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

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​

​

 

[Ondath]

I understood why they made the choice, but I really wish they made at least one DLC to expand the level range (to 15 or beyond) and also reincorporated stuff like the scrapped upper city. But I honestly can't blame them given how WotC and Hasbro have proven themselves to be unreliable partners over the years.

As long as they release better modding tools/GM mode, I'll be happy.

 

[Reynard]

I had a long response to this but when the thread got merged it got eaten. Let me make it as short as possible.

• Rivellon is a bad setting, that's generic, sophomoric (at best) grimdark and was holding Larian back.
• BG3's early EA showed this - it launched with unpleasant, edgelord-y companions like DOS2, a grimdark take on the FR, and situations full of lose/lose or black/grey as the only possible outcomes.
• BG3's early EA also had terrible DOS mechanics slathered all over it, to the point of overwhelming the D&D mechanics.
• These points only changed because of massive negative feedback from the EA, where people were expecting a D&D/BG/FR game, not DOS3. If there had been no EA, or the game was DOS3, the negative feedback wouldn't have been there, and we'd have got a drastically worse (and far less financially successful) game.
• Swen Vincke expressed the opinion in video interviews, shortly before BG3's release, that Rivellon was a better setting than the FR, and DOS2 had much better mechanics than BG3 - this actually attracted some controversy among the few people who watched the video interviews, indicating certainly he had learned absolutely nothing at that point. He actually seemed slightly peeved (in his charming way) that they hadn't made DOS3.

Re: bolded bit, I pray that's true but I really doubt it, given Swen's comments and general attitudes.

As for DOS1/2, both were simultaneously extremely impressive and disappointing:

DOS1 - Basically a Terry Pratchett fanfic written by a 14-year-old Dutch guy (not literally) with a poor sense of humour, a poor grasp on English and a significant misogynist streak. Rescued by fascinating mechanics and an Ultima-esque approach to the world which made it very fun to play at times - but entirely despite the story and characters.

DOS2 - Basically a Joe Abercrombie fanfic written by a 20-something Goth guy with a slightly better sense of humour and grasp on English but still not a good one*. Wildly overrated at release, to the point where I would say that a lot of reviewers are extremely lucky Larian kept patching hard and the Definitive Edition happened, because otherwise they'd be getting called liars for the rest of their careers. It was a buggy and totally incomplete mess at launch (Act 4 barely even functioned). The mechanics this time were far less fun, and only barrelmancy still working really saved it, that and multiplayer chaos. The Definitive Edition corrected much of this, but couldn't rescue it from being sophomoric grimdark.


* = Larian did at least kinda own up to this - With DOS2 they re-wrote huge parts of it for the Definitive Edition (like, most of the game), with primary English speakers and hired huge numbers of writers who went on to write BG3.

I played both DOS games in their ultimate/definitive editions so it may be that I did not see the warts. That said, it still means they have become a better studio making better games.

 

[TwoSix]

I had a long response to this but when the thread got merged it got eaten. Let me make it as short as possible.

• Rivellon is a bad setting, that's generic, sophomoric (at best) grimdark and was holding Larian back.

• BG3's early EA showed this - it launched with unpleasant, edgelord-y companions like DOS2, a grimdark take on the FR, and situations full of lose/lose or black/grey as the only possible outcomes.

• BG3's early EA also had terrible DOS mechanics slathered all over it, to the point of overwhelming the D&D mechanics.

• These points only changed because of massive negative feedback from the EA, where people were expecting a D&D/BG/FR game, not DOS3. If there had been no EA, or the game was DOS3, the negative feedback wouldn't have been there, and we'd have got a drastically worse (and far less financially successful) game.

• Swen Vincke expressed the opinion in video interviews, shortly before BG3's release, that Rivellon was a better setting than the FR, and DOS2 had much better mechanics than BG3 - this actually attracted some controversy among the few people who watched the video interviews, indicating certainly he had learned absolutely nothing at that point. He actually seemed slightly peeved (in his charming way) that they hadn't made DOS3.

Re: bolded bit, I pray that's true but I really doubt it, given Swen's comments and general attitudes.

As for DOS1/2, both were simultaneously extremely impressive and disappointing:

DOS1 - Basically a Terry Pratchett fanfic written by a 14-year-old Dutch guy (not literally) with a poor sense of humour, a poor grasp on English and a significant misogynist streak. Rescued by fascinating mechanics and an Ultima-esque approach to the world which made it very fun to play at times - but entirely despite the story and characters.

