real time with an optional pause that you don't have any need to press outside of some boss fights.

Making BG3 to be a turn-based clone of divinity is not much different than making it into a new GTA. Plenty of people love that type of game. Being true to D&D roots is obviously not what made the franchise popular. Temple of Elemental Evil was much closer to D&D yet it wasn't nearly as successful.

OK, I don't know what's all the whining about, but one thing is certain - if anyone can pull out a quality RPG these days, that's for sure is Larian.

I am especially glad they went Divinity: Original Sin 3 in a skin of D&D for it. Turn-based they did was amazing and as a whole I prefer than massively to mashing space every couple of seconds.

It's great if you are sincere about it. The thread got this many pages because of people full of shit arguing how the game is not a reskin of divinity or how BG was always turn based.

There was an interview with Sven a few days ago where he got asked what's different between divinity and BG3 and he basically hasn't said anything except it being a great game to be compared to Or yeah, they added more 'verticality' this time around. So your main enemy in the game is going to be the camera.

[KrayZ33]

There was an interview with Sven a few days ago where he got asked what's different between divinity and BG3 and he basically hasn't said anything except it being a great game to be compared to Or yeah, they added more 'verticality' this time around. So your main enemy in the game is going to be the camera.

Sure, lets look at the addition of verticality ingame as a bad thing instead of a good thing.
Because 2D combat is very interesting and should've been "the thing"!

I have no idea why people think BG-combat is what made the game a great success.

[jackofwind]

None of those games were turn-based, so your 3 page rant about BG being a successful turn-based franchise makes zero sense. Combat was real time with an optional pause that you don't have any need to press outside of some boss fights.

Making BG3 to be a turn-based clone of divinity is not much different than making it into a new GTA. Plenty of people love that type of game. Being true to D&D roots is obviously not what made the franchise popular. Temple of Elemental Evil was much closer to D&D yet it wasn't nearly as successful.

I was arguing specifically against making BG3 an ARPG. A direct response to someone in this thread who said they thought it should be being made by From software.

Give your head a shake and read the actual thread before you chime in.

- - - Updated - - -

EE doesnt really add that many players just look at the average playerbase, the game has a limited playerbase and limiting the combat options just reduces who would want to play the game.

Show me that EE didn't attract new players. I'll wait

[kenn9530]

Show me that EE didn't attract new players. I'll wait

I didnt say it didnt attract any new players just not as many as you seem to think, most that bought it probably just wanted an upgraded version of the game.

Steam charts show how popular the EE version is sinces its release in 2013.

BG has a fairly small fanbase nowhere near as successful as you seem to think it is but it did just fine in its day.

[jackofwind]

I didnt say it didnt attract any new players just not as many as you seem to think, most that bought it probably just wanted an upgraded version of the game.

Steam charts show how popular the EE version is sinces its release in 2013.

BG has a fairly small fanbase nowhere near as successful as you seem to think it is but it did just fine in its day.

I haven't said anything about BG's total fanbase size other than referring to the number of copies sold while making an argument against it being an unsuccessful game.

It's strength is in being true to its 2e D&D roots and transparent in its systems, abandoning those to make it another From Software ARPG would totally change the spirit of the game.

[kenn9530]

I haven't said anything about BG's total fanbase size other than referring to the number of copies sold while making an argument against it being an unsuccessful game.

It's strength is in being true to its 2e D&D roots and transparent in its systems, abandoning those to make it another From Software ARPG would totally change the spirit of the game.

Limiting a game is not a strength, i never said it was unsuccessful it just is not as successful as you seem to think it was. Games need to evolve or you dont get anything better, who would care if there was another combat option as long as you can play the way you prefer.

[Onikaroshi]

Limiting a game is not a strength, i never said it was unsuccessful it just is not as successful as you seem to think it was. Games need to evolve or you dont get anything better, who would care if there was another combat option as long as you can play the way you prefer.

I mean, it is evolving, from active pause 2e based combat to turn based 5e based combat.

[jackofwind]

Limiting a game is not a strength, i never said it was unsuccessful it just is not as successful as you seem to think it was. Games need to evolve or you dont get anything better, who would care if there was another combat option as long as you can play the way you prefer.

Because adding in extra options often leads to broad but shallow games, whereas BG is all about having deep systems.

Explain to me how making the new BG a Dark Souls style game is going to be a good evolution. For other game systems maybe, or for a peripheral game in the BG IP like Dark Alliance was, but not for a main title.

[kenn9530]

Because adding in extra options often leads to broad but shallow games, whereas BG is all about having deep systems.

Explain to me how making the new BG a Dark Souls style game is going to be a good evolution. For other game systems maybe, or for a peripheral game in the BG IP like Dark Alliance was, but not for a main title.

There is nothing really deep about the systems in BG3 have you seen the gameplay, if it had the option to either play turn based or not then it would be much better.

I mean, it is evolving, from active pause 2e based combat to turn based 5e based combat.

Im just saying the game could use an option to not be turn based for those who dont enjoy that style of gameplay, would get far more players into the game.