Why bg3 got so much hype and wotr didn't

[UIE First Citizen]

From the moment it was announced it got enormous hype despite the gameplay of bg3 had nothing to do with bg1 and bg2.
From gameplay standpoint wotr looks like a successor to baldurs gate series than baldurs gate 3.
BG3 gameplay is an improved version of dos2. They may have changed the look of it, to look like dnd but the gameplay feels like dos2 to me.
I hate when companies do this, release a sequel that has nothing to do with previous games.
Bg3 may have better-written companions than wotr but from a thematic and gameplay standpoint wotr blows bg3 out of the water.
It would be the same if Ubisoft would make Assassin's creed game without climbing, jumping, and overall eliminate the parkour system.
For me this is how bg3 feels.
Sometimes it feels like larian showed hardcore isometric RPG fans big middle finger.
P.S.
I doubt the majority of people who played bg3 have ever touched bg 1 or bg 2.

[Hobocop]

A few reasons.

1. WotR is nigh impenetrable for folks who have no prior experience with PF1e or D&D 3e/3.5e. There are orders of magnitude more people who are aware of and have played 5e than either of those rulesets. Myself, I'd have bounced off Kingmaker and WotR completely if my first in-depth exposure to D&D hadn't been 3e through Neverwinter Nights, and Owlcat's efforts do little to bring in people who aren't already in the know.

2. D:OS2 demolished all of its contemporaries developed in the same time window of 2-3 years under similar budget constraints. It's not even close. Larian's own achievement there contributed significantly to the crowd looking forward to BG3.

3. Kingmaker was a complete and total dumpster fire when it first released. A big chunk of folks who experienced that launch window aren't going to be so quick to throw down time and money for Owlcat's follow-up project under the same conditions. And even now, Owlcat's games have so many design issues that turn away newcomers or less experienced cRPG players.

4. No co-op play. Owlcat has only managed to start doing it with Rogue Trader, and it's far from a smooth or seamless experience. Being able to dive into the same game with and alongside friends is not only in the spirit of the tabletop experience, but also eases the barrier to entry for new folks.

[GriffinPilgrim]

You may be right that the majority of people haven't played decades old games but I did, shortly after they launched no less, creaky ancient that I am, and I entirely disagree.
While naturally there are similarities to Divinity, given as the same people made both, it is not the same system. It is, more or less, D&D 5e, for better and worse.
The sequel has plenty to do with the previous games. It's set in the same world and indeed the same part of the same world as BG1. In the case of repeating locations, such as Sourcerous Sundries and Razimith's Tower effort was taken to look like their BG1 versions, albeit obviously higher res. They even made Elminster dressed as he was in BG1 and 2 rather than any of the later looks he's gone in for. There's several repeating characters, including one of the major villains being the arc villain of the first two games. And so forth. I'm not sure how much connection you need.
Owlcat can scribe up a decent plot but I find their approach to themes rather crude. In particular they can get quite dogmatic about alignment.
As to gameplay, pure opinion. Pathfinder vs 5e, RTWP vs turn based. We all have our preferences. Hell, mine change with my mood.
"Sometimes it feels like larian showed hardcore isometric RPG fans big middle finger." Now this I'm afraid I find quite foolish. A company that has been making very well received isometric RPGs for years creates one that is wildly successful and introduces many to the genre and this is a middle finger to you? Please tell me that you're not one of those gatekeeping, hipster types who consider getting popular some sort of betrayal.

[Harley]

It doesn't have voice acting. Good luck getting people to stream/play your game on a 50 inch TV when you have to read hundreds of lines of text every 5 seconds. That's simply the reason.

[Hobocop]

Originally posted by GriffinPilgrim:

Owlcat can scribe up a decent plot but I find their approach to themes rather crude. In particular they can get quite dogmatic about alignment.

I'm unsure how much to credit to Owlcat here as the plot for both Pathfinder games are cribbed directly from the adventure paths of the same name.

They did make a good effort translating them to another medium, though.

[GriffinPilgrim]

Originally posted by Hobocop:

Originally posted by GriffinPilgrim:

Owlcat can scribe up a decent plot but I find their approach to themes rather crude. In particular they can get quite dogmatic about alignment.

I'm unsure how much to credit to Owlcat here as the plot for both Pathfinder games are cribbed directly from the adventure paths of the same name.

They did make a good effort translating them to another medium, though.

