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.

[LexingtonSeal]

To get back on topic, I think BG3 gets a lot more hype than WOTR because they suggest custom campaign mode in Patch 7.

Obviously that will give them the edge over WOTR and allow people to make something better than the thrash BG3 campaign - very easily.

As mentioned, I already have a sidequest devised that involves a terminally 'online' (in fantasy terms) loner/loser who stalks others in the city that he finds ‘attractive’ - but those he stalks are simply of normal ♥♥♥♥♥♥ inclinations, and this guy is a true and utter freak, utterly mad, zero social skills, mentally deficient and cannot stop hounding them.

I don’t want the story to be ‘black and white’ - as in, the crazeball should have obviously ‘relatable’ motives for his insidiousness: the player will be obliged to perhaps syphamtise with what it means to be a true and utter sexless loner: are they really evil, given that they’ve spent their lives in shame, and without human comfort? Or do they deserve death?

I’d hate for the fiction to be ‘straightforward’, but yes OP I do believe BG3 deserves the hype if Patch 7 custom campaign promises are anything to go on. Cheers, and I’m off to spend the rest of my night with my beautiful girlfriend, good luck

[Lord Adorable]

Diposting pertama kali oleh LexingtonSeal:

As mentioned, I already have a sidequest devised that involves a terminally online loner/loser who stalks others in the city that he finds ‘attractive’ - but those he stalks are simply of normal ♥♥♥♥♥♥ inclinations, and this guy is a true and utter freak, utterly mad, zero social skills, mentally deficient and cannot stop hounding them.

That.. would be a very weird mod/sidequest, if you ask me.

[Federicocap]

Diposting pertama kali oleh UIE First Citizen:

Diposting pertama kali oleh 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.

Soooooooo because they used the new system, instead of a decades old one, it is a middle finger to you? So, because there was an older system, it should be forbidden to make a game based on fifth edition? My god the entitlement some people have.

And take this coming from someone that liked D&D 3.5>5e...

BTW, BG1 AND BG2 did not use 3.5...

[Good Night Owl]

Because not everyone likes history. I do, but I haven't studied up on The War of The Roses just yet.

[Quillithe]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Federicocap:

Soooooooo because they used the new system, instead of a decades old one, it is a middle finger to you? So, because there was an older system, it should be forbidden to make a game based on fifth edition? My god the entitlement some people have.

And take this coming from someone that liked D&D 3.5>5e...

BTW, BG1 AND BG2 did not use 3.5...

Exactly, just realistically Baldur's Gate games (and really any big ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ D&D game) are going to use whatever the current ruleset is, like it or not.

I guess technically BG 2 came out a month after 3E but obviously that wasn't enough time - and even then they kinda worked a few feats into ToB as HLA I think.

Heck, they even got IWD2 to mostly use 3E in an engine absolutely not designed for it.

[kingonads]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Lord Adorable:

Diposting pertama kali oleh ♂GACHIGUS♂:

It's not the marketing, really. Larian and DnD are so much bigger than Owlcat and Pathfinder. I've never even heard of Pathfinder before I found the videogames. And the reputation of Kingmaker (the videogame) was that of an extremely janky unplayable mess on release (which it was), so I didn't even try the games out until WotR had an Enhanced Edition.

Also, BG3 is only called that for marketing purposes, it has nothing to do with BG1,2 other than a few butchered cameos. It didn't have to be a spiritual sequel to BG2, it had to be a good adaptation of the table-top game, which it is. And the gameplay resembles tabletop much more closely than BG2's gameplay does.

I agree though that Larian gets away with a lot of ♥♥♥♥♥♥ practices simply because their game is good and popular. But if CDPR got away with their abomination, no surprise that Larian gets a pass from the common denominator audience as well.

By this logic, Baldur's gate 2 shouldn't have been called Baldur's gate 2, since it didn't even have the titular city in it.

BG2 was called that because it continued the campaign of the characters from BG1. BG3 is only tied to BG1+2 if you play as the Dark Urge, which is a very thin shell of the Legacy of Bhaal story continued (poorly) from BG1.

[GrandMajora]

Diposting pertama kali oleh kingonads:

BG2 was called that because it continued the campaign of the characters from BG1. BG3 is only tied to BG1+2 if you play as the Dark Urge, which is a very thin shell of the Legacy of Bhaal story continued (poorly) from BG1.

^ This ^

BG2 was a direct sequel to BG1, even being able to import your character into the next game. While the Throne of Bhaal expansion wrapped up the Bhaalspawn's story with its ultimate conclusion.

