• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Can someone explain the reason(s) Obsidian wasn't even considered to develop Baldurs Gate 3?

Africa's Toto

Member
Jan 7, 2018
352
351
590
Edit: I get it now. At least a lot more likely reasons have been shown to me through this thread
Note: I fully trust Larian to deliver an amazing, genre-pushing game with BG3. I am in no way trying to push a "Larian are the wrong devs" angle. D:OS2 is top 3 gaming experiences for me.

I'm just wondering why, in general discussion, no-one seemed to even consider Obsidian as hypothetical alternatives when Larian revealed they were developing BG3.

They were the first team that came to mind when i thought about a possible BG3.
It just seemed to make sense, with the art style in their games being the middle ground between old crpgs and the new age. Static yet visually exciting backgrounds, an instantly familiar hud, and so on.

They even had a mix of both realtime with pause and turn-based gameplay by Pillars 2, even if it was obviously designed around Rtwp.


Why did the studio that released this


Not even end up in the discussion to develop a sequel to this?




The only reasons I can think of are:
- Obsidia's use of a custom rulebook for Pillars' mechanics (Same with Larian in the Divinity games, I believe)
- From documentaries it seems Larian got there first (doesn't explain why apparently no-one even considered them)
There has to be more though, so what am I missing?
 
Last edited:
Jun 16, 2019
3,243
6,539
640
Because Obsidian have not done anything past average/ok in the last years. PoE2 was a financial fail, it was also quite weak. The Outer Worlds was the poor mans modern fallout with nothing really special, just average shit. Tyranny? lol. Their last good game I enjoyed was South Park and that was 7 years ago. Larian is pushing the genre forward. Obsidian is stuck in the past.
 
Last edited:

Africa's Toto

Member
Jan 7, 2018
352
351
590
Because Obsidian have not done anything past average/ok in the last years. PoE2 was a financial fail, it was also quite weak. The Outer Worlds was the poor mans modern fallout with nothing really special, just average shit. Tyranny? lol. Their last good game I enjoyed was South Park and that was 7 years ago. Larian is pushing the genre forward. Obsidian is stuck in the past.
Yeah, the commercial aspect was probably the difference.
If I recall though, in a documentary Sven (Larian) said they'd been probing wizards of the coast for BG3 since around the time they initially started developing D:OS2. Which was before Obsidian had released Deadfire and The Outer Worlds, so public perception of them would've been so-so.
 

GHG

Member
Nov 9, 2006
26,266
39,535
1,845
Because modern Obsidian have the potential to ruin it.

Hope you'd like your Baldurs Gate served with a glass of woke.
 

Africa's Toto

Member
Jan 7, 2018
352
351
590
Thank god they weren't. Modern obsidian isn't the same obsidian that made Fallout NV and Pillars of Eternity.
Larian is definitely a much better choice.
Aren't Obsidian owned by Microsoft now? That would pretty much kill any notion of them doing BG3 if they didn't actually own the ip themselves
I mostly agree with your points, but I'm asking more about the past, and the reasons Obsidian back then wasn't even seen as a prospect.
 

Thirty7ven

Sony make cringe trainers.
Apr 13, 2020
4,288
16,490
660
I don't think the studio behind Grounded and Outer Worlds is quite the right fit for BG3. Larian is riding a high also, with D2 being quite the incredible piece of game. Also, they sold to MS so this ended up being a win for everybody.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GHG

Africa's Toto

Member
Jan 7, 2018
352
351
590
I don't think the studio behind Grounded and Outer Worlds is quite the right fit for BG3. Larian is riding a high also, with D2 being quite the incredible piece of game. Also, they sold to MS so this ended up being a win for everybody.
Sure, I can concede that modern Obsidian strays a little far from pure crpg. But my question is: why did the studio that released this


Not even get considered to make a sequel to this?


I should probably add this to the op
 

kuncol02

Member
Apr 4, 2020
1,737
2,081
455
I don't think the studio behind Grounded and Outer Worlds is quite the right fit for BG3. Larian is riding a high also, with D2 being quite the incredible piece of game. Also, they sold to MS so this ended up being a win for everybody.
They are studio behind Pillars of Eternity. If they are not right fit for BG3 then no one really is.
 

LazyParrot

Member
Mar 19, 2019
1,822
3,774
445
Wasn't Obsidian purchased by Microsoft back in 2018? That would pretty much kill any notion of them doing BG3 if they didn't actually own the ip themselves
Why? Microsoft doesn't own the Indiana Jones IP either, yet they have Machine Games working on a game for that franchise.
 

