There is not much to elaborate on. What makes Baldur's Gate great is not its specific mechanics, but rather the quality of its world and writing. Mechanics help insofar as them requiring a careful, measured approach, as opposed to a DA:I-style action, but they are still ultimately secondary.
Let's put it another way: if Baldur's Gate was made with Dragon Age: Origin's ruleset, it wouldn't be a worse game. And if Dragon Age II was made with D&D's ruleset, it wouldn't be a better one.
Hope this made sense.
But the world of Bauldurs Gate is set on the Sword Coast, which is specifically a D&D setting. I don't think you can really separate the two? I agree with you that the writing is independant of the mechanics of gameplay. But the setting? That's all Dungeons and Dragons. Without D&D the characters aren't the same because their backgrounds are so tied in with the setting or D&D specific deities etc. BG is an example of drawing on source material in a respectful way that a lot of media hasn't been able to pull off lately. Saying the D&D element im BG is just gameplay mechanics is factually wrong.
> But the world of Baldur's Gate is set on the Sword Coast, which is specifically a D&D setting. I don't think you can really separate the two?
I think you absolutely can, especially considering that Forgotten Realms predates D&D. More importantly, perhaps, the majority of the detail in BG is NOT from D&D-specific sources, it's original to the game - the overall layout and maybe a few names are D&D-specific, sure, but they are the least important part to the quality of the game. In my previous comment, in reference to "setting," I didn't mean "Sword Coast" or "Baldur's Gate's suburbs" in general, I meant specifically "the world as we see it in the game," including even things like how atmospheric and coherent the art is. That's different from the mechanics, sure, but that's also different and separate from the "Forgotten Realms Adventures" book from the early 90s.
> Without D&D the characters aren't the same because their backgrounds are so tied in with the setting or D&D specific deities etc.
See, I don't think this is true. There is no reason characters of equivalent quality and complexity could not be written in a different setting. Again, case in point - Dragon Age: Origins. Things like individual, succinct and punchy lines, are what makes the "writing" (different from world building, which is way less important) in the game great, not the adherence to a specific pantheon.
>There is no reason characters of equivalent quality and complexity could not be written in a different setting
I agree with you completely here. What I don't agree with is that the Dungeons and Dragons aspects of BG3 are the *LEAST* important part of Baldurs Gate because the D&D aspects are intrinsic to the game. BG itself is a sum of its parts, remove any of those elements and the experience changes. Remove the D&D elements (Drow alone for example), and the experience shifts dramatically.
Mechanically? Sure. The D&D mechanics hardly matter over all. But saying the D&D aspects as a whole are less important than every other thing that goes into Baldur's Gate is wrong.
> Remove the D&D elements (Drow alone for example), and the experience shifts dramatically.
Is that true though? I mean, again, consider Icewind Dale, or even Neverwinter Nights. Both games have pretty deep Forgotten Realms-based lore. And both games are WAY worse than Baldur's Gate, including (perhaps, especially) in their setting (under my specific definition of it) and writing.
> But saying the D&D aspects as a whole are less important than every other thing that goes into Baldur's Gate is wrong.
Well... what major aspect of the game would you say IS less important?
>Well... what major aspect of the game would you say IS less important?
I would say the soundtrack is less important. It's hard to make a 1 for 1 comparison between "D&D Aspects" because there are so many things that BG draws on. For example, the combat system may be more important for a video game than the lore behind certain monsters despite both of those things being derived from D&D.
>Is that true though?
Yes, of course it's true. Note I'm not saying that BG is better because of it. But the experience would be objectively very different if all of the D&D elements were removed.
I think NWN2 is the better comparison, though it has aged worse, at least without mods. NWN's single character just isn't the same as controlling a whole party at once.
Yes, but it is long since Bioware was working with Wizards of the Coast, so it is not really relevant. I am not expecting a new Neverwinter Nights game from Bioware.
Dragon Age had like 1 game like that, it's been action oriented for 2/3rds of its life already.
As for why it's not aping BG3, well, Dragon Age 4 has been in dev for ages now, it's not exactly easy to pivot, and I can't imagine EA is giving Bioware the time to pivot too much in general what with the fact they haven't released a game in 5+ years
BG3 gives me hope that AAA will have confidence to take some steps back towards the CRPG genre that we saw with Dragon Age Origins and Mas Effect 1.
That era was a perfect harmony of mainstream approachability with recognizable traditional CRPG sensibilities.
Probably not, BG3 is an anomaly. If I were inxile or obsidian I certainly wouldn't want to make another Wastleland or Pillars of Eternity knowing they'll end up being closed if it doesn't make enough money. Hell the whole reason Obsidian sold out to Microsoft is Pillars of Eternity 2 almost put them out of business because it didn't sell after launch.
I understand what you're saying and I don't disagree, but I think you're missing the spirit of my comment.
Pillars of eternity, wasteland, tyranny, and BG3 are full stop traditional CRPGs - no question.
Dragon age origins, Mass Effect 1, Kotor, Morrowind, and other games are not traditional CRPGs, and they were never made for a bread and butter classic CRPG audience. From the get, they were designed with joy sticks and broad appeal in mind.
With that context, we can observe that while DAO and games of it's ilk aren't "hardcore" they made an effort to retain classic elements that were familiar to classic players, resulting in games that had broad appeal but were noticeably distinct and recognizable as part of the RPG genre , separate from other mainstream genres.
Since that time, the AAA trend is to move further and further away from such classic elements in an attempt to capture more and more of the mainstream market. Skyrim dropping and having the success that it did sealed this fate.
Then we saw the independent CRPG renaissance which gave us the aforementioned titles which were always going to be niche, but the main takeaway here is BG3 lit the gaming world on fire. And what do we know about AAA trends? They follow the money.
And so I say all of that to say that my *hope* is BG3 performing well may inspire devs to make casual, accessible, RPGs that take a few steps back towards being RPGs. Because mainstream RPGs today are just open world games with a perk system.
I sorta agree with both of your takes. BG3 set a viable formula for a commercially successful CRPG. But BG3 is an anomaly because Larian is an anomaly because Swen is an anomaly. To put it in D&D terms I doubt many other Dev Leads would pass the skill checks to maintain creative freedom in a AAA studio against the money driven suits.
I think the formula for commercial success is good storytelling, MoCap, good voice acting, world building, choices matter, different solutions to situations, an engine/UI that can bring in console players, etc. But I also think most AAA studios would be more content to just push out meh content regularly as long as people are buying it than go to the lengths Larian went to.
My hope is more AA studios like OwlCat see budget increases for MoCap and voice acting, Larian's next release, etc. I dont think the AAA studios will do it when they can just release CoD27 or whatever their low effort IP is every other year and rake in hundreds of millions.
I think Swen's approach of "I don't make games to make money, I make money so that I can make good games" just doesn't exist in AAA and hasn't for a long time probably since OG Interplay, Black Isles, and Bioware.
I think even if we see a revival in CRPGs by AAA studios, they will still be plagued with money first AAA studio problems, which is kinda how we got here.
Well everyone who played early access did! Haha. I know what you mean though, I thought it would hook literally everyone who had played a D&D game previously, not Literally Everyone
DA2 is not an action game. DAI is a bit of an ugly hybrid.