Yeah, I'm not saying the Owlct games are bad, they're not. I enjoyed Kingmaker (I had the good fortune to get to it after a lot of bug fixes), Rogue Trader is waiting patiently in my library. And to be entirely fair, while the difference is sometimes overstated, Larian are better funded than Owlcat. Just because BG3 is, in my rarely humble opinion, better doesn't make Owlcat's games bad. I prefer steak to chicken but damn, I love me some chicken.

[UIE First Citizen]

Originally posted by Harley:

It doesn't have voice acting. Good luck getting people to stream/play your game on a 50 inch TV when you have to read hundreds of lines of text every 5 seconds. That's simply the reason.

Why do you want to play game on tv when you can play it on PC.
I know i am a part of PC master race.

[UIE First Citizen]

Originally posted by GriffinPilgrim:

You may be right that the majority of people haven't played decades old games but I did, shortly after they launched no less, creaky ancient that I am, and I entirely disagree.
While naturally there are similarities to Divinity, given as the same people made both, it is not the same system. It is, more or less, D&D 5e, for better and worse.
The sequel has plenty to do with the previous games. It's set in the same world and indeed the same part of the same world as BG1. In the case of repeating locations, such as Sourcerous Sundries and Razimith's Tower effort was taken to look like their BG1 versions, albeit obviously higher res. They even made Elminster dressed as he was in BG1 and 2 rather than any of the later looks he's gone in for. There's several repeating characters, including one of the major villains being the arc villain of the first two games. And so forth. I'm not sure how much connection you need.
Owlcat can scribe up a decent plot but I find their approach to themes rather crude. In particular they can get quite dogmatic about alignment.
As to gameplay, pure opinion. Pathfinder vs 5e, RTWP vs turn based. We all have our preferences. Hell, mine change with my mood.
"Sometimes it feels like larian showed hardcore isometric RPG fans big middle finger." Now this I'm afraid I find quite foolish. A company that has been making very well received isometric RPGs for years creates one that is wildly successful and introduces many to the genre and this is a middle finger to you? Please tell me that you're not one of those gatekeeping, hipster types who consider getting popular some sort of betrayal.

I am one of those people who doesn't like changes.
For me it is a middle finger because they used 5th edition instead of 3,5 edition, not to mention all other great crpgs were rtwp and not turn based.
When nwn 1 or nwn 2 were released, i do not remember people complaining it was too hard or too complicated, etc.
Back then people were complaining that nwn 1 had bad story but had a great modders creation tool.
Nwn 2 on the other hand had a better story but since it was an obsidian game it had a lot of bugs and the creation tool was lacking so it was rather poorly received by the community.
I am not talking about nwn1&2 expansions, only about the base game. Nwn 1 first and second expansions were good in terms of story. Nwn 2 first expansion was received quite good but not my cup of tea since i am not a fan of Planescape torment. I haven't played much of nwn 2 second expansion so i cannot comment on that.

[Hobocop]

Originally posted by UIE First Citizen:

Originally posted by Harley:

It doesn't have voice acting. Good luck getting people to stream/play your game on a 50 inch TV when you have to read hundreds of lines of text every 5 seconds. That's simply the reason.

Why do you want to play game on tv when you can play it on pc.

TVs and computer monitors are basically interchangeable nowadays from a connection standpoint, so why not?

[kingonads]

Originally posted by UIE First Citizen:

From the moment it was announced it got enormous hype despite the gameplay of bg3 had nothing to do with bg1 and bg2.
From gameplay standpoint wotr looks like a successor to baldurs gate series than baldurs gate 3.
BG3 gameplay is an improved version of dos2. They may have changed the look of it, to look like dnd but the gameplay feels like dos2 to me.
I hate when companies do this, release a sequel that has nothing to do with previous games.
Bg3 may have better-written companions than wotr but from a thematic and gameplay standpoint wotr blows bg3 out of the water.
It would be the same if Ubisoft would make Assassin's creed game without climbing, jumping, and overall eliminate the parkour system.
For me this is how bg3 feels.
Sometimes it feels like larian showed hardcore isometric RPG fans big middle finger.
P.S.
I doubt the majority of people who played bg3 have ever touched bg 1 or bg 2.

Simple.

Accessibility. BG3 is simple, easy to understand and digestible for the common layman gamer.

Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous is well.... anything but. It is not simple, hell the character creator just shows that. It is not digestible, it has more acts and more per act than BG3 has in its entire game. It requires way more knowledge of the setting, and lore and game system than BG3 does. And well Owlcat didnt spend their time on pretty cut scenes and thousands of lines of voice acting and mo-cap and sex scenes. They also used existing modules from a competitor to D&D. Last on that note. BG3 had Wizards of the Coast pushing the advertising for it, which meant they had millions of dollars of advertising unlike Pathfinder Wrath of the Righteous.