DOS2 - Basically a Joe Abercrombie fanfic written by a 20-something Goth guy with a slightly better sense of humour and grasp on English but still not a good one*. Wildly overrated at release, to the point where I would say that a lot of reviewers are extremely lucky Larian kept patching hard and the Definitive Edition happened, because otherwise they'd be getting called liars for the rest of their careers. It was a buggy and totally incomplete mess at launch (Act 4 barely even functioned). The mechanics this time were far less fun, and only barrelmancy still working really saved it, that and multiplayer chaos. The Definitive Edition corrected much of this, but couldn't rescue it from being sophomoric grimdark.


* = Larian did at least kinda own up to this - With DOS2 they re-wrote huge parts of it for the Definitive Edition (like, most of the game), with primary English speakers and hired huge numbers of writers who went on to write BG3.

Which is why I'm glad they're walking away, before the inevitably disappointing DLCs or Larian-made BG4.

Like most hugely successful products, BG3 was a product of a particular group of people working at a particular place and time, subject to the right constraints and making the right amount of course correction. It's extremely rare to recapture the particular alchemy that made something beloved by trying to do a follow-up.

Take your victory lap. Walk away a champion. Don't beat your success into the ground.

 

[Scribe]

That is a weird take. Do you think it was D&D and Mike Mearls that made BG3 a good game?

I guess if you did not like DOS 1 or 2 you might think this way, but I did like those games and I think if anything the experience with BG3 has probably elevated the studio's next DOS project.

To be honest I wouldnt have given this game a look if it wasnt Baldurs Gate. I likely skip on whatever Larian does next.

 

[sevenbastard]

How I CHOOSE to interpurt the title of the article is that Larion team is elated they can take there game away from the location of Baldurs Gate to a new setting.

which means one thing......

SPELLJAMER (VIDEO GAME) CONFIRMED!!!

 

[SteveC]

This makes me sad. And that's coming from someone who played DOS1 and DOS2 a few months after they launched. When I heard Larian was going to do BG3 I was over the moon because the way their games look and the attention to detail they have on them made me think we'd have something special.

And now playing BG3 I know that was right. What makes it better than the DOS series is the lore behind the game, but also the core rules for 5E that they implemented. It really makes the game hum, and as I'm playing it, I understand the mechanics of what's going on. I was hoping to get a whole series of games from Larian on this because D&D does not have a good track record with their gaming. Neverwinter Nights was a long time ago.

So here we are and I think this decision is a bad one both for WotC and Larian. WotC is unlikely to have another game like BG3 anytime in the future. I suspect we'll see something like "D&D Go" or some shovelware. Larian will have to go back to their house system, which as fine as it is, isn't as stong mechanically and character wise as D&D.

I am going to enjoy BG3, I suppose, and be glad we have it. And continue to play Solasta too. It does make me sad that WotC didn't throw stacks of cash and creative freedom at the Larian people to keep them in house. But it's been my experience that WotC thinks they can do some things better than they end up in practice.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I played both DOS games in their ultimate/definitive editions so it may be that I did not see the warts. That said, it still means they have become a better studio making better games.

Yeah they absolutely have, but a big part of that was criticism they only received because they made a D&D/FR game, and because that game had a lengthy EA period. And as I pointed out, Swen doesn't seem to have taken any of that on board, indeed he seems to have an oppositional attitude to that.

I don't doubt the art, music, animation, interface, UI, and so on of Next Larian Game (NLG) will be much better than DOS2, probably than BG3.

But if that's in service of a generic grimdark setting, a bunch of obnoxious edgelord companions, black/grey decisions, and the combat system is a contrived and counterintuitive deal once more, who cares? It'll sell - but it won't sell BG3 numbers, and people will start talking about how Larian isn't Larian anymore and so on (despite this being a reversion to form, if anything).

Also, will they even do EA again? DOS2 would have been even worse if they hadn't, and BG3 would have been a 8/10 game at most (probably more like 7/10). If they do, it might save them, but I suspect they won't.

Which is why I'm glad they're walking away, before the inevitably disappointing DLCs or Larian-made BG4.