Thirty7ven

Sony make cringe trainers.
Apr 13, 2020
4,288
16,490
660
Sure, I can concede that modern Obsidian strays a little far from pure crpg. But my question is: why did the studio that released this


Not even get considered to make a sequel to this?


I should probably add this to the op

Because they don't want a remake?
 

FranXico

Member
Dec 7, 2010
14,358
28,697
1,420
On the other hand, they're changing the combat gameplay to turn-based, so...
 

Africa's Toto

Member
Jan 7, 2018
352
351
590
Because they don't want a remake?
Yeah, I don't understand this. The images were meant to express the fact that there aren't many devs who can make decent crpgs in a style *similar* to BG2 (which you would normally want if you're making a sequel)
 
Last edited:

Dazraell

Member
Dec 7, 2020
101
72
205
As far as I remember, both Feargus Urquhart from Obsidian and Brian Fargo from inXile pitched their own takes on Baldur's Gate III to Wizards of the Coast in the past. They weren't interested. The closest we got was Neverwinter Nights 2.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Africa's Toto

Africa's Toto

Member
Jan 7, 2018
352
351
590
On the other hand, they're changing the combat gameplay to turn-based, so...
Eh. I feel the unprecedented success Larian had releasing the Divinity games on consoles helped to ease that decision.
Rtwp with a controller is basically impossible to design.
 

kuncol02

Member
Apr 4, 2020
1,737
2,081
455
Because they don't want a remake?
I don't understand why BG3 is even considered good thing.
Even original creators decided that there is nothing interesting to do and moved to another games like Planescape Torment. Why game which don't have anything in common with original BG (except setting which is used in many other games), made by other people and even totally mechanically different is something to cherish? They really could made their own story, but decided to make easy cash grab for all people nostalgic for Black Isle games.
You want to use Forgoten Relams? Fine, but for gods sake make your own game.

Also people who thing that Wizards of the Coast branded game will not be woke as shit should prepare for really rude awakening. What they do with MTG and D&D is wokeness unavailable for most of other companies.
 
Last edited:

FranXico

Member
Dec 7, 2010
14,358
28,697
1,420
Yeah, I don't understand this. The images were meant to express the fact that there aren't many devs who can make decent crpgs in a style *similar* to BG2 (which you would normally want if you're making a sequel)
Normally, you also would preserve the fundamentals in a sequel, but they're changing the combat to turn-based, which is quite frankly, a leap backwards.
 

sobaka770

Member
Jun 25, 2013
2,189
2,192
815
Lausanne, Switzerland
PIllars of Eternity was competent enough as a CRPG renewal poster child. It had solid mechanics, solid worldbuilding, somewhat weak storyline and side-characters and a distinct lack of that "magic". It didn't feel like it was a world where you could stumble upon something increadible. However it was their first stab at this after a long break so the foundations were there. And then Deadfire was just weak imo. Yes it had interesting ideas, lots of factions, more involved combat and abilities but overall pirate theme, weak characters and side-quests, boring loot and general tameness of it all drags the whole thing down. After 2 attempts Obsidian couldn't come close to magic of discovery that was BG. Moreover they've shown barely an improvement from part 1 to part 2.

At the same time, Larian got D:OS out which not only paid homage to CRPGs of old but also innovated in new and unique ways. And after that they made huge strides with D:OS2 by focusing on the right things: better story and characters, better quests, slight changes to things that already worked well. Yes, they do turn-based but that fits D&D very well. Yes, their writing can be a bit looney although now that they work with official writers we can expect an oversight on the amount of silly that is present. The leaps that company does between each game perfecting their niche is clearly more interesting and they invested a lot for BG3.

I understand that naming the game BG3 is a bit of a trick but I think overall Larian is an excellent choice for D&D game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Africa's Toto

Terenty

Member
Nov 21, 2018
1,162
1,787
450
Obsidian has no talent left in their offices. And their writing team consists of twitter warriors. No thx
 

Africa's Toto

Member
Jan 7, 2018
352
351
590
Normally, you also would preserve the fundamentals in a sequel, but they're changing the combat to turn-based, which is quite frankly, a leap backwards.
Well, I disagree on the step backwards thing, but to each his own.

Yeah, normally a sequel would be as faithful as possible. The only reason I can think of for welcoming radical changes is the significant revenue boost from both co-op and console sales which are some of Larian's strong suits.
 

