Why people like this game so much when it has nothing to do with original baldurs gate ?

[UIE First Citizen]

I played original baldurs gate when it was released and loved it. Then played bg 2 ,icewind dale, planescape torment, neverwinter nights, nwn 2.
Now i play modded nwn, the mods are awesome.
I play pathfinder kingmaker also.
I tried divinity original sin but it is not my cup of tea.
So anyone can explain me why is everyone hyped about this game when it basically divinity original sin in dungeon and dragon setting ?
I want baldurs gate 3 to be a proper continuation of the series.
At least when beamdog released siege of dragonspear it was a proper d&d game.
Thanks for your input.
Cheers,

[NotMisty]

ercyon eredeti hozzászólása:

Actually it is the name what creates the hype, if if was named as "DOS3: Adventure in Faerun" only larian fanboys would get the hype. But by namimg it as BG3 they got also the oldscholls, tabletop players ... etc.
It is a marketing success by both wotc and larian. If you are hyped enough anything can seem beautiful.

It really can't be called DOS3 since it doesn't fit anywhere in the divinity saga. I don't know why people keep on insisting this? I'd agree with you if you said "Dungeons and Dragons: Adventure in Baldur's Gate" or something.

Tbh it's like calling fallout 4 skyrim 5 lmao. Same engine, different IPs. That doesn't make it belong in the same franchise.

[ercyon]

Jitorin eredeti hozzászólása:

It really can't be called DOS3 since it doesn't fit anywhere in the divinity saga. I don't know why people keep on insisting this? I'd agree with you if you said "Dungeons and Dragons: Adventure in Baldur's Gate" or something.

Tbh it's like calling fallout 4 skyrim 5 lmao. Same engine, different IPs. That doesn't make it belong in the same franchise.

The game looks and feels a lot like DOS game (mechanics, graphics etc.) than the BG.
BG: heroes journey, relatively quick fights, select by mouse, darker atmosphere, dnd 2e, forgotten realms
DOS: detective to find some evil scheme, long even boring fights, chaining, fun atmosphere, dns5e, forgotten realms
So according to these findings;
I can say BG3 is more a kin to DOS than BG. It feels like a DOS game that has 5e rules adventuring in faerun.
So, I think naming it DOS3 is more approvable than naming it BG3. But I'd rather wished it named "Baldurs Gate: Illitids Scheme" etc. without the number "3" in the title which promises it is the ,at least spiritual, continuation of BG2.

[Dagoth_Ur]

because of graphic, they talk it because many things looks similar. That's all.

[Stormenergy]

So myself I'm not ruling anything out as of yet as to any ties to BG1 and BG2... there are certain things and events that occur in Act 1 that make me think that there are definitely gods involved and since it is still way the hell TOO early to tell what the ties are ( I mean come on guys it is still Early Access, nothing is absolutely certain yet) I'd say there is a high chance down the road that not everything is at it might seem. I mean that is fairly typical and true of most D&D games. Rarely do you figure out everything that is going to happen and how from the start of the adventure. I could be wrong of course, but I'm just saying right now... its too early to say that "it has nothing in common with BG1 or BG2".

Also keep in mind... neither BG1 nor BG2 were Early Access games... they were released with both games pretty much fully developed and done... this is not. BG3 is a totally separate type of entity when it comes to its development and I think it would do us well to remember that.

[DeLastOne]

bha because some do not care really... only old fart do. most of trhe player never have play BG 1 or 2 and really do not mind. So you know... it is still a pretty descent game and if we go that way a real improvement from DOS franchise. So why not ?

[ercyon]

Dagoth_Ur eredeti hozzászólása:

because of graphic, they talk it because many things looks similar. That's all.

nope, not the graphics alone.
Have you seen that chaining?
Long fights, the whole point of fights of BG is finish them asap and more concentrate into story.
The list continues. Graphics may be the smallest one.

