Baldur's Gate III News

[Urdnot_Wrex]

Hi and welcome, nice of you to join us! Arvia? We have no Arvia here
But if you look closely, you might spot her in disguise, she's sneaky, sometimes even appears as a rather large reptiloid alien.

I'm admittedly not the best informed, we have people here who unlike me have actually played the Early Access, but until now I have seen no indication that acknowledges the existence of Gorion's Ward and their role in the past.
However, the new trailer from the Game Awards 4 days ago was actually the first time Jaheira and Minsc (and in fact any information on content past the chapter 1 playable in EA) were officially revealed, we don't have more information on that, but it might be possible there will be some Easter Eggs about their common past.

As for the Collector's Edition, it's true that their website confirms physical shipment only to a very limited selection of countries, so I assume your best bet would be contacting their customer service with that question. Asian market is big and they do have a studio in Kuala Lumpur, so it shouldn't be completely impossible.

 

[Antimatter]

Hey @Zaxares and welcome! I would agree that sending a message via https://larian.com/support would be the best bet. I heard they actively respond to questions about CEs.

As for the Gorion's Ward, the only confirmed bit we still have is the following (from their AMA ages ago):

Will there be any connection between the story of Baldurs gate 1/2/tob and Baldurs gate 3?

Swen: We really don’t want to spoil anything but we wouldn’t call it Baldur’s Gate 3 if there wouldn’t be a link. Let me just say that we touch upon the story of BG 1 & 2 in meaningful ways, there are returning characters and what happened in BG 1/2/TOB leads to what happens into BG3. You won’t necessarily see that at the start of the adventure but you will quickly understand once you get further into the game.

There are wild theories going strong in the BG3 community about the Gorion's Ward, including the Absolute (but I think it's unlikely the Absolute is the Gorion's Ward). Now with Jaheira and Minsc confirmed, we (as players) will 100% get options to ask them in the dialogue about the events of BG1/2/TOB. With so many symbols of the Dead Three around in BG3, and the fact we still don't know whom the Mindflayers really serve, there are lots of ways to connect the original game and BG3.

 

[m7600]

Arvia? We have no Arvia here
But if you look closely, you might spot her in disguise, she's sneaky, sometimes even appears as a rather large reptiloid alien.

Arvia can break people's hearts, but Urdnot Wrex can break their skulls

 

[Chronicler]

They can say what they want about the connections to BG1 and 2, given the years of complete radio silence about what, if anything it is about those games that they ever liked or would want to emulate, I don't expect anything more than shallow, surface level fanservice.

There will be some recurring names and faces. Maybe some reveal that Bhaal was involved in this somehow. But if we're looking for people who've ever asked themselves questions like "What makes Baldur's Gate fun?" then we need to look elsewhere.

 

[Urdnot_Wrex]

But if we're looking for people who've ever asked themselves questions like "What makes Baldur's Gate fun?" then we need to look elsewhere.

Please clarify, so that I can disagree with what you actually mean and not with what I interpret into your words.

 

[Chronicler]

Please clarify, so that I can disagree with what you actually mean and not with what I interpret into your words.

They seem to have a lot of thoughts on Dungeons and Dragons, and how they're gonna capture the experience of that in their game.

They don't seem to actually have any thoughts on Baldur's Gate as a distinct entity from Dungeons and Dragons.

It sounds like they're gonna make a very nice Dungeons and Dragons game, that will probably have some minor nods to fans of its predecessors, but ultimately it's an all new thing. We can love it as it is or we can not, but it's not gonna be anything else.

 

[Chronicler]

That being said, like I've stated, I'm still very excited to go on a new adventure with Jaheira and Minsc, even if it won't be like our previous adventures.

I think this is the sort of things Die Hard fans get super hung up on, that history tends to smooth over. Like how Wind Waker originally saw a lot of backlash for not matching the tone of previous Zelda games, but now it's a classic. I've seen some people say that we're already starting to see it with Siege of Dragonspear, which itself was a little mismatched from the game it was an expansion to, but people are starting to appreciate it for what it is.