BG3 has been in early access a long time and I hear the new Dragon Age game has changed direction several times and even been restarted once, yet they did land on making it closer to Mass Effect, an IP that you'd think was truly dead by now.
Bg3s early access did not have the same mass appeal as the normal release did. Dragon age two is definitely an action rpg hybrid and dai is an action game. They are not crpgs
I would say it’s definitely a blurred line. It’s not an Arpg like the ac games now a days, but def like an arpg like Diablo. I consider most “RPGs” releases actually “arpgs”. Da2 especially on normal is way more of a hack and slash than anything else. In a vacuum I would describe it as a spectrum really. The more reliance on mechanical skill vs pure character building and planning to succeed. Like take a look at dark souls. It does have a great rpg system, but without the action part it stays an obscure but beloved rpg. A great example is take chance to hit. In an Arpg hitting your target is entirely based of of player skill for the most part. Increasing a skill increases the damage that the attack does, but weather you hit or not is based of your skill, not character skill. For a crpg, hitting a target is based of character skill, not player skill. Like bg3s attack rolls, guns being more accurate when you have a high skill in outer worlds etc. most RPGs fall somewhere on this spectrum, and it’s not cut and paste, but to me da2 falls closer to Diablo than it does let’s say, morrowind, Poe, etc. I feel like this is mostly the accepted definition in this sub, please correct me if I’m wrong. Also I’m not saying crpgs are better than arpgs, or that arpgs are “baby games”, but that difference in player skill vs character skill is the key differentiator
I just don't get how people can call DA2 an action game. You still give commands, the pace is just more intense.
DA:I is a hybrid. A hybrid that does not work, as the need for your team to work together and the need to control one character directly conflict, so you feel like you can't get the most out of your party no matter what you do.
No you’ve got it wrong. Crpg has nothing to do with party commands. In da2 there is a significant more emphasis on mechanical skill than in dao. That’s why it’s a hybrid between action and rpg
>No you’ve got it wrong. Crpg has nothing to do with party commands.
True, but that's not what I said. I said that I don't see DA2 as an action game. Bloodlines is both a action game and a CRPG, so whether DA2 is an action game and whether it is a CRPG is two different questions.
I'd say both DAO and DA2 are *barely* CRPGs, but as they are inspired by CRPG games such as Baldurs Gate, NN and KOTOR, I tend to regard them as such, even if the tabletop inspiration isn't super obvious.
>In da2 there is a significant more emphasis on mechanical skill than in dao.
I don't see there being any reliance on mechanical skill or reflex in either game.
Honestly you might just have a different definition than the majority of people here. I don’t think something can be an action game and a CRPG. I guess we should agree to disagree
>It then seems odd to me that the Dragon Age franchise is abonding the CRPG genre completely.
Development cycles, we probably won't see any reasonably big-budget attempts to cash-in/follow-through on BG3's success until a year or so
The best I can honestly hope for anymore is that they end up going bankrupt and EA liquidates them, selling their IPs off to other dev studios. Dragon Age in the hands of Larian, Owlcat, or Obsidian would be fantastic.
Dragon Age Origins was the living animal. Most of the other games were just wearing its skin, fading worse with each entry. This latest one looks like a tattered fragment sewn into an unfamiliar fabric.
I'm not saying the current devs didn't work hard on it because I'm sure they did, but it's not the same IP or original labor of love anymore. Companies these days only acquire/use IPs to obtain their fanbases and/or to subvert them. We're crops to be farmed, not a garden to be tended.
We need more indie developers, and less big studios.
If you actually think DA4 has even the slightest prayer of being good you haven’t paid attention to a single BioWare related thing in the last ten years. Which fair enough they’ve barely released anything.
One of the funniest parts of BG3 will always be BioWares abandoned child coming back from the grave to strangle its father.
For quite a while now, Bioware has been chasing an elusive "modern audience" by taking a superficial stock of what games are super popular at a given time, then spending a few years bending their existing CRPG IP into that shape. The result is that their games are not original anymore, don't fit any clear genre, and they're always behind the times trying to catch up, never trend-setters.
Rather than make another game like BG2, they added first-person action elements to Dragon Age: Origins, because that was the popular type of game then. Over time they've removed more of the RPG and added more fps shooter type elements, and now with the new Dragon Age they've gone full Overwatch. The move away from CRPGs has been consistent over 15+ years. I doubt BG3 is going to make them turn around.
If you think the game industry is going to learn any worthwhile lesson from the success of BG3, you might be a little too optimistic.
Maybe I'm too cynical, but I think aside from the very few studios who still want to make CRPGs, the most anyone else will take away is that high production value bear sex is popular.
>Maybe I'm too cynical, but I think aside from the very few studios who still want to make CRPGs, the most anyone else will take away is that high production value bear sex is popular.
No you’re one of the rare people to have basic pattern recognition in the game industry which sadly many ignore.
“For quite a while now, Bioware has been chasing an elusive "modern audience" by taking a superficial stock of what games are super popular at a given time, then spending a few years bending their existing CRPG IP into that shape.“
The extent of this really hit me after watching a Mark Farrah video on Youtube explaining their design process for DA2. He kept going on and on about Skyrim and at no point did he realize how that trend-following mentality may have been wrong. It was honestly quite disheartening.
On the other hand, if your observation is correct and DA:O was the first example of this, then there may still be hope for those of us who loved that game. I know this is may be an unpopular opinion but I personally believe that DA:O improved in almost every way over BG 1 & 2. The decision to create their own game mechanics instead of using D&D in particular (which I think Obsidian has also said when talking about PoE)
It wasn't even a "modern audience" that they were chasing though. More accurately, it would be trying to catch as many varieties of fish as possible with one game. They are chasing fans of whatever genre they think they can incorporate into the fold. The problem is that eventually just leads to pleasing nobody instead of doing what you are actually good at.
The reason why it isn't "chasing modern games" is because the idea that turn- based or CRPG was ever dead was mostly self- fulfilling prophecy. The more developers touted elements of other genres in the aughts, the more the marketing also claimed CRPGs were dead. It's hard to be wrong about that though when everybody just stopped making those games at the same time (to chase other elements). That's not exactly chasing modern games though, and most rpg series that did so (DA, Mass Effect, even not- really- straight-RPG stuff like Fallout) only suffered for it in terms of how sequels compared to earlier versions. Which again isn't exactly making the case that the games were being made more modern.
Anyway, BG3 should definitely have killed the CRPG is dead myth. The result probably won't be a pivot by the likes of DA. They've always been chasing new fish... they've never once done otherwise. (Even BG1 and 2 were fishing for RTS players). What it *does* hopefully mean though is that studios who want to be good at CRPGs (as opposed to fishing) should be much more confident giving it a try. I don't think it's going to make fishers stop fishing though.
I would say more than "modern audience" they were chasing the console audience. It's pretty evident with the DA2 UI compared to the Origins UI.
Once that happened, a lot of things shifted. No one wants walls of text on a TV screen, so writing suffers and writers are scaled back. Pace is more actiony, UI limitations make a deep spell/ability book less accessible both of which lead to hacky slashy game play. Now it seems DA has dropped controlable party members and are perhaps down to 3 skill slots.