[lindad7999]

rubyismycat eredeti hozzászólása:

its very disapointing that Larion seem to think d and d rulesets are optional they are not if you are going to sell your game as d and d and if this is a sequel to a series it should use the same ruleset as bg 1 and 2

No it shouldn't WoTC made it clear they wanted a 5E rule set and and not some bastardized mix of ad&d and 3e with RTwP which should have never been implemented and is not outdated as the rules for BG and BG2.

[NotMisty]

ercyon eredeti hozzászólása:

Jitorin eredeti hozzászólása:

It really can't be called DOS3 since it doesn't fit anywhere in the divinity saga. I don't know why people keep on insisting this? I'd agree with you if you said "Dungeons and Dragons: Adventure in Baldur's Gate" or something.

Tbh it's like calling fallout 4 skyrim 5 lmao. Same engine, different IPs. That doesn't make it belong in the same franchise.

The game looks and feels a lot like DOS game (mechanics, graphics etc.) than the BG.
BG: heroes journey, relatively quick fights, select by mouse, darker atmosphere, dnd 2e, forgotten realms
DOS: detective to find some evil scheme, long even boring fights, chaining, fun atmosphere, dns5e, forgotten realms
So according to these findings;
I can say BG3 is more a kin to DOS than BG. It feels like a DOS game that has 5e rules adventuring in faerun.
So, I think naming it DOS3 is more approvable than naming it BG3. But I'd rather wished it named "Baldurs Gate: Illitids Scheme" etc. without the number "3" in the title which promises it is the ,at least spiritual, continuation of BG2.

The similarities you listed can't be helped since they are made in the same engine. Some of the dialogues are actually unrecognizable from the style they used in DOS, my best guess is that the game is too colorful so you think it isn't "dark enough"

Could easily be fixed by reshade if you're into that. Anyway, dark and gritty environments doesn't age too well so maybe that's why Larian went with that. Could be a design choice as well.

A lot of people forget that the divinity engine was made by Larian so they could make a dnd game in it. Larian approached WoTC for the opportunity to make a BG game even before DOS. DOS 1 and 2 were basically samples of what the divinity engine could do to bring 5e to life, and it was only because of that that WoTC finally agreed.

As a fan of DOS, I could honestly say that BG3 feels so different that to call it DOS would be a disservice. I could agree with you that it may feel different enough from the previous games to be called a third installment for the franchise, but that's licensing mumbo jumbo at work and that's the owner of the IP's prerogative so...

[Sindira]

For those of you touting this game as the best it could be, I assure you that is not true. Solasta is a far closer game to bringing DnD to life, for pete sake you can fly in that game even if the story isn't as cool as dragons, githyanki and illithids, Larian could have done a better job but that probably would have meant changing too much coding and I'm guessing flying is too difficult for their game which is pretty unfortunate that a game made in 2020 backed by a big developer can't get flying to work properly. I think the developer of Solasta is quite small. hmmm.

[Sindira]

Jitorin eredeti hozzászólása:

ercyon eredeti hozzászólása:

The game looks and feels a lot like DOS game (mechanics, graphics etc.) than the BG.
BG: heroes journey, relatively quick fights, select by mouse, darker atmosphere, dnd 2e, forgotten realms
DOS: detective to find some evil scheme, long even boring fights, chaining, fun atmosphere, dns5e, forgotten realms
So according to these findings;
I can say BG3 is more a kin to DOS than BG. It feels like a DOS game that has 5e rules adventuring in faerun.
So, I think naming it DOS3 is more approvable than naming it BG3. But I'd rather wished it named "Baldurs Gate: Illitids Scheme" etc. without the number "3" in the title which promises it is the ,at least spiritual, continuation of BG2.

The similarities you listed can't be helped since they are made in the same engine. Some of the dialogues are actually unrecognizable from the style they used in DOS, my best guess is that the game is too colorful so you think it isn't "dark enough"

Could easily be fixed by reshade if you're into that. Anyway, dark and gritty environments doesn't age too well so maybe that's why Larian went with that. Could be a design choice as well.