 

[Urdnot_Wrex]

They seem to have a lot of thoughts on Dungeons and Dragons, and how they're gonna capture the experience of that in their game.

They don't seem to actually have any thoughts on Baldur's Gate as a distinct entity from Dungeons and Dragons.

It sounds like they're gonna make a very nice Dungeons and Dragons game, that will probably have some minor nods to fans of its predecessors, but ultimately it's an all new thing. We can love it as it is or we can not, but it's not gonna be anything else.

And is that a bad thing? The old Baldur's Gate series is 20 years old. Siege of Dragonspear is from 2016, but it's an interlude and therefore had to fit almost seamlessly.

"What makes Baldur's Gate fun?"

To me, that would have been the fact that it's a story that I can live through and influence instead of just reading it, a world to discover, well-written NPCs I can love or hate, a challenging combat system which remains interesting through all levels, complex lore, and the ability to surprise me with new things.

What makes it fun to me isn't the fact that Gorion's ward is the protagonist, that it's isometric and in the Infinity Engine, for example.

It's just not reasonable to expect a seamless sequel after so much time and with so many new technological possibilities. They should be allowed to leave their own mark on the game, to surprise us with something new, not to make a shallow imitation of appreciated but old games that will no longer draw new people.

I'm really looking forward to seeing how they have implemented Jaheira, how we will meet her somehow after the first chapter and she will introduce us to what's really going on in the world.

I don't know if people who wrote the story for Divinity: Original Sin 2 are involved in Baldur's Gate 3. The Divinity series shows that people working at Larian were capable of world building and story writing even when they were inventing it all from scratch including the gameplay mechanics, so I'm confident they will do a good job focusing on fleshing out the details now that they have a framework of lore and rules to build on.

I understand many people crave the comfort of something familiar, but I would prefer to be surprised with something new and unexpected.

 

[Chronicler]

And is that a bad thing? The old Baldur's Gate series is 20 years old. Siege of Dragonspear is from 2016, but it's an interlude and therefore had to fit almost seamlessly.

"What makes Baldur's Gate fun?"

To me, that would have been the fact that it's a story that I can live through and influence instead of just reading it, a world to discover, well-written NPCs I can love or hate, a challenging combat system which remains interesting through all levels, complex lore, and the ability to surprise me with new things.

What makes it fun to me isn't the fact that Gorion's ward is the protagonist, that it's isometric and in the Infinity Engine, for example.

It's just not reasonable to expect a seamless sequel after so much time and with so many new technological possibilities. They should be allowed to leave their own mark on the game, to surprise us with something new, not to make a shallow imitation of appreciated but old games that will no longer draw new people.

I'm really looking forward to seeing how they have implemented Jaheira, how we will meet her somehow after the first chapter and she will introduce us to what's really going on in the world.

I don't know if people who wrote the story for Divinity: Original Sin 2 are involved in Baldur's Gate 3. The Divinity series shows that people working at Larian were capable of world building and story writing even when they were inventing it all from scratch including the gameplay mechanics, so I'm confident they will do a good job focusing on fleshing out the details now that they have a framework of lore and rules to build on.

I understand many people crave the comfort of something familiar, but I would prefer to be surprised with something new and unexpected.

I mean, yeah, I think it kind of is a bad thing.

If you're making Baldur's Gate 3, then to a certain extent inherent in that is a sales pitch that you'll like this if you liked Baldur's Gate 1 or 2.

I'm not saying there's any one correct answer to a question like "What do people like about Baldur's Gate 1 and 2?", but for the developers to not have an answer to that at all is kind of a pretty immediate betrayal of that sales pitch.

