Calling BG3 a sequel is very disingenuous, it shares nothing in common with BG1 and BG2 besides the name.
Being based on d&d and having two previous big hits in a row (Divinity Original Sin 1 & 2) obviously mattered though.
Baldur’s gate is the third installment in a decades old franchise that is based on d&d, a franchise that has been popular for nearly 50 years now
Astaroth@lemm.ee 1 year ago
KermitLeFrog@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Right, but from the perspective of a gaming company CEO, it being a sequel is everything. You have to remember, these people are incredibly uninformed and shortsighted. Think of the dumbest person you’ve interacted with ever, and that’s about as intelligent as the smartest CEO. They see that Baldur’s Gate 3 sold well, and all they learn from that is that sequels are a profitable endeavor. They couldn’t care less about any of the context that makes it a good game.
iheartneopets@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Yet it still managed to be fresh and, in my opinion, make the next big leap in what rpgs are capable of. Sequels aren’t really the problem, and I don’t mind them really—in a vacuum. The bigger problem is what ‘sequels’ are in corporate speak; making minimal effort and doing the same things over and over again, trying to profit off of name recognition alone. They don’t see a franchise and think “Great, a chance to dive into this world and see all it has to offer and what makes it tick,” they see it as a chance to make maximum $$$ while not feeling like they need to do much.
Once again, corpos ruin everything.