BG3 has nothing to do with the first two games, aside from tossing in a few cameos.

It also, sadly, completely misses the point of what the Bhaalspawn were. Saerevok is a Bhaalspawn only by a technicality. His divine spark was stripped from him after his first death, rendering him a mere mortal now.

Not only that, but the Bhaalspawn were created specifically to ensure Bhaal's resurrection. Now that he's been resurrected, he has no need to create anymore of them. The Instinct even flat out tells you as much during one of your dream sequences:

"You were not born to replace! You are fuel for the return!"

[alanc9]

Yep. No point to Bhaalspawn anymore. The current state of the FR doesn't leave any space for a direct BG2 sequel. So we couldn't get one, and didn't get one.

OTOH, the Three are straight-up rerunning Sarevok's BG1 plan. Except doing a bit better with it.

[Hobocop]

Diposting pertama kali oleh alanc9:

Yep. No point to Bhaalspawn anymore. The current state of the FR doesn't leave any space for a direct BG2 sequel. So we couldn't get one, and didn't get one.

OTOH, the Three are straight-up rerunning Sarevok's BG1 plan. Except doing a bit better with it.

'BG3 has nothing to do with the first two games except follow a natural progression about what the Dead Three would plot now that Bhaal is back in the game'

I mean...

[Solar Field]

570,000 reviews, 96% positive.

BG3 is amazing and more importantly, accessible to a wider audience. It doesn't need to be perfect, it doesn't need to flatter your stupid ego / elitism either. It does very well what was intended from the start, which is to bring D&D to "everyone" (yeah cause despite what you "elite" might say, BG3 is still considered too complex by many).

You guys stuck in the past can cry all you want, it won't change the facts.
You're free to keep playing your old games though.

[GrandMajora]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Solar Field:

570,000 reviews, 96% positive.

BG3 is amazing and more importantly, accessible to a wider audience. It doesn't need to be perfect, it doesn't need to flatter your stupid ego / elitism either. It does very well what was intended from the start, which is to bring D&D to "everyone" (yeah cause despite what you "elite" might say, BG3 is still considered too complex by many).

You guys stuck in the past can cry all you want, it won't change the facts.
You're free to keep playing your old games though.

If by "bring D&D to everyone" - you ignore the fact D&D is going all in on being a digital platform from now on, and will require paid subscriptions and micro transactions for damn near everything.

[Quillithe]

Diposting pertama kali oleh GrandMajora:

Diposting pertama kali oleh Solar Field:

570,000 reviews, 96% positive.

BG3 is amazing and more importantly, accessible to a wider audience. It doesn't need to be perfect, it doesn't need to flatter your stupid ego / elitism either. It does very well what was intended from the start, which is to bring D&D to "everyone" (yeah cause despite what you "elite" might say, BG3 is still considered too complex by many).

You guys stuck in the past can cry all you want, it won't change the facts.
You're free to keep playing your old games though.

If by "bring D&D to everyone" - you ignore the fact D&D is going all in on being a digital platform from now on, and will require paid subscriptions and micro transactions for damn near everything.

I think they're just talking about BG3 and Larian's work and not the larger business plan of WotC

[Draknalor]

Diposting pertama kali oleh UIE First Citizen:

Diposting pertama kali oleh 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.

No voice acting, no play.

Back in the 2015 i read through the entire act 1 Vindictus story, but i just don't have that kind of time or patience any more

[♂Warrior of Gachi♂]

Diposting pertama kali oleh LexingtonSeal:

Diposting pertama kali oleh ♂GACHIGUS♂:

I find it so funny when someone who played for 25 hours is arguing with someone who played the game for 500+ hours.

Sure, mate, you know better. If you want to argue about something - at least experience that something first.

My mate got banned for responding to this dude by saying:

'You were asked simple questions. I predicted you'd avoid them, as they require evidence. Thanks.'

Yo Steam - it's called a normal response.

The guy avoided answering presenting evidence. You have to stop banning people over asking simple questions, just because they are not able to back themselves up.

I'm putting this one on Steam discussions.

He was banned for being an ass. And I doubt it was just that comment that got him banned.

And I don't have to explain the characters, their whole story and lore and development to prove something to a guy that hasn't even beaten the game but talks about it as if he knows everything.

[alanc9]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Draknalor:

Diposting pertama kali oleh UIE First Citizen:

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.

No voice acting, no play.

Back in the 2015 i read through the entire act 1 Vindictus story, but i just don't have that kind of time or patience any more

It's a little weird that this concept has to be explained to people. If full mocap and voice acting weren't valued by gamers, why would devs run up their budgets by paying for them?