• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D General No More Baldur's Gate From Larion: Team Is 'Elated'

Team pivoting to next big release instead.

astarion-1688033271552.png

Bad news for Baldur's Gate fans--It seems that Larion is out of the Baldur's Gate business. CEO Swen Vicke has announced that Baldur's Gate 3 is not getting any expansions, DLC, or a sequel. Patches and fixes will still continue, however, including cross-platform mod support.

"Because of all the success the obvious thing would have been to do a DLC, so we started on one. We started even thinking about BG4. But we hadn’t really had closure on BG3 yet and just to jump forward on something new felt wrong. We had also spent a whole bunch of time converting the system into a video game and we wanted to do new things. There are a lot of constraints on making D&D, and 5th Edition is not an easy system to put into a video game. We had all these ideas of new combat we wanted to try out and they were not compatible."
-Swen Vicke​

Vicke confirmed this at a talk at the Game Developers Conference, and said that Larion Studios wanted to make its own new content rather than license IP from another company.

He also clarified that a Baldur's Gate 4 was still possible, but that if it happened it would not be made by Larion. Larion is already working on its next big release.

According to IGN, Larion has started work on some BG3 DLC, but it was cancelled.

"You could see the team was doing it because everyone felt like we had to do it, but it wasn’t really coming from the heart, and we’re very much a studio from the heart. It’s what gotten us into misery and it’s also been the reasons for our success."
-Swen Vicke​

According to Vicke, when the BG3 team found out that they would not be making more Baldur's Gate content, they were 'elated'.

“I thought they were going to be angry at me because I just couldn’t muster the energy. I saw so many elated faces, which I didn’t expect, and I could tell they shared the same feelings, so we were all aligned with one another. And I’ve had so many developers come to me after and say, ‘Thank god.'"
-Swen Vicke​

 

log in or register to remove this ad

Who's left? You're looking at Obsidian, Paradox Interactive, Witcher 3 studio.
Obsidian are owned by MS, so are essentially "too big" unless the MS execs and the ex-MS Hasbro execs are such friends that they can get a really good deal through.

Paradox Interactive
They don't have any studios who could do this, and they couldn't do it themselves.

Witcher 3 studio
CDPR? They're far too big. The reason they did the Cyberpunk 2077 licence is that they are so much more powerful than R. Talsorian Games, who are basically, a handful of people who long ago had a moderately successful TT RPG, that RTG has no power over them, and definitely DID NOT get a percentage of gross revenue (unlike WotC), and they've got an exceptional and direct working relationship with Mike Pondsmith who seems to be keen to basically say "Yes! Cool!" to everything CDPR wants to do. They didn't need to use a licence at all - they did it because the devs actually loved Cyberpunk 2020's vibe. But they make games that sell a lot more copies than BG3 has yet - Witcher 3 has sold over 50m, for example.

This is factually incorrect. I was a day EA player and I very distinctly remember the first time I encountered this. The fishers around it were mind controlled to clear away rubble and dig it out, which is a very clear reason. You could absolutely just shoot the thing in the face with your bow, and they would all shake it off, be upset and confused by what was going on, then walk away. No muss, no fuss. The rest of your commentary is pretty overstated, in my opinion, but that's just a matter of opinion, so we can just have our different takes on how dark it was and the degree to which the companions were more of a pack of jerks back then compared to launch... but this is just flat out untrue.
I forgot the reason, because it wasn't really animated until much later on, but otherwise what I said was correct.

As for "you could shoot it from a distance", no, not day one you couldn't. You're retcon'ing stuff that became possible with the later updates to the encounter into always being there. Understandable given how many changes there were over time.
On a different note: As someone who 100% agrees that DOS 1&2 had some seriously jank mechanics and a lot of setting issues, I also 100% agree with Vinke that they're better than the D&D 5e rules and the FR setting. Also lol @ at the idea that FR isn't just as edgelord grimderpy as Rivellon ever was. It's literally just a super-generic fantasy kitchen sink where everything is crappy and tragic, but with bright colors so for some reason, people don't seem to notice it. FFS, the author-insert great hero of the setting literally looked his own daughter in the eye and said "Might makes right, so do as I say, or I'll kill you." I'm barely even paraphrasing.
Now you're being extremely factually inaccurate and deeply misleading.

