Larian have definitively sold-out and turned into a hack developer

[Turbo Nozomix]

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2020-02-27-baldurs-gate-3-interview

The choices that we made are ours. Why did we go for turn-based instead of real-time with pause? Because D&D to us is a turn-based game and we're really good - or we have become really good - with turn-based combat. So that, I think, is one of our strengths, and trying out real-time with pause for now, just because the originals were that? It's a big risk. Because the team would have to think completely differently, our combat would be completely different. And we didn't really feel good about that. Normally we do try out a lot. Normally we try out a lot before we make a decision, but with real-time with pause and turn-based we didn't, we just said "Okay it's just gonna be turn-based."

So, Larian is really just using the "Baldur's Gate" name as a husk to fill with a D&D D:OS2 clone, exclusively for the purpose of sales (that's what the "it's a big risk" remark refers to). It's a cash-grab.

BTW, TB games have on average been performing worse than RTwP games. And Larian's D:OS2 didn't come close to the amount of sales RTwP legend Dragon Age: Origins did. So, really, there is only a single big hit TB game while RTwP games are on average performing better.

Wasteland Remastered and Torment: Numenera tanked in sales and are unpopular. More people own Pillars of Eternity on Steam than own Wasteland 2 on Steam. When PoE 2 had TB added to it, its sales didn't improve at all and its Steam user rating didn't increase by even a single percentage-point. Pathfinder: Kingmaker is currently more popular than any TB game outside of Divinity: Original Sin 2. And Dragon Age: Origins (3.2 million copies sold in 3 months) greatly outsold Divinity: Original Sin 2 (1 million copies sold in 2.5 months).

So, TB games are not particularly popular and they have a higher failure-rate than RTwP games. It is only D:OS2 which has been a big hit in the TB genre.

Larian have become superstitious slaves in the wake of the success of D:OS2 and traded their integrity for the comfort and sales of an echo chamber of D:OS2 fans. So, there is literally no justification to using the "Baldur's Gate" name, when Larian's upcoming D&D RPG has as much in common with the Baldur's Gate series as


The definition of a Hack[www.dictionary.com]:

1. a person, as an artist or writer, who exploits, for money, his or her creative ability or training in the production of dull, unimaginative, and trite work; one who produces banal and mediocre work in the hope of gaining commercial success in the arts:
As a painter, he was little more than a hack.

2. a professional who renounces or surrenders individual independence, integrity, belief, etc., in return for money or other reward in the performance of a task normally thought of as involving a strong personal commitment:

Larian's "Baldur's Gate 3" has not even the faintest tiniest shred of relation to the Baldur's Gate series in character, experience, or gameplay and yet they're exploiting the name with a D:OS2 clone set in D&D for the purpose of the money doing so can make them. Larian have sold-out and literally become a hack developer for the sake of monetary gain.



At 3:35 in this video, Swen says that they chose to put the DOS formula in a game with the Baldur's Gate name because the BG name will increase their reach and hopefully result in Baldur's Gate fans playing Larian's DOS games:

https://youtu.be/kGnGOnzlC4s?t=214

... so, the chance to do that, and to bring what basically is our RPG identity to Baldur's Gate as a franchise was an opportunity too good to resist. And so, what it will do for us... uh, what we think it will do for us is it's going to show a larger segment of people, because I think Baldur's Gate 3 will reach more people than Divinity will have done... it will show a larger segment of the population what our RPGs feel like and hopefully bring them to play our other games also.

Larian's goal is to just make a DOS game under a more popular brand to boost the popularity of the DOS brand. Their next game after "BG3" is probably going to be "DOS3" (DOS4).

It is a cash-grab.

[Turbo Nozomix]

Originally posted by Beardpick:

Originally posted by Turbo Nozomix:

The question is, are you completely oblivious to what you and I both wrote? Or are you trying to bluff your way out of being caught in the latest hole you dug yourself into?

I've browsed BI's BG3 information enough to know it was to continue the style of BG 1 and BG 2 with another story. The game engine in particular doesn't mean anything - any style of RPG game could be made in a game engine that handles an isometric style of RPG.

