I wonder what BioWare is currently thinking...

[Zeromus]

Dragon Age Origins was marketed as the spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate, and as a result, it did well. All BioWare needed to do is perfect the already winning formula. They didn't. Instead, they ran away from it and became increasingly more like Mass Effect.

Then Baldur's Gate 3 comes out and does very, very well and I'm wondering what BioWare is currently thinking seeing Larian's success that resumed a winning formula that BioWare abandoned.

[Holy Fool Sehrael]

Grating their teeth at their incompetence. On one side, stuff has to move on to new things at some point as any average person would get sick eating potatoes for years without break, on the other side it's sad that they think that having lots of character customization options, but hyperaction-gameplay (Overexaggerated) with 3 (Three) skills could be justified being called an RPG.

[skullymex]

BG3 is turn based though... it doesn't play like the old games at all.

[rpgchoices]

Originally posted by Zeromus:

Dragon Age Origins was marketed as the spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate, and as a result, it did well. All BioWare needed to do is perfect the already winning formula. They didn't. Instead, they ran away from it and became increasingly more like Mass Effect.

Then Baldur's Gate 3 comes out and does very, very well and I'm wondering what BioWare is currently thinking seeing Larian's success that resumed a winning formula that BioWare abandoned.

BG3 is very different from Dragon Age tho. BG3 is more of a successor of Divinity games and does not in my opinion hold much to th BG1+BG2 a part from the setting, some characters and plot points. Still BG3 is similar to DOS games with all the pro and cons: exceptional combat, great enviroment interactions and ways to solve quests in alternative ways, it is a DnD campaign. It takes a bit less humor and adds deeper romances, but among the cons it also inherit the lack of interactions of characters between each other's and a big disregard for the lore.

DA is more companions based. While in BG3 you recruit the companions and they accompany you, the feeling of DA has always been of forming an actual group. BG3 only has one scene where the companions actually interact (cut scenes), while these are pretty common in DA, with also more banter between them. DA is also very very lore focused as well. The combat is just an evolution of DA2 and DAI and even if I prefer the old DAO combat we all knew the DA games were going in that direction.

[ObsidianButterfly]

Originally posted by rpgchoices:

DA is more companions based. While in BG3 you recruit the companions and they accompany you, the feeling of DA has always been of forming an actual group. BG3 only has one scene where the companions actually interact (cut scenes), while these are pretty common in DA, with also more banter between them. DA is also very very lore focused as well. The combat is just an evolution of DA2 and DAI and even if I prefer the old DAO combat we all knew the DA games were going in that direction.

This entire paragraph shows you didn't actually play BG3. The Companions aren't just followers. They are a group of people brought together out of fear of rapidly approaching death, that learn and grow in the their philosophies and wants as the game progresses. They all have their own goals that you can help or deny, even having them betray you if you go too far. They banter among each other when wandering the maps and you can see them growing in their trust and friendship during those dialogues. By the end of the game, they aren't just your followers; they are your family.

And of course, that is just ONE of the possibilities. You think Bioware is going to let you kill companions because you hate them or their beliefs are stupid or you just want to go it alone as a murder hobo? You think Bioware is going to give you the option to shape the narrative in your own way?

Not a chance.

[hexnessie]

I'll tell you what they are thinking. They are enjoying the free traffic on this forum and the game getting boosted in search results everywhere as people like you get increasingly frenzied about it.

DA is not BG. Let it go.

[Zeromus]

Originally posted by hexnessie:

DA is not BG. Let it go.

No one said it was. To "let it go" is to assume I have a horse in this race. I do not. I just wanted to start a thread where "woke" or "anti-woke" wasn't in it.

[Shadow♥]

Originally posted by Namethatworks:

Originally posted by ObsidianButterfly:

This entire paragraph shows you didn't actually play BG3. The Companions aren't just followers. They are a group of people brought together out of fear of rapidly approaching death, that learn and grow in the their philosophies and wants as the game progresses. They all have their own goals that you can help or deny, even having them betray you if you go too far. They banter among each other when wandering the maps and you can see them growing in their trust and friendship during those dialogues. By the end of the game, they aren't just your followers; they are your family.

And of course, that is just ONE of the possibilities. You think Bioware is going to let you kill companions because you hate them or their beliefs are stupid or you just want to go it alone as a murder hobo? You think Bioware is going to give you the option to shape the narrative in your own way?

Not a chance.

They've said you won't be able to choose to not recruit and/or kill any of the companions...

They also , if I remember correctly, said that you can by your actions cause the companions to be injured or lost which i would assume means if you are a horrible leader and make bad choices you can get them killed.

[ThotsBContagious]

Originally posted by Shadow♥:

Originally posted by Namethatworks:

They've said you won't be able to choose to not recruit and/or kill any of the companions...