Africa's Toto

Member
Jan 7, 2018
352
351
590
Again, I'm making it very clear I am in full support of Larian's BG3. I've even stopped following the dev updates for early access because I want to go in blind.
 
Last edited:

bxrz

Member
Oct 30, 2020
451
1,147
340
Because Obsidian have not done anything past average/ok in the last years. PoE2 was a financial fail, it was also quite weak. The Outer Worlds was the poor mans modern fallout with nothing really special, just average shit. Tyranny? lol. Their last good game I enjoyed was South Park and that was 7 years ago. Larian is pushing the genre forward. Obsidian is stuck in the past.
TOW has a 85% MC.
PoE2 has a 88% MC

You don’t know what the definition of average is
 
  • Like
Reactions: kuncol02

Topher

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2020
2,669
8,051
590
Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Not mentioning Obsidian doesn't mean they were not considered. I'm sure they were. But having played Pillars and Divinity, there is no doubt in my mind as far as a Baldur's Gate style RPG, Larian was always the first choice. They are the gold standard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Africa's Toto

Africa's Toto

Member
Jan 7, 2018
352
351
590
Not mentioning Obsidian doesn't mean they were not considered. I'm sure they were. But having played Pillars and Divinity, there is no doubt in my mind as far as a Baldur's Gate style RPG, Larian was always the first choice. They are the gold standard.
Sure, behind the scenes, yeah, they probably looked at multiple studios' pitches.

I was referring more to the general, public discussion. Even when Larian confirmed turn-based for BG3, and people began predictably raging, almost no-one was mentioning Obsidian.

I can understand not bringing up inXile (no offense, Brian, WL2/3 were amazing), nor Wildcat, since they were doing their own thing.

I just found it really strange that even the turn-based naysayers were ignoring what seemed an obvious alternative to me.

Anyway, this thread has brought up some good points.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Topher
Mar 5, 2020
733
1,123
395
www.otakugamers.uk
Why? Microsoft doesn't own the Indiana Jones IP either, yet they have Machine Games working on a game for that franchise.

Microsoft is likely licensing the ip and funding development for Indiana Jones, if neither themselves or Obsidian have the ip for Baldur's Gate then it would be the same situation sure, but obviously the ip owner here is looking to do a game themselves. Why would they then license it to Microsoft? I doubt Obsidian have the autonomy in their contract to work on Baldur's Gate for someone else without needing to greenlit by Microsoft
 

Topher

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2020
2,669
8,051
590
Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Sure, behind the scenes, yeah, they probably looked at multiple studios' pitches.

I was referring more to the general, public discussion. Even when Larian confirmed turn-based for BG3, and people began predictably raging, almost no-one was mentioning Obsidian.

I can understand not bringing up inXile (no offense, Brian, WL2/3 were amazing), nor Wildcat, since they were doing their own thing.

I just found it really strange that even the turn-based naysayers were ignoring what seemed an obvious alternative to me.

Anyway, this thread has brought up some good points.

Ah....ok. My mistake. I thought you were referring to those who who pulled the trigger on approaching Larian as the developer rather than forum discussions.

Obsidian, I believe, is moving in a different direction now that MS has bought them. So even if Larian Studios had turned down BG3, not sure Obsidian would have been an option. Personally, I'm glad BG3 will remain turn-based.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Africa's Toto

Varteras

Member
Dec 5, 2018
881
1,730
380
Any number of reasons why someone wouldn't consider Obsidian for the project. The last game they did in the genre was a commercial failure. Obsidian is much more well known for their work on KotOR 2 and New Vegas, at least that's the impression I get. Larian's work has been both critically and commercially successful with them being considered a gold standard for the genre. So even if people disagree with a gameplay direction they probably still trust them to be good with it.

Could Obsidian have done a good job with it? Yes and they likely would have. It just doesn't seem like a lot of people have the same faith or might not even be aware that Obsidian doesn't just do Bioware or Bethesda style RPGs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Africa's Toto

Melubas

Member
Sep 8, 2015
458
94
410
To me Larian is a better studio right now. Poe2 was filled with boring exposition and not enough character writing. Tyranny was ok but ultimately had the same problem. That said Obsidian by no means makes bad games, but I can see why they went with Larian.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Africa's Toto

Woo-Fu

Banned
Jan 2, 2007
18,685
9,826
1,695
People, OP is not asking why the publisher didn't consider them, he's asking why WE the audience didn't consider them when talking about a BG3.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Africa's Toto

EDMIX

Member
Apr 5, 2018
6,000
5,450
625
33
South Florida aka Outer Haven
Easy, I mean my god have you not seen how much they are currently working on?

