Remember that they asked for the BG license just after they finished D:OS1. The game was what they used to prove themselves. The game mechanics is probably what they always had planned for if they was ever allowed to create BG3.
I’m glad for it. The game mechanics of surface elements and mixing to create new effects was fun but way overused in D:OS series. After 2 games, their third got the right balance between fun and annoying, I think.
I agree, all of that would have been fine if they called it as it is: original sin DnD edition. Instead the title is Baldur’s Gate “3” and I invite anyone to tell me what connects this game to the originals. Nothing I’ve seen so far is even remotely reminiscent of the original games and that’s why I find it laughable that Larian “hopes they did bioware proud”. What a joke.
Same IP; returning characters from the original series; revisiting important locations from the original series; uses a D&D ruleset for resolution; expands upon the story of the Bhaalspawn crisis over a century after the incident, especially via the
Yes because mechanical fidelity is the lowest priority in continuing the series. Continuation of the story and tonal fidelity matter a lot more. The Fallout series went from a turn based 2.5D isometric RPG to a real time action RPG, and one of the best instalments in the series follows the latter formula.
To be fair, that one Fallout in the latter installments that best fits the original tone of the 2D games had many of the same people that made the original games, including the original designer and writer. If Obsidian was given another shot, now that those people no longer are at Obsidian, I question how good it would be compared to New Vegas.
Since when has gameplay been relegated to lowest priority when making a sequel to a GAME. I understand now what the original fallout fans must have felt when they were graced by fallout 3 and the masses praised it.
Tone and story are Larian tier, i.e. mediocre, and far removed from the original games. There is no fidelity to what bioware built, just pretence.
Baldur’s Gate is part of a setting several decades older than the game franchise of the same name. It was an official setting of D&D a decade before the first game. In the sense of a ROLEPLAYING game, fidelity to the source material is paramount.
The original games were developed at the end of the life cycle of the edition they used for the mechanics. The ruleset got a major revision the same year BG2 was released. There have been several major editions since. Edition warring aside, no one can argue that the Forgotten Realms played in 5th edition isn’t the same Forgotten Realms played in AD&D 2E. The tone and continued narrative of the setting is the key feature in maintaining the soul of a property, not mechanical fidelity.
The game respects the official canon of the Forgotten Realms, including the canonical ending to BG2 where Gorion’s Ward rejected divinity and eventually led to Bhaal’s revival. Characters from the original series return as companions for BG3, with stories acknowledging the Bhaalspawn crisis. One of the origin playthroughs is the exact same story as the first Baldur’s Gate.
If your only complaint is lack of real time with pause then I reckon it’s you who isn’t the real Baldur’s Gate fan.
Bioware themselves took many liberties with the source material to create their games, not sure wtf you’re on about. Larian made a direct sequel to Bioware’s Baldurs Gate, the tone was set by Bioware not the source material.
Baldur’s Gate is narrative heavy and Larian’s writers fell flat on their faces trying to replicate it.
Real time combat was a defining feature of the original games. I was prepared to accept turnbased combat but the game fails in too many other aspects to overlook.
I invite anyone to tell me what connects this game to the originals
the plot is basically the same as the first game and the second game combined and mixed with some new elements to make it unique and is set 100 years or so after the events of the second game.
The city itself
all the recurring characters, including the villains
The play style
the setting
The only thing that doesn’t connect them is the rule edition, and you’re not the same protagonist. BG1 and 2 used AD&D2e. BG3 uses 5e.
I’m not sure why everyone exalts larian as some master story writer now when everything they’ve done has merely been passable. It doesn’t matter how similar the story is if it’s told like shit.
Yes, they did manage to include the city of Baldur’s Gate, I’m impressed.
Recurring characters would be a treat if the game didn’t suck in all other respects.
The play style? Wtf? Where’s the real time combat, 6 party system, single open map, etc. Play style couldn’t be anymore different.
I’m not sure how much the setting has changed since 2E but Larian’s Faerun feels nothing like the original games.
If you think the story is told like shit, I gotta know what stories and games you actually like. Because it ain’t BG1 and 2.
The forgotten realms lore has changed tremendously, dude. WOTC is going absolutely crazy with retcons and changes lately. Where have you been? Like the entire pantheon of Gods from even 3.5e is totally different. There has been a huge cataclysmic event that almost destroyed magic for a second time (the first being the Netherese empire’s destruction; Karsus’ Folly) and much of the landscape too. It’s practically a different world. This stuff isn’t Larian’s fault. It’s literally Wizard’s fault.
Also: BG1 and 2 didn’t have a single map. They did have a world map screen that connected all the actual maps, but it didn’t really mean anything. It was basically what the fast travel screen is now. 🙄
I hated the divinity original sin games with a fucking Passion. Stupid fucking jsnky garbage combat mechanics go stick sn exploding barrel up your fucking collective asses, Larian.
I tried the baldurs gate 3 bets once with some friends. A couple hours was all I can take. It’s as much like d and d as removing your eyeball and fucking yourself in the ass is.