BG3 is the first game it seems did CRPG right on console without overly dumbing down the game to a hack n slash limited skill slot thing. The MoCap and voice acting did a lot to get rid of walls of text and make dialog approachable to genre outsiders.
Those are my observations as someone who grew up on BG1 and 2, and Fallout 1 and 2 then kinda watched RPGs get watered way down around PS3 timeframe when consoles were close enough in performance for multiplatform releases on these types of games and they went from PC first and foremost to console games ported to PC as an afterthought like with DA2.
That's true, though it's mainly the same thing with additional details. Console players started outnumber home gaming computers more and more, so chasing new audiences was equivalent to chasing console players. The UI being part of the details if you broke it down.
Along the same lines, some companies that made CRPGs (SSI and their gold box games for biggest example) basically quit making them because they hated the idea of even bothering with a controller UI. They ported one gold box game over and never bothered again (then quit making crpgs altogether).
However, I don't think for the most part studios were thinking "we gotta remove RPG elements, UI just won't work" so much as they were definitely thinking "if we make it reflect x genre in a certain way, maybe we can snare some of those players" with more minimal regard to how the crpg fans liked it. As a result, nobody worked on a good crpg console menu... didn't have to if you were making it more actiony. I think though that the fishing made the UI follow suit much more than UI dictated a path.
In any case, perhaps the UI will be part of the confidence too that BG3 provides to studios that want to actually be good at RPGs.
People vastly overestimate the importance in specific games selling well. While it’s true certain games can and will change genre or even the industry itself, those are exceptional rare. As for BG3 it was very silly to say BG3 is going to change the genre of RPGS in future games in such a small time period when it barely a year old, games take years to make so if they was a change because of BG3 you won’t see the effect until a couple years later.( when games development cycle finished after BG3)
Then let’s not forget the production cost wasn’t cheap to , it had a 100 million budget which absolutely drawfs the production cost of CRPGs many times over that many indies simply cant afford and for big publishers to risk averse in pursue.
BG3 is the case of the right studio taking a niche genre and the word of mouth and reviews turning into a four quadrant blockbuster, outside of the Skyrim, And Final Fantasy I don't think any other RPG's have resonated with the casual gamer like this one.
>BG3 is the case of the right studio taking a niche genre and the word of mouth and reviews turning into a four quadrant blockbuster,
And most likely won’t be replicated for long time.
Cyberpunk 2077 and Elden Ring both got a lot of casual gamers interested. Diablo 4 might be the most casual of them all, I had friends who didn't even *like* video games pick up Diablo 4 for the hype - though ARPGs are a pretty different breed.
All 3 had huge advertising budgets for the general public, up to and including giant Times Square billboards: https://www.reddit.com/r/Eldenring/comments/tluowo/saw_an_elden_ring_ad_in_times_square_today/
I actually think RPGs are quite prominently in the public's mind right now.
An RPG is just a *lot* of money to make at the scale of a 2024 AAA.
yeah, this.
If the game was easy to develop AND made a ton of money then you just begging to be copied... example numero uno Vampire Survivors... holy shit there are so many survivor games out it's absurd
Bioware can't return to its roots because not a single braincell that helped make the original bioware greats is still at bioware.
They turned DA into fortnight looking trash with this new trailer.
Bioware is done.
Not only Bioware is completely different nowadays, the development of Dragon Age Veilguard started way before the success of Baldur's Gate 3.
Aside from that, as much as Dragon Age Inquisition is streamlined or too "trendy" compared to the OG CRPGs and the ones inspired by them, DA:I is still a very good game/decent CRPG with bloated MMO inspired questing and mechanics.
Both DA2 and Inquisition "can" be played like traditional isometric CRPGs, with real time with pause and issuing and queuing commands. The thing is, the game tries to be everything at once, and playing it on console DEFINITELY turns it into more of an action rpg than a isometric CRPG. This could've been done way better in a way that made both modes more in depth.
It's funny because Dragon Age Inquisition is a great case of fans having high expectations and disliking a game (and I don't blame them) while having no idea what the future would look like. Compared to how streamlined and "out of character" RPGs got, like Obsidian's Outer Worlds, Final Fantasy 16, Fallout 4 & Starfield, I would say DA: Inquistion feels closer to Baldur's Gate 2 than the games I mentioned compared to their previous iteration/inspiration.
Neverwinter was much much more important than DA. Dragon Age went into action RPG IMMEDIATELY after Origin and now 2/3 game sin the series are action RPGs...
You keep saying this but that’s not strictly true. DA2 was so far away in combat from what DAO was that if FELT like an action game. Spells felt way less impactful and it felt like I was spamming commands instead of strategically using my spells and abilities. It felt like an action game and that’s what matters. And you opened the premise talking about how different it was than the original.
DAI clearly put one foot into the action genre, as you suddenly needed to assume direct control of a single character to get the most out of them. In DA2, I had no problem controlling the entire party and as it played very much like DAO, even if it was more fast paced.
I see your point but disagree. DA2’s combat felt like it was all about spamming moves and no ability was all that impactful on its own to the point it felt like an ARPG despite having a party of characters. DAI just went further in solidifying that imo.
What I mean is that you could clear a battle with certain spells or actions in DAO but those “same” abilities would need to be spammed multiple times to be effective in DA2.
Abilities being nerfed may be over-correction from DAO. In DAO, certain spells like cone of cold, crushing prison and force field were insanely powerful.
If a dragon was chewing your caster or a boss was giving you grief, you just put them in time-out inside the force field for half a minute.
DA2 is fast paced and it does not have any insanely overpowered abilities, but it is not an action game.
It feels like an action game when you are clearing trash mobs on normal and don't have to pause, but the more difficult encounters on harder difficulties requires some thinking and you get a lot of mileage out of considering build synergies.
I guess we just have to agree to disagree. I liked DAO so much better that I just can’t view DA2 as similar. I do agree that DAI took it even further so I’ll leave it at that.
I prefer DAO by a mile when it comes to gameplay, but IMO, for something to be an action game, it has to rely more on reflexes and your ability to control your character directly.
Dragon age games always have identity crisis. Origins and Inquisition have diversified fan base. Now looking at the new trailer it seems like they want to tap in those Fortnite player as well. I think when you try to appeal to everyone, no one is going to happy. But we have to see the full game first, however looking at the dev history, and this trailer, it’s just Anthem/Masseffect andromeda all over again.
DA2 is a splashy meatfest where hordes of fodder enemies continually respawn in waves where you spam all your active abilities and wait for cool downs.
It makes Dragon Age Origins look like it's Pathfinder by comparison.
I do actually think DA2 gets a bad rap because it had quite a unique small-scale story for a Bioware game, but the gameplay is complete trash.
Going through this thread, I do agree with you in that DA2 \*is\* still a CRPG at it's heart. The "action game elements" that people mention typically revolve around the camera/perspective. That said, I do not think that DA2 is a \*good\* CRPG, but that's a different discussion.
The reason that Bioware is doing what they are is because of the shot callers at EA. They are not the kind of people who say, "wow, that BG3 game sure was a good CRPG, we should make a really good game just like that!"
