Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General BG3, DOS and the D&D rule-set

"You are a liar because you lie. That's how words work - for someone who uses them truthfully, anyway, which you don't." - strawman argument

"Larian have said that their D&D DOS2 clone doesn't carry on the story of BG2 and doesn't include its characters." - no source

"And I have pointed out that Larian's D&D DOS2 clone is a sequel to Descent Into Avernus which doesn't relate to the story of BG1 and BG2 and takes place hundreds of years after BG2. And I have said that if I come across Larian mentioning it again, I will post it here." - true and does not relate at all to any of my points

"Your every attempt to cover your ongoing mistakes is to further peddle absurdity, strawman arguments, and disinformation. From the beginning you stuck your foot into your mouth and proceeded to do the same thing over and over, being refuted at every turn. You were done here before you started." - strawman argument right there if I ever saw one

"And you still show no signs of having actually read my post that you tripped and fell over:" fell over what, the lack of conciseness or your ever growing failure to actually make a point? Also, I read it, so you know... STRAWMAN ARGUEMENT

"Larian have stated that they have control to choose what their D&D RPG game is, and that they chose the TB combat system because they were afraid of taking risks after the success of D:OS2" - pretty much true, followed by "(hence why they've basically just copy-and-pasted D:OS2 into D&D...)" - either a very malicious "interpretation" or a straight up lie. The following is by definition a strawman arguement

"So, Larian is really just using the "Baldur's Gate" name as a husk to fill with a D&D D:OS2 clone, exclusively for the purpose of sales (that's what the "it's a big risk" remark refers to). It's a cash-grab." - Another strawman where you claim what they're claiming. The "big-risk" is in making a type of game they're not good at making. It is not a cash grab, it is making sure they make as good a game as they can for the fans (both fans of BG games as well as their own fans).

"BTW, TB games have on average been performing worse than RTwP games. And Larian's D:OS2 didn't come close to the amount of sales RTwP legend Dragon Age: Origins did. So, really, there is only a single big hit TB game while RTwP games are on average performing better." - And so you're burying your own point by saying RTwP games sell better... good job?

"Wasteland Remastered and Torment: Numenera tanked in sales and are unpopular. More people own Pillars of Eternity on Steam than own Wasteland 2 on Steam. When PoE 2 had TB added to it, its sales didn't improve at all and its Steam user rating didn't increase by even a single percentage-point. Pathfinder: Kingmaker is currently more popular than any TB game outside of Divinity: Original Sin 2. And Dragon Age: Origins (3.2 million copies sold in 3 months) greatly outsold Divinity: Original Sin 2 (1 million copies sold in 2.5 months)." - More about RTwP games selling better - good job?

"Larian have become superstitious slaves in the wake of the success of D:OS2 and traded their integrity for the comfort and sales of an echo chamber of D:OS2 fans. So, there is literally no justification to using the "Baldur's Gate" name, when Larian's upcoming D&D RPG has as much in common with the Baldur's Gate series as ..." - Some more strawman...

*Insert quote to look smart to myself*

"Larian's "Baldur's Gate 3" has not even the faintest tiniest shred of relation to the Baldur's Gate series in character, experience, or gameplay and yet they're exploiting the name with a D:OS2 clone set in D&D for the purpose of the money doing so can make them. Larian have sold-out and literally become a hack developer for the sake of monetary gain." - It's true because I say so. STRAW FUCKING MAN ARGUMENT AGAIN

And on a final, personal note:

Fuck you

The problem the Larian/D:OS fans are having is that they have drunk the gaming media Kool-Aid that D:OS2 was the greatest RPG ever and EVERYONE loved that game. Therefore, a game that looks and feels and plays like D:OS2 should equally be loved by EVERYONE and it makes sense for Larian to make this game just like D:OS2. Well, here's how things are for me:
I am a diehard fan of D&D, including very much liking 5e
I am a diehard fan of the Forgotten Realms setting
I am a diehard fan of tabletop roleplay gaming
I am a diehard fan of the original BG games and all the IE games
I am a diehard fan of the RPG genre in videogames and almost exclusively play only RPGs
BUT
I hate the D:OS games