You're quoting a deeply obscure FR novel, that people (including you) only know about or have heard of because of that ridiculous and out-of-character line, and how poorly it fits with the FR, and acting like it's representative of the FR. It's not. The FR is flatly not a grimdark setting. Insisting that it is means that essentially every single fantasy setting is "grimdark" and thus the term is meaningless, and obviously that's not the case. The FR novels definitely have some edgelord stuff in them, especially some of the '90s and early '00s ones, but that's not representative of the setting as a whole, and lot of what happens in the novels is simply not canon, so pretending it is is bizarre behaviour and misleading.

As WotC themselves said, unless it's actually in an FR book published for 5E (and that does not include novels), you cannot assume it is still canon. I will say the 3E FR did, like a lot of 3E stuff, lean definitely more that way, but the 4E and 5E versions do not. Nor did the 2E one.

Rivellon, on the other hand, is fundamentally grimdark, particularly as of DOS1 and DOS2. It hits countless grimdark and crapsack world tropes in both of those (arguably DOS1 is more crapsaccharine, but that's not a very useful trope imho). You could argue that prior portrayals only had it as "dark fantasy", not grimdark, and I'd kind of agree - to- a point - but there's no possible argument that DOS2 isn't maximally grimdark/crapsack world and doesn't have some of the most edgelord companions ever seen in any RPG.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad


EzekielRaiden

Follower of the Way
Obsidian are owned by MS, so are essentially "too big" unless the MS execs and the ex-MS Hasbro execs are such friends that they can get a really good deal through.


They don't have any studios who could do this, and they couldn't do it themselves.


CDPR? They're far too big. The reason they did the Cyberpunk 2077 licence is that they are so much more powerful than R. Talsorian Games, who are basically, a handful of people who long ago had a moderately successful TT RPG, that RTG has no power over them, and definitely DID NOT get a percentage of gross revenue (unlike WotC), and they've got an exceptional and direct working relationship with Mike Pondsmith who seems to be keen to basically say "Yes! Cool!" to everything CDPR wants to do. They didn't need to use a licence at all - they did it because the devs actually loved Cyberpunk 2020's vibe.


I forgot the reason, because it wasn't really animated until much later on, but otherwise what I said was correct.

As for "you could shoot it from a distance", no, not day one you couldn't. You're retcon'ing stuff that became possible with the later updates to the encounter into always being there. Understandable given how many changes there were over time.

Now you're being extremely factually inaccurate and deeply misleading.

You're quoting a deeply obscure FR novel, that people only know about because of that ridiculous and out-of-character line, and acting like it's representative of the FR. It's not. The FR is flatly not a grimdark setting. Insisting that it is means that essentially every single fantasy setting is "grimdark" and thus the term is meaningless, and obviously that's not the case. The FR novels definitely have some edgelord stuff in them, especially some of the '90s and early '00s ones, but that's not representative of the setting as a whole, and lot of what happens in the novels is simply not canon, so pretending it is is bizarre behaviour and misleading.

As WotC themselves said, unless it's actually in an FR book published for 5E (and that does not include novels), you cannot assume it is still canon. I will say the 3E FR did, like a lot of 3E stuff, lean definitely more that way, but the 4E and 5E versions do not. Nor did the 2E one.
These days, folks will latch onto anything to prove that the inexorable decline of grimdark isn't happening.

It's almost like people are tired of worlds where everyone and everything sucks, everyone is miserable and suffering, and nothing ever gets better or even changes all that much.

We suffered under the yoke of enforced positivity, squeaky-clean worlds, and absolute denial that anything more deviant than tousled hair could ever exist for several decades. Now we've suffered under the yoke of self-enforced negativity, black-and-black morality, and absolute denial that a shred of dignity or virtue exists in the human soul that isn't a pretense for filling some base and petty desire.

I have high hopes that we will now finally start to see an era of nuance. Where some heroes are just heroes and some heroes are flawed and some heroes are hypocrites. Where the world has stuff that sucks and stuff that is awesome and stuff that we don't even really know what to think about.

A world where everything has its brightness turned up to 11 and no shadows are allowed to exist is flat and boring. Unfortunately, a lot of creators (and far too many audience members) have decided that that means a world with the brightness turned off and no lights are allowed to exist must be the best thing ever, but all it does is create a different kind of flat and boring.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
Obsidian are owned by MS, so are essentially "too big" unless the MS execs and the ex-MS Hasbro execs are such friends that they can get a really good deal through.


They don't have any studios who could do this, and they couldn't do it themselves.