 

[Chronicler]

In the same way that Batman may have originally had a heavy Zoro influence, but past a certain point in the development of the Batman brand, it became appropriate for new Batman creative teams to have thoughts on Batman itself, and not merely its influences. You're putting that name on the title to get Batman fans to buy it, and Batman fans have started to become an entity that exists somewhat independent of Zoro fans.

 

[Urdnot_Wrex]

We have had so much new and interesting information about BG3 these days, compared to the months before, and I hope the Panel From Hell tomorrow will add to that. Another class will be revealed, we can pick the trailer apart, we can speculate about the release date, about Jaheira and Minsc, why Boo wasn't in the trailer while he was in that short teaser with the statue, and see what else they have for us.
I'd be really happy not to see the discussion reduced to "it's not truly Baldur's Gate 3 because it doesn't respect the original games enough" again, because we've had years of that and it's going nowhere.

 

[Chronicler]

"It's not truly Baldur's Gate 3" is ultimately a silly semantic battle to fight. It by definition is Baldur's Gate 3. Anything it is becomes Baldur's Gate 3. 20 years from now it's quite likely that people will be complaining the newest Baldur's Gate game isn't enough like it.

You ask me if I list this one part of it as a pro or a con, I answer truthfully that I see it as a con, but it's not my intent to narrow the scope of the discussion, so that this one point overshadows all others.

 

[Antimatter]

I can share my own ideas about what makes Baldur's Gate fun a bit later, but for now, I wanted to provide some insight from the industry about this topic (as the topic will never go away, even after BG3 releases).

I'll start with this:

How BioWare’s ‘Baldur’s Gate’ Saved the Computer RPG

The genre-stretching game broke new narrative, technical, and gameplay ground and established the identity of one of the past two decades’ most storied video game studios

www.theringer.com

I recommend reading the article (if you haven't already) thoroughly. So BG became a bit more than just a game. It became an event. It was so big and impactful, that it almost became a household name. Saved western RPGs, implemented RTS mechanics into an RPG, and gained cult status.

The success of BG2 only increased the influence and the value of the name. Many developers and companies competed over the '00s and '10s for the chance to create a sequel.

Here I cannot but recall the story of Baldur's Gate III: The Black Hound, a planned video game by Black Isle Studios. The game had the original team, but even this original team didn't envision any connection to BG1 & BG2. The game was set to use a new 3D engine based on BioWare's Aurora Engine, which is hardly similar to the Infinity Engine. The game would not have been a sequel to Baldur's Gate II in terms of story, it did continue part of story of Icewind Dale II through joinable NPCs, specifically Maralie Fiddlebender, who would have been an adult in the story.

Other pitches for BG3 (Obsidian's and inXile's) also didn't have anything in common with BG1 & BG2. And the more time passed, the more different (compared to the original games) any pitch became.

Eventually, an obsession, or if you'd like - a dream - appeared for quite a few developers to create a sequel to BG2. But the sequel not in terms of story/gameplay. The sequel in terms of importance, role, and name in the industry. Not the type of name BG fans constantly bring up (e.g. "there can't be a BG game without a Bhaalspawn"). One of them was Swen Vinke. After the first Divinity: Original Sin, he flew to Seattle to pitch the idea of Larian making BG3 to Wizards of the Coast. They didn’t immediately buy it. Only later, after the success of the DOS 2 Kickstarter, its Early Access (that started in 2016), and initial sales estimations, WotC agreed.

I need to say this dates back even to Dragon Age: Origins. When it was released, a lot of players, developers & journalists essentially called it "BG, but in 3D". The game had nothing to do with BG2, but yet everyone felt like that. That happened in 2009. Between 2009 and 2016, the desire to create a sequel to BG3 (again, in this particular context) only increased.

