Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
The author of this topic has marked a post as the answer to their question.
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
The Setting: It is set in the Forgotten Realms, and around Baldur's Gate. It has the same setting.
The story/canon: The Bhaalspawn saga is canon to events in this game. So it has a shared story.
The characters: Apparently some characters from BG 1 & 2 will make a comeback. I had heard Minsc was turned to stone, so he is still alive these 200 years later. So it shares characters where possible.
They are hooking the entire thing on the combat engine and nothing else.
But as I said; I will be constructive, so any of them can come in here and give a reason other than the ones I debunked above.
Mostly because..there's no point in giving a reason that's already been debunked.
As for the real time with pause arguement I've never been a really big fan of it, nor does it make or not make the part of a Franchise. if so then Dragon Age is a big rip off started as turn based, then moved on from there. This is just one of many games that have done so to fit the latest fad.
Real time with pause at it's core. = Pause the game figure out what you want to do, set your actions/movements/etc, unpause watch the movements play out. Repause repeat, rinse, repeat.
turn based = plan your strategy for each character [payse much), watch it carried out (unpause much) (plan next series of movements, actions (pause much) watch them carried out.
Pretty much same thing at the core, only big difference is that you don't need have to pause with rtwp, versus turn based. Yes this saves time for you to fly through combat. Yet if your good at turn based, and know your characters your turns will be rather fast anyway. Keeping combat flowing unless your suddenly stumped, or find yourself with a massive brain fart.
Now turn based vs. real time is completely different. Especially when your juggling multipule actions because you have several characters not 1 controlled character and 4 ai companions. Lets face it AI companions are dumb throughout every genre of game, the closest I've come to enjoying ai companions was in Fallout New Vegas. Mainly cause I could set different things like follow distance, wether their ranged or melee, when to use stims etc.
Incorrect really. FR is shared, sure. But FR is the standard setting of most D&D games. The city wasn't even in BG2/ToB though.
True. Sort of. The novelization version is which is universally viewed as awful. That makes me think references will be rare/vague. The more they lean on the novelization characterizations the more people will chafe. They did some really weird things with characters in that novel that rubbed people the wrong way at the time and bore no resemblance to the game.
False. The story as far as we know is entirely disconnected from the original series story. And that's the first of 2 primary gripes. The story has nothing really to do with the story of the series. It's not continuing on with the descendants (a la the romance) or a plot RE Bhaal related to those events or anything of that nature.
A total unknown. May have a cameo, or even him as a companion, but nobody has a clue. So this is a false claim due to lack of information not proven falsehood.
So, gripe 1, it has nothing to do with the Baldur's Gate series. At least not in any appreciable way. Setting something in the same world or even same city with no other connection to a thing does not make it a progression of the series.
Think of it this way. If someone wrote a book called The Simpsons 2 and it followed the life of a totally different family unrelated to Homer/Marge/Bart/Lisa/Maggie and instead of being a cartoon comedy it was a live action police drama 200 years in the future would it be "The Simpsons 2"? Even if set in Springfield?
Gripe 2, mechanically it bears no resemblance to BG (no RTwP, different system, etc).
Now, I'm not saying I support all these gripes as valid. But you are fighting straw men here by falsely framing the arguments people have for this.
Baldur's Gate 3 is going to be turn based, so people that didn't enjoy 1 and 2 as much as they think they did declare it to be "A FALSE SEQUEL NOT A REAL BG GAME AN INSULT TO TRUE FANS" in order to fuel their desire to be outraged over nothing.
People also say "IT'S DISCONNECTED TO THE ORIGINAL 2'S STORY SO IT'S NOT A SEQUEL" but that is also patently BS because a sequel doesn't have to be a direct continuation.
The events of Elder Scrolls 4 were utterly disconnected to the events of Elder Scrolls 3 but Oblivion was still a sequel to Morrowind, and Skyrim took place centuries after Oblivion but is still a sequel, because in order for something to be a sequel, all it has to do is take place chronologically after the previous installment of the series and exist within the same worldbuilding.
In other words, nothing makes BG3 not Baldur's Gate, it IS Balgur's Gate, and no amount of people raging will change that. If they're so mad that it's not a direct continuation to a story that was wrapped up 20 years ago and that it doesn't have an obnoxious combat system that was turn based meets RTS except the worst aspects of both, then they can play more Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 or Icewind Dale, those games still exist and haven't gone anywhere.
- BG 1/2 had RTwP and BG 3 doesn't.
- BG 1/2 allowed up to a 6 person party and BG 3 doesn't.
- BG 1/2 used the 2nd ED ruleset and BG 3 will use 5th ED (This one i consider ridiculous; after so much time between the last BG and the new one coming out, nobody should be surprised about a ruleset change.)
- BG 1/2 utilized different art backgrounds for the environment/world and BG 3 is not following that same pattern.
- The story may not meet certain expectations for people that completed the first two games. TBD on that front.
I'm sure there may be other items/issues but i think i covered most of the ones i have read about.
For me personally? BG 3 isn't something i have an interest in mainly because the first two gave me what i wanted: A start, story progression, and an end. That's it and real simple. For those that are going to play BG 3, i hope it meets or exceeds your expectations. BG 3 not being for me doesn't mean i'm going to waste time ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ about it and bringing others down because it wasn't tailored to 'me'.
Not really. But it was so impactful it started a genre trend (Infinity Engine games, NWN 1/2, even Kotor based on these systems used it) and was pretty defining.
Straw man. Not true. But if you boil a game down to two primary categories you can judge it by - aesthetic/themes/set pieces/story vs mechanics it is really changing half of that equation. Then we get to the next main complaint.
Some do some don't. I'll use your example to explain.
False. See, Elder Scrolls was an open world exploration series. The point of the game never really was "the story" - the number of people who spent hundreds of hours and never even completed the main storyline in Skyrim or Morrowind is not a small one. Games have themes and purposes. Morrowind, Oblivion, all are providing that same experience... though many would argue it's been consistently watered down over the series and is losing its claim to being connected.
BG was not a tactical board game mechanically like pen and paper games tend to be because of RTwP. So this game is not a continuation of its gameplay like Oblivion was of Morrowind. And this game is not a continuation of the story and themes either near as we can tell. So the only claim it has to a connection is setting. That is not the case with TES games.
You want something to be true so you declare it true. I'm not even 100% on board with all the arguments of it NOT being a mainline game - but you are not acknowledging the legitimate arguments that do exist. They are not attacks on you, and they are valid.
That's part of your problem. After BG1 you never even set foot in the city or surrounding areas. And in BG1 you only go into the city towards the end.
The setting does not define the game or series in any way. When people think of those games they don't think of the city in the name because it's barely part of it. They think of Bhaalspawn, Irenicus, a brutal difficulty curve at level 1, dungeon crawling, tons of things. But that city isn't what kicks into the players mind because it was not really the focal point of any of the mainline series. So using the setting to tie this to the previous ones... not really compelling to people. It's understandable why some people would cry foul.
Now, my personal opinion, that story is done, and this isn't really a "BG game" but I wouldn't want them to try at it. They'd screw it up. Go do something new. So I'll give it a shot and hope it taps INTO what I liked about BG. Or at least provides something worth playing. But the name is only being used for marketing.
No it was a legit question running through my mind, when I kept seeing this isn't a BG game. So I figured I'd see what answers I got, since I was honestly curious.
Well, if you really wanted to have BG 3 tie into the last two, that would be a sure fire way to make it happen ;)
One of many, lol. My inability to figure out the quote crap is another