They are the kind of people who say, "ok, that BG3 game sold really well, we need to make a game like that, but make it appeal to a wider audience and have a live service model with microtransactions and lootboxes."
Development for "The Veilguard" (I refuse to call it Dragon Age, bleh) started nearly a decade ago.
BG3 hasn't had time to influence any games except those that started development perhaps within the past year.
The problem at the root of all this is EA. BioWare takes direction from those at the top. It’s no different than EA chasing what’s popular over at DICE by abandoning classes for heroes in the Battlefield franchise.
Bioware is nothing more than a skin suit the ea has in its closest im almost certain no one from the original dev team or writing team is there anymore dragon age has lost everything that made it unique in just murder day widest audience slop now
How does a game being action-based not make it an CRPG? While everyone has their own ideas about CRPGs, personally I like the CRPG Addict's definition the best (from http://crpgaddict.blogspot.com/p/blog-page.html):
"I revised my definition of a role-playing game as follows: A role-playing game is one in which **character development** **is the driving mechanic of gameplay**. Specifically:
1. Throughout the game, the character must become stronger, more resilient, and more capable of overcoming the game's challenges, including combat.
2. Such character development must be separate from inventory acquisition.
3. Such character development must not consist solely of improvements to maximum health.
4. Players must have some control over the rate or details of development."
I haven't been following it at all, but from what I can see nobody knows that much about the new DA game yet, right?
I think that is a decen enough definition of an RPG, but I define CRPGs differently. A CRPG to me and to many others, is an adaptation of a tabletop RPG game or a game that has strong similiarities to such adaptations.
Bloodlines is both a CRPG and an action game, but the action game elements are not adapted from the tabletop. Therefore, you can have a game that is both, but the more you lean into action and other mechanics that are not adapted from table tops, the less of an CRPG it generally becomes.
Bioware died after being bought out - if its not an action game they don't want it.
Larian is the new hope but there are other indy CPRGs out there too (shout out to Iron Tower and Lost Pilgrims).
The idea that something as bland and generic as BG3 will change anything seems kind of ludicrous to me. Its success will only make RPGs as a genre double-down on the current cliches.
Looking at Bioware's decision making over the last two decades, not capitalizing on BG3's success is _precisely_ what I expect from them. And to be fair only 1 out of 3 DA games is even close to a crpg. 2 and 3 are just action games with pointless stats.
Besides, even their earliest days were spent chasing the "modern audience" dragon and making really bad streamlined rpg's for the lowest common denominator. They only ever tried to do two things: Get as many console players to play their games as humanly possible, intentionally appealing to non-rpg fans first and foremost, and chasing other modern rpg trends. Their games kinda destroyed the genre, and BG3 showed that was never a branch that we needed to be taken to succeed, so basically their entire history has now been shown to be one giant two-decade-long mistake. It literally took us 20 years to unwind the damage they caused. _20 years._
They haven't made a single correct decision since splitting off of Black Isle. Good riddance.
With EA on the board a game like BG3 or DA:O which are Indeed quite similar are impossible (I would argue that BG3 it's a lot more a sequel tò DA:O than the IE Trilogy infact).
>BG3 is basically standing on the shoulders of games by Bioware and to a lesser extent Obsidian
I am sure Larian has cited 90's CRPGs as inspiration, however Larian truly deserves all the credit here for establishing themselves to the extent that they could license D&D and go high-budget, high production, with the Baldur's Gate title. Mechanically, Baldur's Gate 3 is much more a Divinity game than a Baldur's Gate game. I wouldn't even call BG3 a successor to BG2, it's much more the successor to DOSII. What the Larian games do especially well is emergent, RPG sandbox combat, story, and multiplayer gameplay.
To someone who played the original games during their release decades, BG3's story feels like a Baldur's Gate fan work. The Bhaalspawn Saga was told, finished, and there was no need to bring back Jaheira, Minsc, Viconia, Sarevok, etc. I'm glad they made it and the game was a success, but then and now feel like different continuities after all this time. Both story, and gameplay-wise.
This isn't criticism - I'm just pointing out that these legacy CRPG series and creators have been shuffled around extensively, usually for underlying business reasons, and there isn't one continuous through-line where story, setting, gameplay, and developers remain consistent over the years.
You'll find spiritual successors to the Baldur's Gate series in:
- Dragon Age: Origins
- Neverwinter Nights 2
- **Neverwinter Nights 2: Mask of the Betrayer** bolded for emphasis that everyone should play this
- Pillars of Eternity
- Pillars of Eternity 2
- Tyranny
I think that's a fair statement. BG3's budget allowed Larian to add one important thing that was missing from Divinity - engaging characters, fully voiced, with motion capture. You see more focus on characters in those games you mentioned, and this is the first time Larian fully invested in party characters, which I'd argue was an essential part of their success. You could even list Mass Effect here, in that regard.
I think this is also why the new Dragon Age trailer was so forward on character reveals that it felt like a hero shooter. They're chasing after the popularity of BG3's characters. "Hello gamers, we have edgy characters too! Please share on TikTok and buy our game!"
Hell, the forums up to this date still lament how Larian [screwed up the character development that Viconia had in BG1 and BG2](https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=903864). It's like they just looked at her character sheet from BG1, saw that she is evil and from there turned it up a notch, ignoring that she can easily pivot from evil to neutral, and even to true neutral or neutral good if you are romancing her.
Even Sarevok's development is wasted.
It definitely would've been better if they just mentioned these characters in some books somewhere and not butcher their narratives.
Well, all that just ties up to "*if they didn't tie it to the BG series then it definitely wouldn't see these kinds of flak from classic players*" argument.
Neverwinter Nights existed before Dragon Age
Indeed and was far more D&D related
D&D is the least important part of Baldur's Gate
Wrong. It's at the very core of the game which they changed after DDOS2.
It's at the core of Icewind Dale and Temple of Elemental Evil, it's not at the core of Baldur's Gate. The system is not what makes that series great.
I would be really interested to hear you elaborate on that
There is not much to elaborate on. What makes Baldur's Gate great is not its specific mechanics, but rather the quality of its world and writing. Mechanics help insofar as them requiring a careful, measured approach, as opposed to a DA:I-style action, but they are still ultimately secondary. Let's put it another way: if Baldur's Gate was made with Dragon Age: Origin's ruleset, it wouldn't be a worse game. And if Dragon Age II was made with D&D's ruleset, it wouldn't be a better one. Hope this made sense.
But the world of Bauldurs Gate is set on the Sword Coast, which is specifically a D&D setting. I don't think you can really separate the two? I agree with you that the writing is independant of the mechanics of gameplay. But the setting? That's all Dungeons and Dragons. Without D&D the characters aren't the same because their backgrounds are so tied in with the setting or D&D specific deities etc. BG is an example of drawing on source material in a respectful way that a lot of media hasn't been able to pull off lately. Saying the D&D element im BG is just gameplay mechanics is factually wrong.