I don't think that if they'd planned DLC or planned a BG4, they'd be disappointing, because they'd still be running on the same lessons and ideas they learned from BG3, and wouldn't have an opportunity to revert to form. Also, the engine being fully constructed, and their take on the D&D rules having improved drastically over time, I would have expected both to come out pretty quickly (relative to how long these things can take - i.e. like a major expansion/huge DLC might take 12-18 months and BG4 might take 3.5 years instead of 5+).

Supporting my thesis, very little DLC for narrative-heavy "cinematic" RPGs has ever been disappointing. CDPR's W3 and 2077 DLC was stellar, better than the main game, and BioWare's DLC ranged from "better than the main game" to "as good as parts of the main game".

But that would require them to have planned to do that. And they clearly did not. Changing course to make an unplanned expansion for BG3 would probably mean they'd need to take like 2.5-3 years, which is crazy unless you're trying to rescue a screw-up (c.f. Cyberpunk 2077/Phantom Liberty, which is, admittedly, astonishing), and starting an unplanned BG4 would likely mean 5+ years of dev and they might lose a lot of the people who made BG3 good over that period.

To be honest I wouldnt have given this game a look if it wasnt Baldurs Gate. I likely skip on whatever Larian does next.

I'm slightly less negative I think, but unless what Larian does next is:

A) A CRPG

B) Not grimdark (so Rivellon is right out)

C) Does not use DOS1/2-style mechanics.

I probably won't be interested.

(To be clear, not grimdark doesn't mean not dark - for example, Citizen Sleeper is pretty dark and depressing, but it's never grimdark.)

 

[Scribe]

I'm slightly less negative I think, but unless what Larian does next is:

A) A CRPG

B) Not grimdark (so Rivellon is right out)

C) Does not use DOS1/2-style mechanics.

I probably won't be interested.

Yeah its not that I'm down on Larian, but your summary a few posts back covers it. The early access version of the game had me running for the hills, because I wanted to be playing D&D, not consumable/barrel spam. If thats DOS mechanics, you can count me out. The antagonistic writing at the start was annoying, but really it was the game play I wanted no part of.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

If thats DOS mechanics, you can count me out.

That is the absolute defining element of DOS1/2's mechanics, yeah. Barrelmancy and surfaces slathered with stuff. Entire screens covered in fire was absolutely normal.

DOS1 had this together with a relatively straightforward action-point based combat system, which wasn't like, hugely engaging, but made basic sense.

DOS2 had this together with a completely bizarre system where physical armour and magical shielding worked a lot like energy shields in a futuristic shooter, and had to be burned down before you could do actual damage OR inflict any CC at all, and due to a lot of odd design choices, you were much better off making a team of characters hyper-specialized in burning down one OR the other, rather than say, attacking the actual weaknesses of the enemies or the like. On top of this it had steep linear power growth on weapons/armour, so an L3 weapon was like, twice as good as an L1 one, and an L5 weapon twice as good as an L3 one, and so on (I think I overstate slightly, but not by much), and the de facto result was that you had to constantly upgrade or the game went from "fairly easy" to "soul crushing" very rapidly - and it wasn't fun to do so because found equipment was often too low level, and unless you stole/murdered constantly, you couldn't really afford up-to-date equipment. Barrelmancy allowed you to circumvent this to some significant extent.

 

[Scribe]

That is the absolute defining element of DOS1/2's mechanics, yeah. Barrelmancy and surfaces slathered with stuff. Entire screens covered in fire was absolutely normal.

DOS1 had this together with a relatively straightforward action-point based combat system, which wasn't like, hugely engaging, but made basic sense.

DOS2 had this together with a completely bizarre system where physical armour and magical shielding worked a lot like energy shields in a futuristic shooter, and had to be burned down before you could do actual damage OR inflict any CC at all, and due to a lot of odd design choices, you were much better off making a team of characters hyper-specialized in burning down one OR the other, rather than say, attacking the actual weaknesses of the enemies or the like. On top of this it had steep linear power growth on weapons/armour, so an L3 weapon was like, twice as good as an L1 one, and an L5 weapon twice as good as an L3 one, and so on (I think I overstate slightly, but not by much), and the de facto result was that you had to constantly upgrade or the game went from "fairly easy" to "soul crushing" very rapidly - and it wasn't fun to do so because found equipment was often too low level, and unless you stole/murdered constantly, you couldn't really afford up-to-date equipment. Barrelmancy allowed you to circumvent this to some significant extent.

Yeah, that's just a no from me.

Maybe they learned from BG3? One can hope.