A lot of people forget that the divinity engine was made by Larian so they could make a dnd game in it. Larian approached WoTC for the opportunity to make a BG game even before DOS. DOS 1 and 2 were basically samples of what the divinity engine could do to bring 5e to life, and it was only because of that that WoTC finally agreed.

As a fan of DOS, I could honestly say that BG3 feels so different that to call it DOS would be a disservice. I could agree with you that it may feel different enough from the previous games to be called a third installment for the franchise, but that's licensing mumbo jumbo at work and that's the owner of the IP's prerogative so...

Uhhh.. okay, go play Baldur's Gate 2 and tell me how bad the environments look. Lol....

[NotMisty]

Nicole eredeti hozzászólása:

Jitorin eredeti hozzászólása:

The similarities you listed can't be helped since they are made in the same engine. Some of the dialogues are actually unrecognizable from the style they used in DOS, my best guess is that the game is too colorful so you think it isn't "dark enough"

Could easily be fixed by reshade if you're into that. Anyway, dark and gritty environments doesn't age too well so maybe that's why Larian went with that. Could be a design choice as well.

A lot of people forget that the divinity engine was made by Larian so they could make a dnd game in it. Larian approached WoTC for the opportunity to make a BG game even before DOS. DOS 1 and 2 were basically samples of what the divinity engine could do to bring 5e to life, and it was only because of that that WoTC finally agreed.

As a fan of DOS, I could honestly say that BG3 feels so different that to call it DOS would be a disservice. I could agree with you that it may feel different enough from the previous games to be called a third installment for the franchise, but that's licensing mumbo jumbo at work and that's the owner of the IP's prerogative so...

Uhhh.. okay, go play Baldur's Gate 2 and tell me how bad the environments look. Lol....

I already played it and the story isn't that interesting for me to stomach the horrible RtwP (unlike say PoE and Tyranny). Great game, I'm sure, but not my thing.

[Gregorovitch]

Shahadem eredeti hozzászólása:

Gregorovitch eredeti hozzászólása:

Well that explains exactly why - millions of folk absolutely love DOS1 and DOS2 so naturally they have no problems with BG3 having a basic look and feel recognisably derived from the Divinity games' engine.

As for:

"when it has nothing to do with original baldurs gate ?"

This question has already been answered in detail on several other threads, TL;DR:

1. BG1/2 are not the "original"
2. BG3 is not a sequel to BG1/2, it's a new story set in the same location
3. BG3 is a sequel to the recent 5e PnP module Baldur's Gate: Descent into Avernus
4. The City of Baldur's Gate and the Sword Coast is not part of the BG1/2 IP
5. Rather BG1/2 was based on already the existing Baldur's Gate and Sword Coast IP
6. The Sword Coast and the City of Baldur's Gate IP is owned by WotC and was licensed to Bioware for BG1/2 and to Larian for BG3.

In short Baldur's Gate != BG1/2, rather

...................Sword Coast/Baldur's Gate (WotC)
.......................//................................\\
......................//..................................\\
...........BG1/2(Bioware).................BG3(Larian)

The Sword Coast is by far the most popular D&D adventuring location in Faerun having tens of official campaigns set in it and probably thousands of unofficial ones. Baldur's Gate is one of the four main city states located in the Sword Coast.

Both BG1/2 and BG3 are cRPGs licensed and derived from the same source IP owned by WotC and therefore have exactly equal status.

BG3 is misnamed.

That is the objective truth.

BG1 and 2 set the naming convention for the computer games of that name. The name applies to the story of the Bhaalspawn with each successive iteration denoting the volume of the two part story. The name does not refer to the location. So the fact that there is a module called Baldur's Gate which does not deal with the story of the Bhaalspawn is entirely irrelevent as that module is not the two prior computer games.

LOL. No, that may be your subjective personal truth. But it is objectively, factually false. The name Baldur's Gate simply refers to Baldur's Gate City and the surrounding area of the Sword Coast controlled by that city. It does not refer to the Bhaalspawn saga.