So it never was about continuing the story from BG2, or creating a game that "felt" like the original Baldur's Gate. Maybe if Siege of Dragonspear was greeted differently, and if its developers were chosen for the product, BG3 would have been exactly that - a game heavily inspired by the original games, looking and playing almost similarly. But that would have been only due to those developers' vision AND the fact they spent so much time working on the remasters & essentially an expansion to BG1. Another option hypothetically could be Owlcat Games (I'm saying that looking at the Pathfinder games, their camera, gameplay, etc), but that company was founded only in 2016 (the time when Vinke already pitched BG3 to WotC), and started working based on the Pathfinder license, a direct competitor to DnD, so Owlcat was never a choice.

Others - and here I mean Black Isle Studios, then Obsidian, inXile, and Larian - never really wanted to do just that. They wanted to create THE game, THE RPG. So that there could potentially be an article at one point saying how BG3 revolutionized the genre.

Why is it like that? The main reason is that a lot of years have passed. And these are completely different people, different times, and different technologies. I guess, a reasonable question can be asked: why did they want to call the game BG3 if the reality is that they wanted to create a spiritual successor, not a true sequel? The answer will depend on who you ask. The DnD rightsholder would reply the games were called "Baldur's Gate" and that refers to a city in their setting, they weren't called "Bhaal/Bhaalspawn" etc. Larian people would reply the game would still carry on something from those original games. In the same AMA, Swen responded, for example:

And finally, less specifically about what has been seen so far: What makes Baldur's Gate for you, personally? What are its qualities that resonate with you?

Swen: I replayed BG1 & 2 when we started on this and the same things that stood out back then still stand out today: The sense of being on an epic quest with a party of interesting companions which I need to keep happy, the promise that there’s something to be discovered everywhere I go, the sense that I’m someone special in this world and make a difference and a lot of “oh that’s cool”. I think I appreciated it even more now than I did back in the days.

Who benefited from this idea/approach? I guess, the whole gaming community. Instead of just copying the game formula from 3, 6, 10, and 16 (numbers are a bit liberal, but they refer to different years related to BG3 pitches) years ago, this current BG3 is an attempt to create something else. The fact that it has so much in common with DOS 2 is not a surprise. After all, The Black Hound would have had a lot in common with NWN and IWD2 just because of the developers who worked on it. It's the standard. And yet, BG3 approaches so many things differently from DOS 2.

Who got screwed by this idea/approach? From what I'm seeing, the hardcore fans of the original games (plus also a group of those who didn't really like DOS games). Those players of the original games whose "headcanon" for "a BG3 project" was set in stone. But this expectation NEVER followed what actually happened in the industry. This expectation COULD turn true only if the developers' vision was aligned with that.

Will BG3 revolutionize the genre? Will it live up to expectations? We'll see. I just wanted to provide a bit of context regarding the title.

 

[Chronicler]

etc. Larian people would reply the game would still carry on something from those original games. In the same AMA, Swen responded, for example:

And finally, less specifically about what has been seen so far: What makes Baldur's Gate for you, personally? What are its qualities that resonate with you?

Swen: I replayed BG1 & 2 when we started on this and the same things that stood out back then still stand out today: The sense of being on an epic quest with a party of interesting companions which I need to keep happy, the promise that there’s something to be discovered everywhere I go, the sense that I’m someone special in this world and make a difference and a lot of “oh that’s cool”. I think I appreciated it even more now than I did back in the days.

That actually increases my faith in this product a lot. I recind what I said about the surface level fanservice.

I wanna be clear, I haven't been asking for anything crazy here. Obviously they're their own artists with their own creative voices. Obviously anything they carry through will have their own spin on it. Obviously it will bear some resemblance to their previous work which got them this job.

I'm just a fan of Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 that's been waiting to hear why that means I should be interested in three. Seemed like there was radio silence on that topic for a long time. Eventually I stopped keeping up with the news because that was frustrating me. But this quote is exactly what I was saying they hadn't done, in terms of saying something they liked about the first games, asking questions like "What makes those games fun" and stuff.

 

[Zaxares]

Hey @Zaxares and welcome! I would agree that sending a message via https://larian.com/support would be the best bet. I heard they actively respond to questions about CEs.

