“Reading the reddit threads, I would like to clear up something,” Vincke said. “WOTC is not to blame for us taking a different direction. On the contrary, they really did their best and have been a great licensor for us, letting us do our thing. This is because it’s what’s best for Larian.”

  • blackfire@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    3 months ago

    I think larian got a lot of attention really quick and didn’t like that kind of spot light. I will be following their next games though. Hopefully they can build on this.

    • themoonisacheese@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      I think they’ve now reached the level of attention they deserve and that means they can stop licking boots of large IP holders just to make games for them. Divinity original sin was bg3 before bg3, it just didn’t have a large license attached to it, and now they can make DOS3 and know that people will buy it because it’ll most likely be a great game

      • nivenkos@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        D:OS2 didn’t have the branching questlines though - BG3 added a lot too, but I agree the main base of the game was there.

        But yeah they’re the only developer I will preorder from.

        • Dojan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          Well yeah, they didn’t have the same budget.

          Mechanically I still think DOS2 is superior to BGIII, mainly due to not being weighed down by the clunky tabletop mechanics. Not saying BGIII is bad, but it would’ve (in my opinion) been better without the DND rubbish.

          • Coelacanth@feddit.nu
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            3 months ago

            Personally, I think the presentation is what sets BG3 apart. I agree that D:OS2 has a more fun combat system, but that’s not really the key to mainstream appeal.

            Stuff like zoomed in dialogues with actual motion capture and visible facial expressions really pulls you in in a way zoomed out isometric dialogue presentations never can.

            Not saying BGIII is bad, but it would’ve (in my opinion) been better without the DND rubbish.

            Maybe a better game, but definitely not as successful. Between the movie coming out the same year and Stranger Things and Critical Role (and their Amazon show) and what have you, D&D was already in the zeitgeist. It was absolutely an important aspect of BG3 hitting that mainstream success, imo.

            • Dojan@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              It is primarily the combat system I’m talking about though. I would’ve loved to see BDIII but with DOS general combat and combat movement. I don’t care for the “does 1d4 lightning damage” stuff.

              I’m obviously not saying that DOSII had the better dialogue and quest systems. BGIII is obviously rooted in the same engine and tech as DOSII, but it’s been built upon wonderfully. I enjoy BGIII, and Larian has once again done an excellent job. I just think DOSII was the better game on a mechanical level, disregarding the story/graphics/tech, etc.

              • Coelacanth@feddit.nu
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                Oh I agree with you there. Combat was more fun in DOS2 (though it got ridiculous at times).

          • nivenkos@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            3 months ago

            I prefer BG3, as DOS2 has the awkward separate armour systems - so you’re forced to either target physical or magical armour specifically.

            Also BG3 has Baldur’s Gate which is awesome with all the city quests, etc. - lot of quests you can do entirely with stealth.

            • Dojan@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              I don’t think I was clear enough. I think DOSII was better mechanically, not from a story/quest/graphics perspective. I’m not saying BGIII was bad in any way, it’s an amazing game, and it’s very clear that a lot of love was put into it from everyone that contributed, but I overall feel like D:OS II had the better game mechanics. I liked the action point system for moving and attacking, I liked that you could save up action points to unleash more on later turns. I don’t care too much for the behind-the-scenes dice rolls - though the big roll X to pass check is quite fun.

              The voice cast also did such an amazing job. I’ve been playing Warframe a lot lately, and it’s really fun to hear Astarion as a fish.

      • Wahots@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        I heard they are working on something other than DOS3 for now. They are trying new IP, which I’m honestly fine with. I like companies with the balls to try something new.