CDPR? They're far too big. The reason they did the Cyberpunk 2077 licence is that they are so much more powerful than R. Talsorian Games, who are basically, a handful of people who long ago had a moderately successful TT RPG, that RTG has no power over them, and definitely DID NOT get a percentage of gross revenue (unlike WotC), and they've got an exceptional and direct working relationship with Mike Pondsmith who seems to be keen to basically say "Yes! Cool!" to everything CDPR wants to do. They didn't need to use a licence at all - they did it because the devs actually loved Cyberpunk 2020's vibe. But they make games that sell a lot more copies than BG3 has yet - Witcher 3 has sold over 50m, for example.


I forgot the reason, because it wasn't really animated until much later on, but otherwise what I said was correct.

As for "you could shoot it from a distance", no, not day one you couldn't. You're retcon'ing stuff that became possible with the later updates to the encounter into always being there. Understandable given how many changes there were over time.

Now you're being extremely factually inaccurate and deeply misleading.

You're quoting a deeply obscure FR novel, that people (including you) only know about or have heard of because of that ridiculous and out-of-character line, and how poorly it fits with the FR, and acting like it's representative of the FR. It's not. The FR is flatly not a grimdark setting. Insisting that it is means that essentially every single fantasy setting is "grimdark" and thus the term is meaningless, and obviously that's not the case. The FR novels definitely have some edgelord stuff in them, especially some of the '90s and early '00s ones, but that's not representative of the setting as a whole, and lot of what happens in the novels is simply not canon, so pretending it is is bizarre behaviour and misleading.

As WotC themselves said, unless it's actually in an FR book published for 5E (and that does not include novels), you cannot assume it is still canon. I will say the 3E FR did, like a lot of 3E stuff, lean definitely more that way, but the 4E and 5E versions do not. Nor did the 2E one.

Rivellon, on the other hand, is fundamentally grimdark, particularly as of DOS1 and DOS2. It hits countless grimdark and crapsack world tropes in both of those (arguably DOS1 is more crapsaccharine, but that's not a very useful trope imho). You could argue that prior portrayals only had it as "dark fantasy", not grimdark, and I'd kind of agree - to- a point - but there's no possible argument that DOS2 isn't maximally grimdark/crapsack world and doesn't have some of the most edgelord companions ever seen in any RPG.

I was mostly spitvalling sone studios. Outside the big ones whose left and is competent enough?

That's WotC/Hasbro problem.
 

Mods can create some pretty impressive stuff, but I don't think there is currently the ability to do this.

Larian would need to release a level creation kit. Which, presumably, they have one already, it's just not made for end-user use.
A DM mode unfortunately goes way beyond what a level creation kit could do.

A DM mode requires the DM to be able to assume control of NPCs and the world and make things happen. Larian, Swen in fact, specifically and clearly stated that they had absolutely no interest in doing that with BG3, even later on.

So I think it's safe to say there will never be a DM mode for BG3, unless someone goes far beyond what even normal modding could do. But if they release their "creation kit" equivalent, people should at least be able to make levels, area, adventures, and so on. The trouble is, history relates that they mostly won't. If you look at games where people can create adventures and areas, almost none of the mods for them do - it's incredibly rare because it's incredibly high effort, and gets higher-effort every year.

These days, folks will latch onto anything to prove that the inexorable decline of grimdark isn't happening.
Indeed.

I agree re: hoping we can see some nuance. WotC wants squeaky-clean worlds, PG-rated worlds, which is funny for a game about fringe members of society going out risking their lives killing people and monsters and taking their stuff. Larian actually hit that middle line between grimdark and too-clean pretty well with BG3. Whereas they did not with DOS2, which was pure grimdark.
 

Yaarel

Hurra for syttende mai!
You're asking me to remember stuff from the beta of a game 4 years ago, which changed repeatedly and rapidly over that period, so I hope you will be okay with me being vague - people have been finding screenshots from their own EA periods and being astonished by what's in them lol.

But some examples:

1) There was an encounter with a dying Mind Flayer not long after you got off the ship - it's still there - but it had a bunch of fisherfolk around it, being mind controlled for no clear reason. In very early EA, there were only lose/lose outcomes to this. Whatever you did, something horrific happened, usually you having to kill all the fisherfolk, regardless of whether you stopped them being mind-controlled. And the companion characters had some pretty weird and callous comments about it. This left a pretty horrific impression, and not in a good way - it operated as a sort of mission statement - "Everyone is bad and everything will end badly", especially as it was essentially the first non-companion encounter outside the Nautiloid. Over the course of EA, they toned this down twice, first making it so there were some grey outcomes, but they required multiple DC15+ saves/checks to get (not easy at L1/2) - and at this point you couldn't save game in dialogue, note - but it was still pretty bad. Then by lowering the DCs but you still had a lot of rolls. Eventually they removed it, and put the fisherfolk down the map, but still had a pretty hostile encounter with them, then they removed that too, because it really wasn't serving any purpose.