As for the Gorion's Ward, the only confirmed bit we still have is the following (from their AMA ages ago):

Will there be any connection between the story of Baldurs gate 1/2/tob and Baldurs gate 3?

Swen: We really don’t want to spoil anything but we wouldn’t call it Baldur’s Gate 3 if there wouldn’t be a link. Let me just say that we touch upon the story of BG 1 & 2 in meaningful ways, there are returning characters and what happened in BG 1/2/TOB leads to what happens into BG3. You won’t necessarily see that at the start of the adventure but you will quickly understand once you get further into the game.

There are wild theories going strong in the BG3 community about the Gorion's Ward, including the Absolute (but I think it's unlikely the Absolute is the Gorion's Ward). Now with Jaheira and Minsc confirmed, we (as players) will 100% get options to ask them in the dialogue about the events of BG1/2/TOB. With so many symbols of the Dead Three around in BG3, and the fact we still don't know whom the Mindflayers really serve, there are lots of ways to connect the original game and BG3.

Thanks for the link! I've sent a message via their Support form, although it seems more designed for technical support than general questions, but fingers crossed they'll get back to me. I actually left some posts on their official forum, but there hasn't been any replies so far and I'm not sure how often/thoroughly Larian checks their forums.

I actually wouldn't expect Gorion's Ward to play an integral part in the BG3 story at all. As far as I'm concerned, the tale of the Bhaalspawn was concluded at the end of ToB; BG3 is now the story of the new protagonist (do they have a name/title that we refer to them with yet?). I'd be content with just some way of customizing dialogue/responses in the game to reflect who our old character was. The way I was envisioning it was we could have Volo start to tell a tale of the canonical Ward (aka Abdel Adrian) in the camp, and then we get an opportunity to pipe up and go "Hang on, that's not what I heard!" And then we can flesh out some basic details like their race, class, alignment etc. that can be reflected in the occasional in-game text or dialogue.

 

[BelgarathMTH]

So, my own unanswered question at this point is "Whatever happened to that promise we got way back that there would be good aligned origin companions?"

While I would enjoy seeing Jaheira and Minsc again, I feel strong distaste for the cast of companions introduced, and it looks to me like those originals that you see in the logo are what we are going to get, with any other companions being available after Act I, if at all (not counting the Minsc and Jaheira tease).

A githyanki frontline fighter is okay. Wizard who might explode, maybe. Guy with a succubus attached is starting to make me uncomfortable. But there is no way in heck I am going to play a game in a party with a cleric of Shar and a vampire. So where do I get a cleric and a thief if I don't play those roles myself?

They've made it look like you have to make a deal with a devil to resolve the main plot. At that point, any D&D character I would play would be considering some kind of honor suicide to stop the tadpole inside from becoming a mind flayer, without needing to deal with devils. Game over for me before the end of Act I.

Part of the appeal of original BG for me was the huge cast of potential companions of varied alignments, classes and backgrounds. That was also part of its replayability for me. I just don't see the same being true for BG3. I wonder if maybe writing fully voice-acted companions with story arcs precludes having too many of them? I could see where it would.

I've expressed all these reservations many times before to the people here, so it's really nothing new from me. I think the answer to my own questions has likely got to be, "This game just isn't marketed to people with your tastes in games, Belgarath." And I'm fine with that. I definitely don't want to rain on the parade for all the people who are excited, and I won't keep repeating myself after this.

The main point of my post is just that I'd be interested in reading anything that's been said by Sven or another developer about anything in BG3 for players who like to roleplay on the side of good.

 

[Chronicler]

It does kind of look to be a continuation of a trend with these kinds of games. We get smaller parties with fewer companions to choose from.

It was already in force in the transition between BG1 and BG2. BG2 gave each companion much more writing, which meant they had to massively shrink the pool you could choose from.

But then later games pushed it even further. Dragon Age Origins for example gives you even fewer companions than that, with even more elaborate amounts of writing for each character. Want a bow user? Hope you like Leliana.