Icewind Dale is a Baldur's Gate clone with less focus on story and a heavier focus on combat. Icewind Dale takes place in the same world as Baldur's Gate. BI's BG3 would carry on a plot point of the Icewind Dale games and continue the gameplay of Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale.

Since BI's BG3 didn't release, we can't see entirely what it would have been. But it was to carry on the format of the Baldur's Gate series. Larian's game isn't carrying on the format of the Baldur's Gate series and has no other shared design style with the Baldur's Gate series.

Ah, Turbo, the aurora engine was not isometric, it was full 3d and was the predecessor of the updated engine that powered NeverWinter Nights. So no, the gameplay was not going to stay the same in the same style as BG 1/2. Black Isle had abandoned the infinity engine and 2d isometric games, and moved on with a new story, new characters and a new engine.

So, you don't know what isometric is. Not surprising, given you post history of ignorance.

Isometric is merely a 2D method to simulate a 3D perspective. A 3D engine with the same perspective accomplishes the same thing. And the perspective of a camera is not gameplay.

Here's a tech demo of the engine that BI's BG3 and their Fallout 3 would have been on:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TvcanIELcY

That's an early demo of Fallout 3, codenamed Van Buren. It plays pretty much exactly like Fallout 1 and 2.

Do you notice the camera perspective being different than isometric? Do you think that's a gameplay element? I'll await your response.

You can try to spin it, but you're in a corner. Black Isle was going to make a version of BG3 as wholly different than BG1/2 as Larian, except they were going to keep the RTwP gameplay, which is truly all that you are actually concerned with.

Like a troll, you desperately hope that bluffing words will just somehow magically get you out of the hole that you're in. And you mimic the clown sogreth when you try his tactic of alleging that your predicament is somebody else's.

BI's BG3 was to carry on the gameplay of the Baldur's Gate series including the RTwP combat. I'm sure there would have been a lot of other similarities as well. That's a lot more than Larian's effort, where Larian's "BG3" is unfaithful to the Baldur's Gate series in all ways.

I care about a lot more than just the combat system in a Baldur's Gate or any game. So, don't try to create a strawman argument after everything else you've tried has been refuted and backfired on you. It won't work any better than anything else you've attempted.

[Hobocop]

Originally posted by zero:

Originally posted by Hobocop:

At the start of combat, it determines which side gets to go first at least, adding up the total result of all the initiative rolls for members currently engaged at that time.

no i get that, i just don't not understand why they did that instead of the standard d20+init, place in order, unless its an engine limitation, thats just a weird method they did.

Not an engine limitation, since its been done before with an earlier version of the same engine in D:OS1. Probably a design choice to help speed up combat, and as I mentioned, subtly encourage players to look at party synergy and allowing more opportunities for complex chains of actions.

[Beardpick]

Originally posted by Turbo Nozomix:

Originally posted by Beardpick:

Ah, Turbo, the aurora engine was not isometric, it was full 3d and was the predecessor of the updated engine that powered NeverWinter Nights. So no, the gameplay was not going to stay the same in the same style as BG 1/2. Black Isle had abandoned the infinity engine and 2d isometric games, and moved on with a new story, new characters and a new engine.

So, you don't know what isometric is. Not surprising, given you post history of ignorance.

Isometric is merely a 2D method to simulate a 3D perspective. A 3D engine with the same perspective accomplishes the same thing. And the perspective of a camera is not gameplay.

Here's a tech demo of the engine that BI's BG3 and their Fallout 3 would have been on:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TvcanIELcY

Do you notice the camera perspective being different than isometric? Do you think that's a gameplay element? I'll await your response.

You can try to spin it, but you're in a corner. Black Isle was going to make a version of BG3 as wholly different than BG1/2 as Larian, except they were going to keep the RTwP gameplay, which is truly all that you are actually concerned with.

Like a troll, you desperately hope that bluffing words will just somehow magically get you out of the hole that you're in. And you mimic the clown sogreth when you try his tactic of alleging that your predicament is somebody else's.

