132
Baldur’s Gate 3 lead says Wizards of the Coast “is not to blame” for new direction
(www.pcgamesn.com)
this post was submitted on 23 Mar 2024
132 points (97.1% liked)
PC Gaming
8386 readers
322 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I mean, why wouldn't they go back to their own IP they have 100% control over?
The chance to make BG3 was obviously worth it, but Larian doesn't need DnD to make video games.
And honestly I'm happy they're not making bg4 next. But I hope a decade from now they do. These games aren't CoD, we dont need to crank out sequels immediately.
I wouldn't have bought BG3 if it weren't for D&D, but you're right, after how awesome that game was, I'll definitely buy whatever they make next.
The Divinity games they made before this were wildly popular and have a lot of the same things that made bg3 popular.
If you have played Divinity 2 yeah, scoop it up on the next sale
It's worth clarifying that it's the Divinity: Original Sin games that are similar style CRPGs, and I'm assuming you mean Original Sin 2.
There is a game called Divinity 2, but it's wildly different (I still love it though)
Divinity 2 is completely awesome. The humor is just 👌 Original Sin 2 is just amazing.
I haven't played a lot of Divinity but I will say the DnD character creator is much more interesting to me then the skill system in Divinity. I don't know if Divinity's skill systems gets better as it goes, but BG3 starts out with a lot of really interesting classes and choices.
It's been a while, but I'd say Divinity is even deeper from memory.
DND seems like a lot of choices because you need to decide which class/subclass your take, and while you can multi class, it gets real confusing.
In Divinity everyone levels up the same and gets the same amount of upgrade points, you can just do whatever.
You don't need to min/max multiclass to make sure you're maximizing feats or crazy stuff. You just use your points to get what you want.
So, in ways simpler, but in other ways more complex.
DnD locks them down, which may be why they're moving away from it.
Speaking of it, both Original Sin 1 and 2 are currently on sale on GOG, super cheap:
I bought BG3 because Larian was doing it. I absolutely loved the Divinity games and knew they made quality products. It was cool to see a D&D game done so well but that was not the main selling point. I do hope that they revisit D&D one day to do a Ravenloft setting but I’m probably just dreaming.
Hell, CoD would probably also be a better franchise if there weren't new versions so often.
A smart company would acknowledge that they needed the outside expertise to be so successful and not shoot themselves in the foot by assuming they wil get the same results in house. [Edit: I am saying WotC needs to acknowledge they need Larian's expertise]
I also like it when they let a game of this scooe with a lot of replayability stick around for years before cranking out the next one. That gives time for replays to experience the alternate choices and for modding to be added so the community can expand as well.
Edit: apparently I read this backwards as WotC taking 100% of their DnD Ip back from Larian. Probably misread it so due to the context of WotC taking control over the desktop setting.
They piggybacked off the success of dos2 which was a better game anyways. Sure, theyll lose the dnd fans that play solely for the familiar IP, but theyve gained enough name recognition to be massively successful on their own. Just keep making good games like From Soft & that's all they need.
Honestly I disagree that dos2 was better I think bg3 was much more intricate with skills abilities and playstyles than dos2 was
Agree. DOS' elemental surface effects was cool, but having to deal with it all the time got old. Even more so with necrofire. I'm really hoping DOS3 learn something from BG3's more conservative usage of surface effects.
You mean they need WotC's expertise to handle D&D 5E properly? Or to make a good game?
As far as the former... I think that the partnership was a major factor in BG3's success, but I expect it has more to do with the D&D brand and BG nostalgia, than any virtues of the 5E system. Maybe WotC's contributions to worldbuilding and lore helped... Larian are of course good at that in their own right, but there's a whole Forgotten Realms canon to navigate. (I don't actually know what WotC contributed in that regard, mind you)
In the case of the latter... The Divinity system is pretty heckin good, and in many ways a better CRPG system than any edition of D&D. Larian ARE experts at making really solid CRPGs, after all. The Divinity series is perhaps the most successful ever, maybe now behind BG3... So returning to their own IP would not be shooting themselves in the foot by any stretch, IMO. More like trading one kind of overwhelming success for a different kind of overwhelming success.
I read it as WotC taking back their IP and was saying WotC did not recognize that they needed Larian's expertise. So, opposite of that.
Oh. I think OP meant Larian returning to their own IP (maybe Divinity). AFAICT, it was Larian's decision to not continue with the D&D IP, not WotC taking it back. But I might have that wrong.
Just saw your edits-- I see what's going on now :)
What outside expertise? Hasbro contributed nothing except the IP, and the team at Hasbro that actually worked on BG3 has all been laid off anyway.
Hasbro needed Larian's expertise.
Right, makes more sense with your edits
Yeah, I shouldn't responded to a post that didn't name who was who with a reply that didn't name who was who.
I thought WotC was the one who dropped Larian, not the other way around.
WotC were the ones who needed to contract an outside developer. Larian obviously needed their help to develop a D&D game specifically to get the details right, but they're quite capable of making a good game without them, that's how they got the licence in the first place.
That is what I was saying, guess I read the OP wrong.
No worries, happens to everyone on occasion.