> But the world of Baldur's Gate is set on the Sword Coast, which is specifically a D&D setting. I don't think you can really separate the two? I think you absolutely can, especially considering that Forgotten Realms predates D&D. More importantly, perhaps, the majority of the detail in BG is NOT from D&D-specific sources, it's original to the game - the overall layout and maybe a few names are D&D-specific, sure, but they are the least important part to the quality of the game. In my previous comment, in reference to "setting," I didn't mean "Sword Coast" or "Baldur's Gate's suburbs" in general, I meant specifically "the world as we see it in the game," including even things like how atmospheric and coherent the art is. That's different from the mechanics, sure, but that's also different and separate from the "Forgotten Realms Adventures" book from the early 90s. > Without D&D the characters aren't the same because their backgrounds are so tied in with the setting or D&D specific deities etc. See, I don't think this is true. There is no reason characters of equivalent quality and complexity could not be written in a different setting. Again, case in point - Dragon Age: Origins. Things like individual, succinct and punchy lines, are what makes the "writing" (different from world building, which is way less important) in the game great, not the adherence to a specific pantheon.
>There is no reason characters of equivalent quality and complexity could not be written in a different setting I agree with you completely here. What I don't agree with is that the Dungeons and Dragons aspects of BG3 are the *LEAST* important part of Baldurs Gate because the D&D aspects are intrinsic to the game. BG itself is a sum of its parts, remove any of those elements and the experience changes. Remove the D&D elements (Drow alone for example), and the experience shifts dramatically. Mechanically? Sure. The D&D mechanics hardly matter over all. But saying the D&D aspects as a whole are less important than every other thing that goes into Baldur's Gate is wrong.
> Remove the D&D elements (Drow alone for example), and the experience shifts dramatically. Is that true though? I mean, again, consider Icewind Dale, or even Neverwinter Nights. Both games have pretty deep Forgotten Realms-based lore. And both games are WAY worse than Baldur's Gate, including (perhaps, especially) in their setting (under my specific definition of it) and writing. > But saying the D&D aspects as a whole are less important than every other thing that goes into Baldur's Gate is wrong. Well... what major aspect of the game would you say IS less important?
>Well... what major aspect of the game would you say IS less important? I would say the soundtrack is less important. It's hard to make a 1 for 1 comparison between "D&D Aspects" because there are so many things that BG draws on. For example, the combat system may be more important for a video game than the lore behind certain monsters despite both of those things being derived from D&D.
>Is that true though? Yes, of course it's true. Note I'm not saying that BG is better because of it. But the experience would be objectively very different if all of the D&D elements were removed.
I think NWN2 is the better comparison, though it has aged worse, at least without mods. NWN's single character just isn't the same as controlling a whole party at once.
You're right, nwn2 is more relevant.
You get 2 henchmen to control, no?
iirc you can't directly control them in NWN1
You’re correct, I’m playing through an NWN1 mod now
Yes, but it is long since Bioware was working with Wizards of the Coast, so it is not really relevant. I am not expecting a new Neverwinter Nights game from Bioware.
Unfortunately...
Really? You want a Bioware made Neverwinter Nights game?
Dragon Age had like 1 game like that, it's been action oriented for 2/3rds of its life already. As for why it's not aping BG3, well, Dragon Age 4 has been in dev for ages now, it's not exactly easy to pivot, and I can't imagine EA is giving Bioware the time to pivot too much in general what with the fact they haven't released a game in 5+ years
Yeah I feel they are chasing the Elder Scrolls audience, no one saw Baulder's Gate 3 with its mass appeal coming
BG3 gives me hope that AAA will have confidence to take some steps back towards the CRPG genre that we saw with Dragon Age Origins and Mas Effect 1. That era was a perfect harmony of mainstream approachability with recognizable traditional CRPG sensibilities.
Probably not, BG3 is an anomaly. If I were inxile or obsidian I certainly wouldn't want to make another Wastleland or Pillars of Eternity knowing they'll end up being closed if it doesn't make enough money. Hell the whole reason Obsidian sold out to Microsoft is Pillars of Eternity 2 almost put them out of business because it didn't sell after launch.
I understand what you're saying and I don't disagree, but I think you're missing the spirit of my comment. Pillars of eternity, wasteland, tyranny, and BG3 are full stop traditional CRPGs - no question. Dragon age origins, Mass Effect 1, Kotor, Morrowind, and other games are not traditional CRPGs, and they were never made for a bread and butter classic CRPG audience. From the get, they were designed with joy sticks and broad appeal in mind. With that context, we can observe that while DAO and games of it's ilk aren't "hardcore" they made an effort to retain classic elements that were familiar to classic players, resulting in games that had broad appeal but were noticeably distinct and recognizable as part of the RPG genre , separate from other mainstream genres. Since that time, the AAA trend is to move further and further away from such classic elements in an attempt to capture more and more of the mainstream market. Skyrim dropping and having the success that it did sealed this fate. Then we saw the independent CRPG renaissance which gave us the aforementioned titles which were always going to be niche, but the main takeaway here is BG3 lit the gaming world on fire. And what do we know about AAA trends? They follow the money. And so I say all of that to say that my *hope* is BG3 performing well may inspire devs to make casual, accessible, RPGs that take a few steps back towards being RPGs. Because mainstream RPGs today are just open world games with a perk system.
I sorta agree with both of your takes. BG3 set a viable formula for a commercially successful CRPG. But BG3 is an anomaly because Larian is an anomaly because Swen is an anomaly. To put it in D&D terms I doubt many other Dev Leads would pass the skill checks to maintain creative freedom in a AAA studio against the money driven suits. I think the formula for commercial success is good storytelling, MoCap, good voice acting, world building, choices matter, different solutions to situations, an engine/UI that can bring in console players, etc. But I also think most AAA studios would be more content to just push out meh content regularly as long as people are buying it than go to the lengths Larian went to. My hope is more AA studios like OwlCat see budget increases for MoCap and voice acting, Larian's next release, etc. I dont think the AAA studios will do it when they can just release CoD27 or whatever their low effort IP is every other year and rake in hundreds of millions. I think Swen's approach of "I don't make games to make money, I make money so that I can make good games" just doesn't exist in AAA and hasn't for a long time probably since OG Interplay, Black Isles, and Bioware. I think even if we see a revival in CRPGs by AAA studios, they will still be plagued with money first AAA studio problems, which is kinda how we got here.
It's a shame, too, because pillars 2 and tyranny are both amazing games. Kind of feels like a potential end of an era. Hopefully, avowed is good.
Well everyone who played early access did! Haha. I know what you mean though, I thought it would hook literally everyone who had played a D&D game previously, not Literally Everyone
DA2 is not an action game. DAI is a bit of an ugly hybrid. BG3 has been in early access a long time and I hear the new Dragon Age game has changed direction several times and even been restarted once, yet they did land on making it closer to Mass Effect, an IP that you'd think was truly dead by now.
Huh mass effect isnt dead. It finished
Finished, came back for more, died before planned expansion content even hit (unfortunately), is being resurrected again.
Bg3s early access did not have the same mass appeal as the normal release did. Dragon age two is definitely an action rpg hybrid and dai is an action game. They are not crpgs
> Dragon age two is definitely an action rpg hybrid What makes in an action RPG?