BI's BG3 was to carry on the gameplay of the Baldur's Gate series including the RTwP combat. I'm sure there would have been a lot of other similarities as well. That's a lot more than Larian's effort, where Larian's "BG3" is unfaithful to the Baldur's Gate series in all ways.

I care about a lot more than just the combat system in a Baldur's Gate or any game. So, don't try to create a strawman argument after everything else you've tried has been refuted and backfired on you. It won't work any better than anything else you've attempted.

Yah got me, left off 2d.

You literally stated in your earlier post, that you would have no issue with every aspect of BG3 being different from BG 1/2, with no continuation of the story from BG 1/2 as long as they kept the RTwP gameplay.

Not sure how you can backpedal away from that at this point.

[Hobocop]

Originally posted by Midnight:

The one thing I'm curious about is how they will handle players choosing to spend their reaction on something (mode toggle?) and choosing to use a die for reroll.

That is the one thing that doesn't gel with video game format at all.

Solasta: Crown of the Magisters, also based on the 5e ruleset, had a window pop up if a situation occurred that allowed for a reaction from one of the party members, letting you choose to execute it or not.

The most relevant example that would appear in both games in their early states would be Feather Fall, so if someone fell from a height that would cause damage, and your wizard was within range, the game would pause/slow down and you could choose to expend that spell slot.

But in the BG3 demo, that system wasn't implemented for PCs yet, so eh. Just a theory, but wouldn't be surprised if the implementation was identical.

I'm actually really interested in how the AI will weigh its options on this front.

[Turbo Nozomix]

Originally posted by Beardpick:

Originally posted by Turbo Nozomix:

So, you don't know what isometric is. Not surprising, given you post history of ignorance.

Isometric is merely a 2D method to simulate a 3D perspective. A 3D engine with the same perspective accomplishes the same thing. And the perspective of a camera is not gameplay.

Here's a tech demo of the engine that BI's BG3 and their Fallout 3 would have been on:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TvcanIELcY

Do you notice the camera perspective being different than isometric? Do you think that's a gameplay element? I'll await your response.



Like a troll, you desperately hope that bluffing words will just somehow magically get you out of the hole that you're in. And you mimic the clown sogreth when you try his tactic of alleging that your predicament is somebody else's.

BI's BG3 was to carry on the gameplay of the Baldur's Gate series including the RTwP combat. I'm sure there would have been a lot of other similarities as well. That's a lot more than Larian's effort, where Larian's "BG3" is unfaithful to the Baldur's Gate series in all ways.

I care about a lot more than just the combat system in a Baldur's Gate or any game. So, don't try to create a strawman argument after everything else you've tried has been refuted and backfired on you. It won't work any better than anything else you've attempted.

Yah got me, left off 2d.

Yes, I did corner you there.

2D isn't a gameplay element. Duke 3D is 2D and it plays like a 3D FPS. Van Buren is 3D and it plays exactly like Infinity Engine games.

You alleged the gameplay would be different because IE games used an isometric perspective and BG3 and F3 would have a 3D perspective. But, as the Van Buren test demo shows, there is no difference in gameplay between isometric and the same perspective in 3D.

You literally stated in your earlier post, that you would have no issue with every aspect of BG3 being different from BG 1/2, with no continuation of the story from BG 1/2 as long as they kept the RTwP gameplay.

You're literally lying there. What I said is that BI's BG3 was clearly going to have a lot more in common with Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 than Larian's D&D game that has nothing in common with the Baldur's Gate series.

Not sure how you can backpedal away from that at this point.

Backpedal away from stating the truth consistently while continuously showing all the holes, ignorance, fallacies, and lies in what you're saying? Yeah. Uh, good one.

[Beardpick]

Originally posted by Turbo Nozomix:

You're literally lying there. What I said is that BI's BG3 was clearly going to have a lot more in common with Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 than Larian's D&D game that has nothing in common with the Baldur's Gate series.

Not sure how you can backpedal away from that at this point.

Backpedal away from stating the truth consistently while continuously showing all the holes, ignorance, fallacies, and lies in what you're saying? Yeah. Uh, good one.