I understand why some people are so invested and emotionally tied to (especially) BG2 and feel so strongly that Baldur's Gate is inextricably linked to and defined by the BG1/2 games and the Bhaallspawn story. BG2 is one the greatest cRPGs ever made, hell, one of the best video games ever made full stop.

But facts don't care about your feelings.

[PowerSworder]

Gregorovitch eredeti hozzászólása:

The name Baldur's Gate simply refers to Baldur's Gate City and the surrounding area of the Sword Coast controlled by that city. It does not refer to the Bhaalspawn saga.

Sorry, you're absolutely wrong.

BG2 isn't set in Baldur's Gate; it starts in a city called Athkatla that isn't even located on the Sword Coast. Athkatla is located in an entirely different region called Amn, which is why the full name of the game is Baldur's Gate 2: Shadows of Amn.

BG1 and BG2 are focused on the Bhaalspawn saga, not the city of Baldur's Gate. In fact in the first game, you spend less than 10% of your time in Baldur's Gate itself. In the second game, you never visit Baldur's Gate at all!

The story in BG3 has nothing to do with the Bhaalspawn saga and isn't focused on the same protagonist. Branding the game BG3 has nothing to do with it being set in that location and EVERYTHING to do with exploiting the success of the hugely successful BG1 and BG2 games to help with marketing.

You either never played the original games, or you're just trolling to provoke arguments.

[JamRock]

Gregorovitch eredeti hozzászólása:

Shahadem eredeti hozzászólása:

BG3 is misnamed.

That is the objective truth.

BG1 and 2 set the naming convention for the computer games of that name. The name applies to the story of the Bhaalspawn with each successive iteration denoting the volume of the two part story. The name does not refer to the location. So the fact that there is a module called Baldur's Gate which does not deal with the story of the Bhaalspawn is entirely irrelevent as that module is not the two prior computer games.

LOL. No, that may be your subjective personal truth. But it is objectively, factually false. The name Baldur's Gate simply refers to Baldur's Gate City and the surrounding area of the Sword Coast controlled by that city. It does not refer to the Bhaalspawn saga.

I understand why some people are so invested and emotionally tied to (especially) BG2 and feel so strongly that Baldur's Gate is inextricably linked to and defined by the BG1/2 games and the Bhaallspawn story. BG2 is one the greatest cRPGs ever made, hell, one of the best video games ever made full stop.

But facts don't care about your feelings.

Baldur's Gate the game at it's essense was about the Bhaalspawn Conflict. BG2 "Shadows of Amn" was featured in Amn and had literally nothing to do with the physical city of Baldur's Gate but was squarely centered around Gorion's ward. If the game has no connection to the Bhaalspawn legacy or Bhaal it's not BG. It should be titled something else.

[DeLastOne]

Uhura The Shaman eredeti hozzászólása:

Gregorovitch eredeti hozzászólása:

LOL. No, that may be your subjective personal truth. But it is objectively, factually false. The name Baldur's Gate simply refers to Baldur's Gate City and the surrounding area of the Sword Coast controlled by that city. It does not refer to the Bhaalspawn saga.

I understand why some people are so invested and emotionally tied to (especially) BG2 and feel so strongly that Baldur's Gate is inextricably linked to and defined by the BG1/2 games and the Bhaallspawn story. BG2 is one the greatest cRPGs ever made, hell, one of the best video games ever made full stop.

But facts don't care about your feelings.

Baldur's Gate the game at it's essense was about the Bhaalspawn Conflict. BG2 "Shadows of Amn" was featured in Amn and had literally nothing to do with the physical city of Baldur's Gate but was squarely centered around Gorion's ward. If the game has no connection to the Bhaalspawn legacy or Bhaal it's not BG. It should be titled something else.

Then no harm. Larian got it right since BG will be in the game. So the first BG1 and BG2 should be renamed to a new proper title. What about that ? Bhaalspawn Saga or something like that.