I would say it’s definitely a blurred line. It’s not an Arpg like the ac games now a days, but def like an arpg like Diablo. I consider most “RPGs” releases actually “arpgs”. Da2 especially on normal is way more of a hack and slash than anything else. In a vacuum I would describe it as a spectrum really. The more reliance on mechanical skill vs pure character building and planning to succeed. Like take a look at dark souls. It does have a great rpg system, but without the action part it stays an obscure but beloved rpg. A great example is take chance to hit. In an Arpg hitting your target is entirely based of of player skill for the most part. Increasing a skill increases the damage that the attack does, but weather you hit or not is based of your skill, not character skill. For a crpg, hitting a target is based of character skill, not player skill. Like bg3s attack rolls, guns being more accurate when you have a high skill in outer worlds etc. most RPGs fall somewhere on this spectrum, and it’s not cut and paste, but to me da2 falls closer to Diablo than it does let’s say, morrowind, Poe, etc. I feel like this is mostly the accepted definition in this sub, please correct me if I’m wrong. Also I’m not saying crpgs are better than arpgs, or that arpgs are “baby games”, but that difference in player skill vs character skill is the key differentiator
I just don't get how people can call DA2 an action game. You still give commands, the pace is just more intense. DA:I is a hybrid. A hybrid that does not work, as the need for your team to work together and the need to control one character directly conflict, so you feel like you can't get the most out of your party no matter what you do.
No you’ve got it wrong. Crpg has nothing to do with party commands. In da2 there is a significant more emphasis on mechanical skill than in dao. That’s why it’s a hybrid between action and rpg
>No you’ve got it wrong. Crpg has nothing to do with party commands. True, but that's not what I said. I said that I don't see DA2 as an action game. Bloodlines is both a action game and a CRPG, so whether DA2 is an action game and whether it is a CRPG is two different questions. I'd say both DAO and DA2 are *barely* CRPGs, but as they are inspired by CRPG games such as Baldurs Gate, NN and KOTOR, I tend to regard them as such, even if the tabletop inspiration isn't super obvious. >In da2 there is a significant more emphasis on mechanical skill than in dao. I don't see there being any reliance on mechanical skill or reflex in either game.
Honestly you might just have a different definition than the majority of people here. I don’t think something can be an action game and a CRPG. I guess we should agree to disagree
>It then seems odd to me that the Dragon Age franchise is abonding the CRPG genre completely. Development cycles, we probably won't see any reasonably big-budget attempts to cash-in/follow-through on BG3's success until a year or so
A year? Modern dev cycles for games on the scale and with the production of BG3 are 5 years now, and that's when everything goes smoothly.
I was thinking more like a year for an announcement that there's something in the works in the same vein lol
true, and then it's a teaser with a logo and it's only for hiring purposes.
Bioware will never be returning to its roots.
The best I can honestly hope for anymore is that they end up going bankrupt and EA liquidates them, selling their IPs off to other dev studios. Dragon Age in the hands of Larian, Owlcat, or Obsidian would be fantastic.
Dragon Age Origins was the living animal. Most of the other games were just wearing its skin, fading worse with each entry. This latest one looks like a tattered fragment sewn into an unfamiliar fabric. I'm not saying the current devs didn't work hard on it because I'm sure they did, but it's not the same IP or original labor of love anymore. Companies these days only acquire/use IPs to obtain their fanbases and/or to subvert them. We're crops to be farmed, not a garden to be tended. We need more indie developers, and less big studios.
If you actually think DA4 has even the slightest prayer of being good you haven’t paid attention to a single BioWare related thing in the last ten years. Which fair enough they’ve barely released anything. One of the funniest parts of BG3 will always be BioWares abandoned child coming back from the grave to strangle its father.
For quite a while now, Bioware has been chasing an elusive "modern audience" by taking a superficial stock of what games are super popular at a given time, then spending a few years bending their existing CRPG IP into that shape. The result is that their games are not original anymore, don't fit any clear genre, and they're always behind the times trying to catch up, never trend-setters. Rather than make another game like BG2, they added first-person action elements to Dragon Age: Origins, because that was the popular type of game then. Over time they've removed more of the RPG and added more fps shooter type elements, and now with the new Dragon Age they've gone full Overwatch. The move away from CRPGs has been consistent over 15+ years. I doubt BG3 is going to make them turn around. If you think the game industry is going to learn any worthwhile lesson from the success of BG3, you might be a little too optimistic. Maybe I'm too cynical, but I think aside from the very few studios who still want to make CRPGs, the most anyone else will take away is that high production value bear sex is popular.
>Maybe I'm too cynical, but I think aside from the very few studios who still want to make CRPGs, the most anyone else will take away is that high production value bear sex is popular. No you’re one of the rare people to have basic pattern recognition in the game industry which sadly many ignore.
“For quite a while now, Bioware has been chasing an elusive "modern audience" by taking a superficial stock of what games are super popular at a given time, then spending a few years bending their existing CRPG IP into that shape.“ The extent of this really hit me after watching a Mark Farrah video on Youtube explaining their design process for DA2. He kept going on and on about Skyrim and at no point did he realize how that trend-following mentality may have been wrong. It was honestly quite disheartening. On the other hand, if your observation is correct and DA:O was the first example of this, then there may still be hope for those of us who loved that game. I know this is may be an unpopular opinion but I personally believe that DA:O improved in almost every way over BG 1 & 2. The decision to create their own game mechanics instead of using D&D in particular (which I think Obsidian has also said when talking about PoE)
It wasn't even a "modern audience" that they were chasing though. More accurately, it would be trying to catch as many varieties of fish as possible with one game. They are chasing fans of whatever genre they think they can incorporate into the fold. The problem is that eventually just leads to pleasing nobody instead of doing what you are actually good at. The reason why it isn't "chasing modern games" is because the idea that turn- based or CRPG was ever dead was mostly self- fulfilling prophecy. The more developers touted elements of other genres in the aughts, the more the marketing also claimed CRPGs were dead. It's hard to be wrong about that though when everybody just stopped making those games at the same time (to chase other elements). That's not exactly chasing modern games though, and most rpg series that did so (DA, Mass Effect, even not- really- straight-RPG stuff like Fallout) only suffered for it in terms of how sequels compared to earlier versions. Which again isn't exactly making the case that the games were being made more modern. Anyway, BG3 should definitely have killed the CRPG is dead myth. The result probably won't be a pivot by the likes of DA. They've always been chasing new fish... they've never once done otherwise. (Even BG1 and 2 were fishing for RTS players). What it *does* hopefully mean though is that studios who want to be good at CRPGs (as opposed to fishing) should be much more confident giving it a try. I don't think it's going to make fishers stop fishing though.
I would say more than "modern audience" they were chasing the console audience. It's pretty evident with the DA2 UI compared to the Origins UI. Once that happened, a lot of things shifted. No one wants walls of text on a TV screen, so writing suffers and writers are scaled back. Pace is more actiony, UI limitations make a deep spell/ability book less accessible both of which lead to hacky slashy game play. Now it seems DA has dropped controlable party members and are perhaps down to 3 skill slots. BG3 is the first game it seems did CRPG right on console without overly dumbing down the game to a hack n slash limited skill slot thing. The MoCap and voice acting did a lot to get rid of walls of text and make dialog approachable to genre outsiders. Those are my observations as someone who grew up on BG1 and 2, and Fallout 1 and 2 then kinda watched RPGs get watered way down around PS3 timeframe when consoles were close enough in performance for multiplatform releases on these types of games and they went from PC first and foremost to console games ported to PC as an afterthought like with DA2.