Ah remember the good times 20 minutes ago when you learned about how the Black Hound wasn't going to keep any aspects of BG 1/2 other than RTwP gameplay, and suddenly the continuation of the story from BG 1/2 no longer mattered?

Originally posted by Turbo Nozomix:

Originally posted by Beardpick:

Black Isle's version of BG3 wasn't going to continue the Bhaalspawn story either since it was concluded.

None of the characters from the previous Baldur's Gate games would have returned, the cast would have been completely original as well as the story, although characters from the Icewind Dale series would have returned.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldur%27s_Gate_III:_The_Black_Hound


Would it have been a cash grab for them to have released the game?

Black Isle's BG3 was also going to continue the trademark gameplay as BG1 and BG2. So that was it's connection. Black Isle was also who created the Baldur's Gate series, so they are the ones who know how it relates and would imbue their next game in that series with the styles that make it clear that it's still the same series.

The only aspect of the "trademark gameplay" as you put it,returning was RTwP, which like I stated, is all that really matters to you. Though you do try to wrap your zealotry for RTwP in other faux concerns, it just keeps shining through the more you post.

[Fenris]

Originally posted by Hobocop:

Solasta: Crown of the Magisters, also based on the 5e ruleset, had a window pop up if a situation occurred that allowed for a reaction from one of the party members, letting you choose to execute it or not.

Shhht. Don't talk so louder about the name of this game. They could come there to create 20 threads about asking for RTwP, in memory of the BG/NWN/DAO/Dungeon Master 's old glories :p

[Turbo Nozomix]

Originally posted by Beardpick:

Originally posted by Turbo Nozomix:

You're literally lying there. What I said is that BI's BG3 was clearly going to have a lot more in common with Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 than Larian's D&D game that has nothing in common with the Baldur's Gate series.

Backpedal away from stating the truth consistently while continuously showing all the holes, ignorance, fallacies, and lies in what you're saying? Yeah. Uh, good one.

Ah remember the good times 20 minutes ago when you learned about how the Black Hound wasn't going to keep any aspects of BG 1/2 other than RTwP gameplay, and suddenly the continuation of the story from BG 1/2 no longer mattered?

No. I tend to not remember things that didn't happen. Neither do you. Those are called delusions.

Originally posted by Turbo Nozomix:

Black Isle's BG3 was also going to continue the trademark gameplay as BG1 and BG2. So that was it's connection. Black Isle was also who created the Baldur's Gate series, so they are the ones who know how it relates and would imbue their next game in that series with the styles that make it clear that it's still the same series.

The only aspect of the "trademark gameplay" as you put it,returning was RTwP, which like I stated, is all that really matters to you. Though you do try to wrap your zealotry for RTwP in other faux concerns, it just keeps shining through the more you post.

Mhmm. Whatever you say. If you're so desperate to reclaim some of your lost dignity that you're going to start creating delusion after delusion, maybe I should just let you have it.

[The Infinity Sock]

Well I think that using the Divinity Original Sin II engine for Baldurs Gate 3 is a plus in my book when you think about it it takes a really long time to make a new engine for a game which means their can forces on the story of Baldurs Gate 3 than trying to make a new engine if I remember right Dragon Age Origins take six years to make if there had a really good engine before hand it would have only taken over two years to release Dragon Age Origins also why make a new engine when you have a good one already?

[Fenris]

Originally posted by The Infinity Sock:

Well I think that using the Divinity Original Sin II engine for Baldurs Gate 3 is a plus in my book when you think about it it takes a really long time to make a new engine for a game which means their can forces on the story of Baldurs Gate 3 than trying to make a new engine if I remember right Dragon Age Origins take six years to make if there had a really good engine before hand it would have only taken over two years to release Dragon Age Origins also why make a new engine when you have a good one already?

Because it's not RTwP... And they don't like TB. Don't search any other reason. The game would been exacly like what we saw but in RTwP, they would say that BG3 was fantastic.