Larian's whole Origins System, where each companion is potentially the main character with a bunch of extra writing for their unique viewpoint, sounds prohibitively expansive, nine months from release and half the classes aren't even covered.

From what I've been reading, how they get around this is that each class is much more versatile in 5e. There are a lot of situations where you can use a ranger to do what your thief would've done, or a bard to do what your fighter would've done, so on and so forth. So the traditional "balanced party" structure of warrior, thief, priest, wizard, starts to fall apart here in favour of something more flexible that doesn't bind you to take the single thief companion with you every time.

 

[BelgarathMTH]

It does kind of look to be a continuation of a trend with these kinds of games. We get smaller parties with fewer companions to choose from.

It was already in force in the transition between BG1 and BG2. BG2 gave each companion much more writing, which meant they had to massively shrink the pool you could choose from.

But then later games pushed it even further. Dragon Age Origins for example gives you even fewer companions than that, with even more elaborate amounts of writing for each character. Want a bow user? Hope you like Leliana.

Larian's whole Origins System, where each companion is potentially the main character with a bunch of extra writing for their unique viewpoint, sounds prohibitively expansive, nine months from release and half the classes aren't even covered.

From what I've been reading, how they get around this is that each class is much more versatile in 5e. There are a lot of situations where you can use a ranger to do what your thief would've done, or a bard to do what your fighter would've done, so on and so forth. So the traditional "balanced party" structure of warrior, thief, priest, wizard, starts to fall apart here in favour of something more flexible that doesn't bind you to take the single thief companion with you every time.

You make interesting points about the trends, Chronicler. It's the classic four-role party system in part that made me fall in love with D&D. There's something about that idea of the balanced team of four where each person plays a critical role in the success of the party, with maybe two others who provide extra support and backup, that really clicks for me.

Maybe in the end for me, I'm just not going to be willing to adjust to the 5th edition "Everybody can do everything" mentality. I feel like the stereotype of the old man yelling "Get off my lawn, you stupid kids!", but I may be hopelessly stuck in a 2nd edition mindset, because I'm at home and happy there.

And that's a me thing. I can still be happy for everybody else (mostly younger people?) who are having fun with the new ways.

 

[Chronicler]

Nah, I definitely feel like that a lot of the time. Not about this particular issue, but the world changes so fast, and so much of it I can't help but think the new ways are not the best ways.

Like that autobattling shit I was talking about in the Industry News thread. It's pretty clear that for a generation of gamers, this is the new normal. We should expect our games to play themselves and be glad for the privilege of skipping over the tedium that is the actual game. It's ultimately harmless. Endemic of no greater social ill except perhaps bad game design. And if the kids are having fun I can't honestly say it's some injustice that the Pokemon Franchise is no longer for me at this stage in my life, like I haven't been the target demographic in probably 20 years. Still all seems very strange to me.

 

[Antimatter]

@BelgarathMTH I think the actual issue is the communication, or rather, the lack of it, from Larian. There are a few theories I have:

- The game actually has more companions, even in Act 1 (thus, they said even seasoned Early Access players will make a lot of discoveries when playing Act 1 after the game releases); But they can't talk about them as they want to leave it for the main release;
- Alignment is not a fixed status; You'll be able to influence your companions substantially; For example, Skyrim has Serana, a vampire NPC--but the player can influence her so much that she'll abandon the vampire status totally; From what I've seen, BG3 is not a black & white game, and most likely, the relationship you'll create with your companions will be deep;
- Some of those companions that are known are actually good; there are fan theories that Shadowheart is actually a cleric of Selune, not Shar, and she's under the spell that she forgot her previous life; again, due to interacting with the player and because of the player agency, she'll be able to rediscover her true self.

@Zaxares What a neat way to solve that issue! If they really pull out a trick like that in-game and allow you a few dialogue options where you can describe the events of the original games, at least partially, that would be cool!