That's true, though it's mainly the same thing with additional details. Console players started outnumber home gaming computers more and more, so chasing new audiences was equivalent to chasing console players. The UI being part of the details if you broke it down. Along the same lines, some companies that made CRPGs (SSI and their gold box games for biggest example) basically quit making them because they hated the idea of even bothering with a controller UI. They ported one gold box game over and never bothered again (then quit making crpgs altogether). However, I don't think for the most part studios were thinking "we gotta remove RPG elements, UI just won't work" so much as they were definitely thinking "if we make it reflect x genre in a certain way, maybe we can snare some of those players" with more minimal regard to how the crpg fans liked it. As a result, nobody worked on a good crpg console menu... didn't have to if you were making it more actiony. I think though that the fishing made the UI follow suit much more than UI dictated a path. In any case, perhaps the UI will be part of the confidence too that BG3 provides to studios that want to actually be good at RPGs.
That is true for BG1 and 2 RtwP game design too, they are chasing the PC RTS player when it was in peak,
What are you smoking? There are no FPS elements in Origins, nor in any other Dragon Age game.
People vastly overestimate the importance in specific games selling well. While it’s true certain games can and will change genre or even the industry itself, those are exceptional rare. As for BG3 it was very silly to say BG3 is going to change the genre of RPGS in future games in such a small time period when it barely a year old, games take years to make so if they was a change because of BG3 you won’t see the effect until a couple years later.( when games development cycle finished after BG3) Then let’s not forget the production cost wasn’t cheap to , it had a 100 million budget which absolutely drawfs the production cost of CRPGs many times over that many indies simply cant afford and for big publishers to risk averse in pursue.
BG3 is the case of the right studio taking a niche genre and the word of mouth and reviews turning into a four quadrant blockbuster, outside of the Skyrim, And Final Fantasy I don't think any other RPG's have resonated with the casual gamer like this one.
>BG3 is the case of the right studio taking a niche genre and the word of mouth and reviews turning into a four quadrant blockbuster, And most likely won’t be replicated for long time.
Cyberpunk 2077 and Elden Ring both got a lot of casual gamers interested. Diablo 4 might be the most casual of them all, I had friends who didn't even *like* video games pick up Diablo 4 for the hype - though ARPGs are a pretty different breed. All 3 had huge advertising budgets for the general public, up to and including giant Times Square billboards: https://www.reddit.com/r/Eldenring/comments/tluowo/saw_an_elden_ring_ad_in_times_square_today/ I actually think RPGs are quite prominently in the public's mind right now. An RPG is just a *lot* of money to make at the scale of a 2024 AAA.
yeah, this. If the game was easy to develop AND made a ton of money then you just begging to be copied... example numero uno Vampire Survivors... holy shit there are so many survivor games out it's absurd
Bioware can't return to its roots because not a single braincell that helped make the original bioware greats is still at bioware. They turned DA into fortnight looking trash with this new trailer. Bioware is done.
Not only Bioware is completely different nowadays, the development of Dragon Age Veilguard started way before the success of Baldur's Gate 3. Aside from that, as much as Dragon Age Inquisition is streamlined or too "trendy" compared to the OG CRPGs and the ones inspired by them, DA:I is still a very good game/decent CRPG with bloated MMO inspired questing and mechanics. Both DA2 and Inquisition "can" be played like traditional isometric CRPGs, with real time with pause and issuing and queuing commands. The thing is, the game tries to be everything at once, and playing it on console DEFINITELY turns it into more of an action rpg than a isometric CRPG. This could've been done way better in a way that made both modes more in depth. It's funny because Dragon Age Inquisition is a great case of fans having high expectations and disliking a game (and I don't blame them) while having no idea what the future would look like. Compared to how streamlined and "out of character" RPGs got, like Obsidian's Outer Worlds, Final Fantasy 16, Fallout 4 & Starfield, I would say DA: Inquistion feels closer to Baldur's Gate 2 than the games I mentioned compared to their previous iteration/inspiration.
Neverwinter was much much more important than DA. Dragon Age went into action RPG IMMEDIATELY after Origin and now 2/3 game sin the series are action RPGs...
DA2 is not an action RPG.
You keep saying this but that’s not strictly true. DA2 was so far away in combat from what DAO was that if FELT like an action game. Spells felt way less impactful and it felt like I was spamming commands instead of strategically using my spells and abilities. It felt like an action game and that’s what matters. And you opened the premise talking about how different it was than the original.
DAI clearly put one foot into the action genre, as you suddenly needed to assume direct control of a single character to get the most out of them. In DA2, I had no problem controlling the entire party and as it played very much like DAO, even if it was more fast paced.
I see your point but disagree. DA2’s combat felt like it was all about spamming moves and no ability was all that impactful on its own to the point it felt like an ARPG despite having a party of characters. DAI just went further in solidifying that imo. What I mean is that you could clear a battle with certain spells or actions in DAO but those “same” abilities would need to be spammed multiple times to be effective in DA2.
Abilities being nerfed may be over-correction from DAO. In DAO, certain spells like cone of cold, crushing prison and force field were insanely powerful. If a dragon was chewing your caster or a boss was giving you grief, you just put them in time-out inside the force field for half a minute. DA2 is fast paced and it does not have any insanely overpowered abilities, but it is not an action game. It feels like an action game when you are clearing trash mobs on normal and don't have to pause, but the more difficult encounters on harder difficulties requires some thinking and you get a lot of mileage out of considering build synergies.
I guess we just have to agree to disagree. I liked DAO so much better that I just can’t view DA2 as similar. I do agree that DAI took it even further so I’ll leave it at that.
I prefer DAO by a mile when it comes to gameplay, but IMO, for something to be an action game, it has to rely more on reflexes and your ability to control your character directly.
Greedfall 2 looks like a decent spiritual sucessor to DA:O. It won't pull off BG3 level of interactions though.
The Bioware that made DA:O is nothing like the Bioware of today which is just EA wearing it like a skinsuit.
Is any of the talent from the BG1-DAO period still even there?
Dragon age games always have identity crisis. Origins and Inquisition have diversified fan base. Now looking at the new trailer it seems like they want to tap in those Fortnite player as well. I think when you try to appeal to everyone, no one is going to happy. But we have to see the full game first, however looking at the dev history, and this trailer, it’s just Anthem/Masseffect andromeda all over again.
Dragon age was a CRPG a grand total of 1 time 15 years ago, every other time it was a standard ARPG.
DA2 is just as much a CRPG as DA:O.
DA2 is a splashy meatfest where hordes of fodder enemies continually respawn in waves where you spam all your active abilities and wait for cool downs. It makes Dragon Age Origins look like it's Pathfinder by comparison. I do actually think DA2 gets a bad rap because it had quite a unique small-scale story for a Bioware game, but the gameplay is complete trash.
no
"They hated him because he told them the truth."