I love the team, but I'm ok with who is currently working on it. Give them the damn time to work on Avowed.....
 

Punished Miku

Gold Member
Jan 13, 2018
8,729
18,007
950
Do we know they weren't considered?

Maybe Larian is cheaper? Seems they've been creating their own series, and they aren't exactly a household name - but they're still doing alright.

I'm sure there's reasons for the way things happen. Who owns the IP, and who pitched the game in the first place?
 

ClanOfNone

Member
Nov 24, 2018
1,395
1,758
535
Eh. I feel the unprecedented success Larian had releasing the Divinity games on consoles helped to ease that decision.
Rtwp with a controller is basically impossible to design.

I found the Pillars games to be playable with a controller just fine, the loading times were the real problems in both of those games. I dropped Pillars 2 on ps4 because of the loading times, they were freakin ridiculous.

I really wish Larian would've taken a page from Pathfinder and included turn based and rtwp options, it worked brilliantly in Owlcat's first game.

I'm slightly more hyped for Pathfinder 2. The first one definitely nailed the "Baldur's Gate Feel" better than any other rpg that I've played.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Africa's Toto

Raven117

Member
Oct 5, 2015
7,206
3,921
565
Larian is the obvious choice here. Obsidian is a shell of its former self....Sadly. Just compare Dvinity 1 and 2 to Pillars of Eternity 1 and 2.

The first ones are about equal, but the second ones....One is a big step up from the original and a step forward for the genre, the other is at least the same if not a step back from the original and is more homage than new.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EDMIX

Edgelord79

Member
Sep 24, 2020
996
1,320
430
I think Obsidian would have been a better choice for the style of game Baldurs Gate has always been.

Larian is a better choice for the type of game many contemporary gamers want Baldurs Gate 3 to be.

i would have preferred Obsidian by a long shot, but Larian is good also.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Africa's Toto
Sep 29, 2011
4,453
3,175
950
I'd have let them handle the 2D backdrops, but would rather they didn't go anywhere near near the story, characters or writing.
 

fermcr

Member
Mar 24, 2017
1,011
1,578
480
Obsidian are a great a developer --> Microsoft purchases Obsidian --> Obsidian are a crap developer.

Got to love fanboy logic.
 

Karonoth

Member
Dec 9, 2020
440
884
295
Larian was the better choice. Pillars was a game that got everything right when it came to the aesthetics, but it wasn't nearly as good as Divinity 2 in everything else.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: R6Rider

R6Rider

Member
Jan 22, 2020
2,788
4,148
450
USA
Larian was the better choice. Pillars was a game that got everything right when it came to the aesthetics, but it wasn't nearly as good as Divinity 2 in everything else.
I agree. Divinity OS 2 was fantastic and had a great co-op while I struggled to get into Pillars after several attempts.

I really didn't enjoy The Outer Worlds much either, but Avowed could still be good.
 
Last edited:

Spukc

Member
Jan 24, 2015
18,609
21,834
970
crpg genre is small as hell ?
also baldure gate 3 is the wrong title

it's divinity 3
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Irobot82

Africa's Toto

Member
Jan 7, 2018
352
351
590
Larian was the better choice. Pillars was a game that got everything right when it came to the aesthetics, but it wasn't nearly as good as Divinity 2 in everything else.
I agree. Divinity OS 2 was fantastic and had a great co-op while I struggled to get into Pillars after several attempts.

I really didn't enjoy The Outer Worlds much either, but Avowed could still be good.
I think PoE and D:Os were designed to be different experiences.
Both were Kickstarter successes, but one pitched itself as a return to the classics, and the other was filled with novelty; the infinity engine revival of a fallen studio, and the "big" rpg Larian had always wanted to make after years of contract work and middling returns on the Original Divinity games(heh).

Pillars sold on its nostalgia, Original Sin on its novelty. They were both good games in my opinion, but I think Larian stood out more because their product was more approachable.
 

Africa's Toto

Member
Jan 7, 2018
352
351
590
Off-topic, but: It's honestly great to see the appreciation Larian gets for their work, with everything that studio has been through.
 

Claus Grimhildyr

Vincit qui se vincit
Jan 30, 2018
6,167
11,085
910
Nobody wants to play woke trash. Obsidian hasn’t made a good game in years and, despite what console warring dumbasses in this thread try to claim, this has been a popular opinion since before they were bought out by Microsoft.