They also , if I remember correctly, said that you can by your actions cause the companions to be injured or lost which i would assume means if you are a horrible leader and make bad choices you can get them killed.

honestly at this point .. a x-com style of companions seems better.. cause these default ones look horrid.

I would of preferred harding in inquisition not whatever this is.

[Matticus]

Originally posted by Zeromus:

Dragon Age Origins was marketed as the spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate, and as a result, it did well. All BioWare needed to do is perfect the already winning formula. They didn't. Instead, they ran away from it and became increasingly more like Mass Effect.

Then Baldur's Gate 3 comes out and does very, very well and I'm wondering what BioWare is currently thinking seeing Larian's success that resumed a winning formula that BioWare abandoned.

BG2 and BG3 are not that similar.

[Ka-mai19]

For me the problem is that EA ruined BioWare by both limiting their freedom of creation and also forcing them to add things like MTX and multiplayer modes.

Larian has the benefit of having a great guy with a clear vision running the studio.

[rpgchoices]

Originally posted by ObsidianButterfly:

Originally posted by rpgchoices:

DA is more companions based. While in BG3 you recruit the companions and they accompany you, the feeling of DA has always been of forming an actual group. BG3 only has one scene where the companions actually interact (cut scenes), while these are pretty common in DA, with also more banter between them. DA is also very very lore focused as well. The combat is just an evolution of DA2 and DAI and even if I prefer the old DAO combat we all knew the DA games were going in that direction.

This entire paragraph shows you didn't actually play BG3. The Companions aren't just followers. They are a group of people brought together out of fear of rapidly approaching death, that learn and grow in the their philosophies and wants as the game progresses. They all have their own goals that you can help or deny, even having them betray you if you go too far. They banter among each other when wandering the maps and you can see them growing in their trust and friendship during those dialogues. By the end of the game, they aren't just your followers; they are your family.

And of course, that is just ONE of the possibilities. You think Bioware is going to let you kill companions because you hate them or their beliefs are stupid or you just want to go it alone as a murder hobo? You think Bioware is going to give you the option to shape the narrative in your own way?

Not a chance.

I played multiple times and read the datamined files lol. Can you showcase for me how the companions relationships progress with each other's? Through scenes and banter? There is no time tag for banters which means that if you never (let's say) keep Gale and Astarion together in the party since act 3 you will start from the very antagonistic banter. The banter also has no progression, it remained relatively vague. For example I collected all Wyll and Astarion banter (I ship them, what can I say) and there's only a few pieces that show evolution of relationship and they only happens if you romance Astarion.

Bioware is not going to kill you companions because their games are more story based than "open sandbox" like BG3. BG3 is based on the idea that you're in a DnD game and you can interact with the world to a maximum degree.
Dragon Age games are literally not that. You're following a story with certain branching and paths.

I have not played the recent patches (1 patch tho I think) in BG3 but the endings are literally "everything is good". Even their ascended astarion ending which was supposed to be a tragic confirmation of the cycle of violence has become "it's okay! Look at what romance!". Larian literally changed Tav's expression during the kisses to make them less terrified because fans were protesting.... This is sandbox, not story oriented.

Many companions will have the same happy ending even if you don't do their personal quests.

And I'm talking as a fan of BG3.

[ArcaneSyntax]

Originally posted by Marshall of the Templars:

With the October 31 release date, some concerned devs are probably bemoaning the giant missed opportunity of Veilguard not getting into a publicly available 3 year early access period like BG3.

I would put actual money on Dragon Age having better performance and being less buggy than BG3 was at launch.

[rpgchoices]

Originally posted by ArcaneSyntax:

Originally posted by Marshall of the Templars:

With the October 31 release date, some concerned devs are probably bemoaning the giant missed opportunity of Veilguard not getting into a publicly available 3 year early access period like BG3.

I would put actual money on Dragon Age having better performance and being less buggy than BG3 was at launch.

Not only that but BG3 at launch actually missed content. I love BG3, a lot, but I almost uninstalled it immediately when I finished it. Nobody remembers the absolute shock of the low res ending and rushed no consequences last few minutes?

[rpgchoices]

Originally posted by alex010300:

To be fair nobody really expected BG3 to do so well when it first came out.

People started buying it when they found out of was woke actually. Diversity helps.

[Matticus]

Originally posted by alex010300:

Originally posted by rpgchoices:

People started buying it when they found out of was woke actually. Diversity helps.

Nope, they got it because they are D&D players which is a huge factor because the latest D&D rules is very very terrible bad.

D&D kinda had a cultural surge with the movie, critical role, Stranger Things.

BG3 came out at a good time hype wise for D&D to be at a high point, that and it being a very good game help sell big on release.