2) The Nautiloid itself used to be longer and more detailed, and also used to be much more likely to involve you being forced to a bunch of innocent mind-controlled people by accidentally or even unavoidably aggro'ing them, which felt pretty bad. When they shortened this to make restarting less tedious, they took I think all of that out (NB knocking people out was either not in the game or so well hidden almost no-one knew about it, at this point), and now you only fight devils (or optionally a couple of Intellect Devourers).

3) All the companions were bigger jerks. Shadowheart was intensely rude and unpleasant (not "sassy" as I have seen people try to retcon - just unpleasant and sneering like she is to Lae'zel early on), and the only way to get past this was to act like she was your boss and you were the world's most brown-nosing employee. I hate to use the term "simp" but basically unless you took that attitude on literally everything she said, she acted like she hated you. You could do a bunch of things to help her, but unless you also went along with 100% of her nonsense, she hated you. They dialled this back over time, particularly in one big patch were they added reactivity to you saving her from the pod - that was the big turn-around. Gale was prissier and more superior. Lae'zel was... mostly the same but had no context - you couldn't get nearly as much info about WHY she was behaving like this. Karlach wasn't in the game for a lot of EA, and only meetable not possible to recruit for the rest - but she was pretty different - a lot angrier and bitterer - like her darkest moments in the real game were basically the norm (a lot of that is from data-mining to be fair). Wyll was a different character with a different, and frankly grosser and weirder story, where he was the one lying to people, and Mizora was kidnapped (?!?!?!). Astarion was similar to Lae'zel in that he changed less, but lacked context for his behaviour. He was also more aggressive and callous, and didn't have anywhere near the number of funny lines.

4) All the NPCs were bigger jerks. This is a bit hazier but virtually every major NPC gave you a harder time, through a combination of higher DCs on any checks you needed to make, more checks, and just being less pleasant when you helped them, with a lot of "Hmph I didn't ask for your help"-type stuff - I think even Zevlor gave you quite a lot of attitude back then.

5) Again more hazy but a lot of quests and situations which have a positive outcome now simply didn't have one back then. They just had different bad or at best grey endings, and again due to the DCs for checks being higher, and there being more checks, even those tended to be more difficult to get.

6) Mechanics-wise, NPC enemies and spells in general tended to do a ton more with creating surfaces (fire, ice, water, etc.) - like stuff now where you only get a surface effect with special items or interactions with objects in the world, spells just did and NPC enemies often had grenades, arrows, barrels, etc. that made surfaces - more so than they do even on Tactician now. Compounding this, the surface effects were much more powerful - I forget how much damage "Burning" did, for example, but it was definitely a lot more than 1d4/round lasting for at most 2 rounds (assuming you got off the surface). The actual D&D rules were significantly less well-implemented (you can sort of trace this from the patch notes at least), and they tended to get overwhelmed by the wild plethora of surface effects that went off everywhere, like even blood was a major issue! Larian got such negative feedback here that they started toning it down pretty rapidly here. NPCs also tended to have more "hard" CC spells and higher damage spells at lower levels, like it seemed like Larian weren't quite ready for how few HP player characters had in D&D - the game wasn't exactly harder though because the surface effects were much easier for a player to exploit than NPCs. People complained a lot that it felt like DOS3, gameplay-wise, not BG3, and they were right to.

7) "Daisy" vs The Guardian - I won't go into too much detail because I'm not sure how much of a spoiler thread this is, but there was a totally different approach to the tadpoles, which seemed to be more like "Daisy" (who you created, like you create the Guardian now, but they asked "who do you desire" instead of "who protects you" or w/e) was trying to tempt and manipulate you into using and where using any at all was a big deal (also the tadpole powers were class-based), and it seems like there was a separate unseen voice trying to convince you not to (who in retrospect might have been Orpheus). Overall this was the one bit which wasn't more grimdark, but it was pretty different and seemed to be pointing to a later game where the main question would be "What will you do for power/to win?", which is definitely not where the game actually went in the release version. The whole song "Down by the river" is for/about Daisy, note. Also you gained power with the tadpole by using its power, not eating other tadpoles.