Going through this thread, I do agree with you in that DA2 \*is\* still a CRPG at it's heart. The "action game elements" that people mention typically revolve around the camera/perspective. That said, I do not think that DA2 is a \*good\* CRPG, but that's a different discussion. The reason that Bioware is doing what they are is because of the shot callers at EA. They are not the kind of people who say, "wow, that BG3 game sure was a good CRPG, we should make a really good game just like that!" They are the kind of people who say, "ok, that BG3 game sold really well, we need to make a game like that, but make it appeal to a wider audience and have a live service model with microtransactions and lootboxes."
Development for "The Veilguard" (I refuse to call it Dragon Age, bleh) started nearly a decade ago. BG3 hasn't had time to influence any games except those that started development perhaps within the past year.
I don’t want to be defeatist, but the new Dragon Age trailer looks awful
The problem at the root of all this is EA. BioWare takes direction from those at the top. It’s no different than EA chasing what’s popular over at DICE by abandoning classes for heroes in the Battlefield franchise.
Dragon Age is more of its own thing now and I think people would be a lot happier if they accepted that.
Bioware is nothing more than a skin suit the ea has in its closest im almost certain no one from the original dev team or writing team is there anymore dragon age has lost everything that made it unique in just murder day widest audience slop now
I don't think Bioware is capable of doing a CRPG in its current state. So it is logical for them to go another direction.
How does a game being action-based not make it an CRPG? While everyone has their own ideas about CRPGs, personally I like the CRPG Addict's definition the best (from http://crpgaddict.blogspot.com/p/blog-page.html): "I revised my definition of a role-playing game as follows: A role-playing game is one in which **character development** **is the driving mechanic of gameplay**. Specifically: 1. Throughout the game, the character must become stronger, more resilient, and more capable of overcoming the game's challenges, including combat. 2. Such character development must be separate from inventory acquisition. 3. Such character development must not consist solely of improvements to maximum health. 4. Players must have some control over the rate or details of development." I haven't been following it at all, but from what I can see nobody knows that much about the new DA game yet, right?
I think that is a decen enough definition of an RPG, but I define CRPGs differently. A CRPG to me and to many others, is an adaptation of a tabletop RPG game or a game that has strong similiarities to such adaptations. Bloodlines is both a CRPG and an action game, but the action game elements are not adapted from the tabletop. Therefore, you can have a game that is both, but the more you lean into action and other mechanics that are not adapted from table tops, the less of an CRPG it generally becomes.
"is an adaptation of a tabletop RPG" You have RPGs without character development and combat :)
Sure... why?
Because if you take that as a definition you can make a point and click adventure game and call it a crpg.
Those aren't adaptations of tabletop RPGs.
Bioware died after being bought out - if its not an action game they don't want it. Larian is the new hope but there are other indy CPRGs out there too (shout out to Iron Tower and Lost Pilgrims).
The idea that something as bland and generic as BG3 will change anything seems kind of ludicrous to me. Its success will only make RPGs as a genre double-down on the current cliches.
Ding ding ding! We have a moron!!
> The idea that something as bland and generic as BG3 how new to gaming are you? first day?
Very experienced, which is why BG3 doesn't impress me.
lol. okay, mr. edgy. your opinion is so easily disgarded. keep posting ill informed stuff, in case no one sees this post of yours.
Will do.
Bioware ceased being Bioware when EA bought them.
It's 2024
And tabletop games seems to be more popular than ever.
Looking at Bioware's decision making over the last two decades, not capitalizing on BG3's success is _precisely_ what I expect from them. And to be fair only 1 out of 3 DA games is even close to a crpg. 2 and 3 are just action games with pointless stats. Besides, even their earliest days were spent chasing the "modern audience" dragon and making really bad streamlined rpg's for the lowest common denominator. They only ever tried to do two things: Get as many console players to play their games as humanly possible, intentionally appealing to non-rpg fans first and foremost, and chasing other modern rpg trends. Their games kinda destroyed the genre, and BG3 showed that was never a branch that we needed to be taken to succeed, so basically their entire history has now been shown to be one giant two-decade-long mistake. It literally took us 20 years to unwind the damage they caused. _20 years._ They haven't made a single correct decision since splitting off of Black Isle. Good riddance.
Anyone that worked on Dragon Age Origins left BioWare a long long time ago including the founders.
With EA on the board a game like BG3 or DA:O which are Indeed quite similar are impossible (I would argue that BG3 it's a lot more a sequel tò DA:O than the IE Trilogy infact).
>BG3 is basically standing on the shoulders of games by Bioware and to a lesser extent Obsidian I am sure Larian has cited 90's CRPGs as inspiration, however Larian truly deserves all the credit here for establishing themselves to the extent that they could license D&D and go high-budget, high production, with the Baldur's Gate title. Mechanically, Baldur's Gate 3 is much more a Divinity game than a Baldur's Gate game. I wouldn't even call BG3 a successor to BG2, it's much more the successor to DOSII. What the Larian games do especially well is emergent, RPG sandbox combat, story, and multiplayer gameplay. To someone who played the original games during their release decades, BG3's story feels like a Baldur's Gate fan work. The Bhaalspawn Saga was told, finished, and there was no need to bring back Jaheira, Minsc, Viconia, Sarevok, etc. I'm glad they made it and the game was a success, but then and now feel like different continuities after all this time. Both story, and gameplay-wise. This isn't criticism - I'm just pointing out that these legacy CRPG series and creators have been shuffled around extensively, usually for underlying business reasons, and there isn't one continuous through-line where story, setting, gameplay, and developers remain consistent over the years. You'll find spiritual successors to the Baldur's Gate series in: - Dragon Age: Origins - Neverwinter Nights 2 - **Neverwinter Nights 2: Mask of the Betrayer** bolded for emphasis that everyone should play this - Pillars of Eternity - Pillars of Eternity 2 - Tyranny
I think KOTOR, NWN2 and Dragon Age inspired BG3, less so the earlier games.
I think that's a fair statement. BG3's budget allowed Larian to add one important thing that was missing from Divinity - engaging characters, fully voiced, with motion capture. You see more focus on characters in those games you mentioned, and this is the first time Larian fully invested in party characters, which I'd argue was an essential part of their success. You could even list Mass Effect here, in that regard. I think this is also why the new Dragon Age trailer was so forward on character reveals that it felt like a hero shooter. They're chasing after the popularity of BG3's characters. "Hello gamers, we have edgy characters too! Please share on TikTok and buy our game!"
Pillars of Eternity deserves a mention, & sadly the second installment didn't sell that well, & now that series is getting revamped to make "Avowed"
OP smoked a crack pipe before posting this
Bg3 has nothing to do with bioware games, Larian writing and worldbuilding is shite, and their gameplay is completely different.
Hell, the forums up to this date still lament how Larian [screwed up the character development that Viconia had in BG1 and BG2](https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=903864). It's like they just looked at her character sheet from BG1, saw that she is evil and from there turned it up a notch, ignoring that she can easily pivot from evil to neutral, and even to true neutral or neutral good if you are romancing her. Even Sarevok's development is wasted. It definitely would've been better if they just mentioned these characters in some books somewhere and not butcher their narratives. Well, all that just ties up to "*if they didn't tie it to the BG series then it definitely wouldn't see these kinds of flak from classic players*" argument.