Remember that they asked for the BG license just after they finished D:OS1. The game was what they used to prove themselves. The game mechanics is probably what they always had planned for if they was ever allowed to create BG3.
I’m glad for it. The game mechanics of surface elements and mixing to create new effects was fun but way overused in D:OS series. After 2 games, their third got the right balance between fun and annoying, I think.
I agree, all of that would have been fine if they called it as it is: original sin DnD edition. Instead the title is Baldur’s Gate “3” and I invite anyone to tell me what connects this game to the originals. Nothing I’ve seen so far is even remotely reminiscent of the original games and that’s why I find it laughable that Larian “hopes they did bioware proud”. What a joke.
Same IP; returning characters from the original series; revisiting important locations from the original series; uses a D&D ruleset for resolution; expands upon the story of the Bhaalspawn crisis over a century after the incident, especially via the
spoiler
Dark Urge storyline.
All of this is apparent through playing the game.
I assume if Larian releases original sin 3 with real time combat but carry over some general story references divinity apostles wouldn’t bat an eye.
Yes because mechanical fidelity is the lowest priority in continuing the series. Continuation of the story and tonal fidelity matter a lot more. The Fallout series went from a turn based 2.5D isometric RPG to a real time action RPG, and one of the best instalments in the series follows the latter formula.
To be fair, that one Fallout in the latter installments that best fits the original tone of the 2D games had many of the same people that made the original games, including the original designer and writer. If Obsidian was given another shot, now that those people no longer are at Obsidian, I question how good it would be compared to New Vegas.
Since when has gameplay been relegated to lowest priority when making a sequel to a GAME. I understand now what the original fallout fans must have felt when they were graced by fallout 3 and the masses praised it.
Tone and story are Larian tier, i.e. mediocre, and far removed from the original games. There is no fidelity to what bioware built, just pretence.
Baldur’s Gate is part of a setting several decades older than the game franchise of the same name. It was an official setting of D&D a decade before the first game. In the sense of a ROLEPLAYING game, fidelity to the source material is paramount.
The original games were developed at the end of the life cycle of the edition they used for the mechanics. The ruleset got a major revision the same year BG2 was released. There have been several major editions since. Edition warring aside, no one can argue that the Forgotten Realms played in 5th edition isn’t the same Forgotten Realms played in AD&D 2E. The tone and continued narrative of the setting is the key feature in maintaining the soul of a property, not mechanical fidelity.
The game respects the official canon of the Forgotten Realms, including the canonical ending to BG2 where Gorion’s Ward rejected divinity and eventually led to Bhaal’s revival. Characters from the original series return as companions for BG3, with stories acknowledging the Bhaalspawn crisis. One of the origin playthroughs is the exact same story as the first Baldur’s Gate.
If your only complaint is lack of real time with pause then I reckon it’s you who isn’t the real Baldur’s Gate fan.
Bioware themselves took many liberties with the source material to create their games, not sure wtf you’re on about. Larian made a direct sequel to Bioware’s Baldurs Gate, the tone was set by Bioware not the source material.
Baldur’s Gate is narrative heavy and Larian’s writers fell flat on their faces trying to replicate it.
Real time combat was a defining feature of the original games. I was prepared to accept turnbased combat but the game fails in too many other aspects to overlook.
The only thing that doesn’t connect them is the rule edition, and you’re not the same protagonist. BG1 and 2 used AD&D2e. BG3 uses 5e.
I’m not sure why everyone exalts larian as some master story writer now when everything they’ve done has merely been passable. It doesn’t matter how similar the story is if it’s told like shit.
Yes, they did manage to include the city of Baldur’s Gate, I’m impressed.
Recurring characters would be a treat if the game didn’t suck in all other respects.
The play style? Wtf? Where’s the real time combat, 6 party system, single open map, etc. Play style couldn’t be anymore different.
I’m not sure how much the setting has changed since 2E but Larian’s Faerun feels nothing like the original games.
If you think the story is told like shit, I gotta know what stories and games you actually like. Because it ain’t BG1 and 2.
The forgotten realms lore has changed tremendously, dude. WOTC is going absolutely crazy with retcons and changes lately. Where have you been? Like the entire pantheon of Gods from even 3.5e is totally different. There has been a huge cataclysmic event that almost destroyed magic for a second time (the first being the Netherese empire’s destruction; Karsus’ Folly) and much of the landscape too. It’s practically a different world. This stuff isn’t Larian’s fault. It’s literally Wizard’s fault.
Also: BG1 and 2 didn’t have a single map. They did have a world map screen that connected all the actual maps, but it didn’t really mean anything. It was basically what the fast travel screen is now. 🙄
I hated the divinity original sin games with a fucking Passion. Stupid fucking jsnky garbage combat mechanics go stick sn exploding barrel up your fucking collective asses, Larian.
I tried the baldurs gate 3 bets once with some friends. A couple hours was all I can take. It’s as much like d and d as removing your eyeball and fucking yourself in the ass is.