[Adaon]

Originally posted by Fenris:

Originally posted by The Infinity Sock:

Well I think that using the Divinity Original Sin II engine for Baldurs Gate 3 is a plus in my book when you think about it it takes a really long time to make a new engine for a game which means their can forces on the story of Baldurs Gate 3 than trying to make a new engine if I remember right Dragon Age Origins take six years to make if there had a really good engine before hand it would have only taken over two years to release Dragon Age Origins also why make a new engine when you have a good one already?

Because it's not RTwP... And they don't like TB. Don't search any other reason. The game would been exacly like what we saw but in RTwP, they would say that BG3 was fantastic.

No, I'd also complain because it's 5e, I'd complain because of the party size, I'd complain because you wake up shipwrecked on yet another island with some random timer and or control mechanism attached to you. I could pull another fifty things out of the air if I wanted to, but so much Tarkov to play right now.

[Fenris]

Originally posted by Adaon:

Originally posted by Fenris:

Because it's not RTwP... And they don't like TB. Don't search any other reason. The game would been exacly like what we saw but in RTwP, they would say that BG3 was fantastic.

No, I'd also complain because it's 5e, I'd complain because of the party size, I'd complain because you wake up shipwrecked on yet another island with some random timer and or control mechanism attached to you. I could pull another fifty things out of the air if I wanted to, but so much Tarkov to play right now.

Yeah , but the actual DND ruleset is 5e, i would prefer 3.5 personally but hey, 5e is the more recent one. 2.0 is a thing of the past. We're on 2020.

The party size, it's 4 for the moment. Perhaps they will change it, perhaps they won't. We will see while the EA.

Wake up shipwrecked or begins in front of a tavern is it really important to know if a game will be good or bad ?
Almost all the olds RPGS, you began in a tavern. Almost all the recent ones you are amnesic or shipwrecked at the beginning. It's a cliche at this point. And in fact, if you look at the cinematic, you begin in the ship not on the beach. You don't come from nowhere and amnesic this time.

Sword coast, like his name implies it: "coast", the country has a lot of beaches and islands. Look at a map of the region on the net. Nothing strange here.

Control mechanisms i don't understand what you means exactly. I hope this is not again this RTwP/TB war. If this is the case, i will remember again that the DND rules are TB natively.

[Adaon]

Originally posted by Fenris:

Originally posted by Adaon:

No, I'd also complain because it's 5e, I'd complain because of the party size, I'd complain because you wake up shipwrecked on yet another island with some random timer and or control mechanism attached to you. I could pull another fifty things out of the air if I wanted to, but so much Tarkov to play right now.

Yeah , but the actual DND ruleset is 5e, i would prefer 3.5 personally but hey, 5e is the more recent one. 2.0 is a thing of the past. We're on 2020.

The party size, it's 4 for the moment. Perhaps they will change it, perhaps they won't. We will see while the EA.

Wake up shipwrecked or begins in front of a tavern is it really important to know if a game will be good or bad ?
Almost all the olds RPGS, you began in a tavern. Almost all the recent ones you are amnesic or shipwrecked at the beginning. It's a cliche at this point. And in fact, if you look at the cinematic, you begin in the ship not on the beach. You don't come from nowhere and amnesic this time.

Sword coast, like his name implies it: "coast", the country has a lot of beaches and islands. Look at a map of the region on the net. Nothing strange here.

Control mechanisms i don't understand what you means exactly. I hope this is not again this RTwP/TB war. If this is the case, i will remember again that the DND rules are TB natively.

Progress is not always a good thing, cancer can make progress. Things being new, doesn't make them better. Some new things are better, some aren't, some new things that are good to other people, aren't good to me. Which non Larian CRPG recently starts you off shipwrecked? And by control mechanism I mean the cliched, oh noes, I'm not at full force, I have a collar on me that stops me from using the integral mechanic in the game, this time it's a mindflayer worm, but it's the same thing. It's lazy. I don't remember being on too many beaches in Baldur's Gate ;) I do however remember spending like 90% of OS 1 and 2 on a beach.

[droggen]

Hey even if it's a re-skin at least they used the BG name for something, It has been collecting dust for twenty years.

[Kissa Ninja]

Originally posted by jmvbento:

So, Larian has sold out for profit by... making a style of game that is less profitable?

Doesn't mean we can't complain