[Hobocop]

Originally posted by UIE First Citizen:

For me it is a middle finger because they used 5th edition instead of 3,5 edition, not to mention all other great crpgs were rtwp and not turn based.

Hate to break it to you, but BG1 & 2 were 2nd Edition, and Fallout existed alongside Baldur's Gate.

[alanc9]

Originally posted by Harley:

It doesn't have voice acting. Good luck getting people to stream/play your game on a 50 inch TV when you have to read hundreds of lines of text every 5 seconds. That's simply the reason.

It's funny how much worse living room widescreen setups are at conveying images than even old CRTs. I did the math, and I'd need something like a 100-inch TV to match my monitor.

[alanc9]

Originally posted by UIE First Citizen:

I am one of those people who doesn't like changes.
For me it is a middle finger because they used 5th edition instead of 3,5 edition, not to mention all other great crpgs were rtwp and not turn based.

As already mentioned, BG1 and 2 were 2e, not 3.5. And there were plenty of good turn-based CRPGs in the past.

But it doesn't matter. WotC won't authorize games based on an earlier edition. It's either 5e BG3 or no BG3 at all.

Sucks to be you, I guess.

[Hobocop]

Originally posted by alanc9:

Originally posted by UIE First Citizen:

I am one of those people who doesn't like changes.
For me it is a middle finger because they used 5th edition instead of 3,5 edition, not to mention all other great crpgs were rtwp and not turn based.

As already mentioned, BG1 and 2 were 2e, not 3.5. And there were plenty of good turn-based CRPGs in the past.

But it doesn't matter. WotC won't authorize games based on an earlier edition. It's either 5e BG3 or no BG3 at all.

Sucks to be you, I guess.

Yes, much like it's predecessors, BG3 is in large part crosspromoting the ruleset and setting featured in it in the hopes that people who play the game will buy the rulebooks, and there isn't much point in dredging up 20+ year old rulesets that the majority of your current customer base likely hasn't even heard of.

[Razorblade]

1. Very few people care about the original Baldur's Gates, population-wise. PC gaming still isn't fully mainstream, and it was completely niche 20 years ago. Even if literally every PC gamer of the day loved BG1 and BG2, that's not as big a group as you would assume.

2. Larian's D:OS games were big hits, especially D:OS2. Unless you consider Dragon Age: Inquisition to be a cRPG, which is highly debatable, D:OS2 was really the first game of the genre to make a dent in the mainstream. As such, a lot of people came for Larian, and Owlcat, last I checked, is simply not Larian.

3. Production value. Owlcat's Pathfinder games look, sound, and feel indie. Good gameplay is not everything, especially when you're trying to sell a game. Strategy games, for example, have a very hard time marketing how a game "feels," because they have nothing to show in the visual department.

4. Multiplayer is always a good selling point. You're often selling pairs of copies, if not triplets or quartets. Considering every sold copy exponentially increases your reach, you definitely want to sell 4 at once, if you can. The singleplayer Pathfinder games simply can't do that.

5. Gimmicks up the whazoo. Being able to pick up a goblin and hit another goblin with it is cool, and more importantly, novel. Environmental interaction, while gaining traction, is still oddly absent in the larger gaming landscape.

6. For the people who would even be inclinced to know that both games exist, 3.5E/Pathfinder 1E can be a bit of a turn off. It obviously has its super fans, but most of its zealous followers are those who played it 20 years ago. Once again, the gaming audience, both computer and tabletop, are exponentially larger these days, and any given DnD player is statiatically likely to be a 5E fan over any other edition.

TL;DR: Owlcat targeted a niche, whether intentionally or simply due to their indie budget. BG3, meanwhile, has at least 1 feature that will please anyone, whether they're a genre noob, genre veteran, social gamer, visual novel enthusiast, etc.

At the end of the day, only a tiny group of people cared if the game was "loyal" to a 20 year old game. Everyone else just cared if they could enjoy the game, and largely, they did.

[Dis Lexic]

I can give one major reason. Its already been bought up, but accessability is a very big reason why. You can go into Balders Gate and get a decent grasp on character creation based purely on your first impressions, but for Pathfinder? HAH, getting any idea of how to build anything functional requires either excessive trial and error or a 30 minute video per class.