I think that's enough for now lol.
It goes to show how the feedback process is so important for any game design.

I credit the success of 5e 2014 to the unprecedented surveys and extensive playtest.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
It goes to show how the feedback process is so important for any game design.

I credit the success of 5e 2014 to the unprecedented surveys and extensive playtest.

Yeah it's a big part of it.

Makes me laugh about people saying new is better. The risk for 5.5 is change regardless of how good it is.

Eg was there a big grass roots movement for a new edition?

That's the risk.
 

Outside the big ones whose left and is competent enough?

That's WotC/Hasbro problem.
Not just Hasbro/WotC - literally everyone who has an IP smaller than Star Wars has this problem - even Marvel has this problem outside of Spider-Man (the one Marvel IP that is marketable enough that you can get huge studios and publishers on it). Even with Star Wars some studios/publishers aren't keen to get involved.

Games Workshop has this problem - once a studio gets successful and skilled enough, it's just smarter to make your own IP, especially as GW-based games often flop (c.f. Frontier's recent Age of Sigmar game).

But you asked a question - who would make a new D&D game, a BG4?

And I'm struggling to think of any studio or studio/publisher combo who is small enough that they'd benefit, but big enough that they could actually do it. I think if WotC were willing to invest in a studio they might be able to make it happen. Owlcat, for example, with a significant investment, could probably make a BG4 - but I don't think WotC would do that.

But yeah this is why WotC are struggling so hard to find AAA studios to do D&D games. It's easy enough to find indie and AA ones who would benefit from the licence and where 10% of gross revenue or the like isn't going to hurt them anywhere near as much as "D&D" helps them, but most of them can't afford to develop a full-scale CRPG, or aren't interested in doing so, or have no experience in that approach.
 

Burnside

Space Jam Confirmed
Supporter
My take:

- While it's certainly plausible that Larian is walking away from D&D because of something stupid/greedy that WotC did, that's not necessarily true. Larian is a private company, and Vinke has a history of doing what he wants to do - and also, while profit is important to him, that's not the sole or even primary motive for his business moves. Larian could be walking away for reasons that do, do in part, or don't at all have to do with anything WotC did.

- Vinke has been saying sporadically since the game released - and possibly before - that the next thing Larian will do after BG3 wouldn't be a D&D game, and that they were eager to return to their own IP.

- Larian can make a successful, profitable CRPG without WotC. Whether WotC can make a successful, profitable CRPG without Larian very much remains to be seen. Gamers will now buy whatever Larian makes next on the strength of BG3. At this point in time, WotC needs Larian more than Larian needs WotC. I find it plausible that Hasbro does not realize this.

- BG3 is a huge, huge improvement on DoS 1 & 2, and frankly I don't even see how that is in question. And yes, it's because BG3's D&D-based mechanics are WAY better than the mechanics in DoS, and also the writing in BG3 is better, and, thirdly, cinematic dialogue scenes. The fact that Vinke thinks DoS had "better" mechanics than BG3 is worrying.

- Larian isn't going to make a DM mode for BG3 because a miniscule amount of people would use it and it would take a hellish amount of work to create it. They learned that from the DoS GM mode, which nobody used and which was a nightmare for them to create.

- The writing in the OwlCat Pathfinder games isn't good. They're very overwritten, and they need to be much more ruthless with themselves when it comes to editing. They also need to bite the bullet and hire a talented writer who is a native English speaker to re-write the English translations of their games so that the speech patterns sound natural. Also, way too many meaningless-feeling combat encounters, and the kingdom/war management mini-games in both Kingmaker and WotR are terrible and someone should have pulled the plug on them during dev.

- Mechanically, the Solasta 5E games are more fun than DoS 1 & 2 and the Owlcat games. However, the writing is worse than any of them.
 
Last edited:

Burnside

Space Jam Confirmed
Supporter
And I'm struggling to think of any studio or studio/publisher combo who is small enough that they'd benefit, but big enough that they could actually do it. I think if WotC were willing to invest in a studio they might be able to make it happen. Owlcat, for example, with a significant investment, could probably make a BG4 - but I don't think WotC would do that.

I would love to see the now-indy-again Harebrained Schemes (Shadowrun, Battletech) make a D&D game.

I also would love to see a D&D CRPG that has nothing to do with the Baldur's Gate series.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top