Yeah. I know. Shocking, right? Not everybody who is a D&D/RPG fan is a D:OS fan. As much as there are quite a number of D:OS fans, there are also a lot of us gamers who love RPGs but hate D:OS. So when we criticize this game for looking and feeling and playing like D:OS, it is not a nostalgia trip for an old game. It is simply saying "I didn't like the D:OS games, and so I don't want this game that supposedly has nothing to do with the D:OS games to be anything like the D:OS games." Why is this in any way controversial?

NOT making the game anything like the D:OS games won't alienate the D:OS fanbase because this game is supposed to be NOT D:OS.
Making the game like the D:OS games WILL alienate the fanbase that did not like the D:OS games.

One last point. If it is just the case that every person who bought D:OS2 also buys this game, then as a AAA production this game will be a failure. Yes, there will be some people who are not D:OS2 fans who will buy the game because it is D&D, while there will also be some D:OS2 fans who will not buy the game because it is D&D and not D:OS. But ultimately, Larian needs to be able to appeal to those RPG fans who for one reason or another did NOT buy D:OS2 if they are to expand on D:OS2 sales. That's people like me. So why go out of your way to stick a finger in my eye?

Thanks for that - I understand it's not the link you were looking for, so I don't mind waiting for a better one (though I really expected the loud, rude one to put it up).
While I never claimed the game wasn't set 100 years after BG 2 there are strong hints about something to do with the Dead Three, where Bhaal in particular has a strong link with the story of the original BG games - which gives me hope they might tie the game into that story line quite a bit (that story is over but it's aftermath should be felt). I don't know if they will or not (nor do I want to find out through a spoiler) but I'm not going to say it's not just anger myself. That's why I asked for the source in the first place.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ju12JNh8gJs&list=PLoqfr492gtDx61FSXHnIElcC3Y_UmTc-o&index=7
2:15-3:20 (more or less,also not the one I'm looking for) Also around 6:40 he answer to other question saying BG1 and 2 are closed chapters.

"Larian have said that their D&D DOS2 clone doesn't carry on the story of BG2 and doesn't include its characters." - no source @Ugmaro

Wait, did anyone actually hope for the actual story of the Bhaalspawn to continue after the way BG2 ended?

That's not a strawman. So, have you been screwing up your every response because you aren't reading what you're responding to, or because you don't understand what you're reading? Either way, you have lied multiple times, and had hissy fits when it was pointed out.

Just to cover a lot of the following copy-and-pasting in one go: Ugmaro doesn't understand what a strawman argument is and made about a dozen individual claims of strawman arguments from my post, but in not a single one of their accusations was there actually any strawman argument from me. Ugmaro was probably worked into a fit over me saying this, and just wanted to throw the charge of using a strawman argument back at me, despite not understanding what it means:





On to addressing each individual nonsensical accusation Ugmaro made:


Actually, that information is the appropriate response to an extremely ignorant and arrogant comment of:

"please tell me how you know the story has nothing to do with the narrative and/or characters in those 2 games. Oh you don't? OK."


That's not a strawman. You need to look up what the term means so that you don't keep embarrassing yourself by using it incorrectly.


Not a strawman. Look the phrase up.


Not a strawman or a lie, and also literally what Larian said in an interview 3 days ago.


Not a strawman. Look the phrase up.


I haven't said that RTwP games sell better nor does pointing out the fact that RTwP games have, on average, performed better than TB ones contradict any point I've made. What is your level of English comprehension? It obviously is not very high.


And? Your point... doesn't appear to exist.


That's not a strawman. Do yourself a favour and learn what a strawman argument is.


You've failed and done the opposite.


That's literally not a strawman. Do you enjoy humiliating yourself?


Yes, I think that everybody who's bothered to read your absurdities is already well aware by this point that you haven't much intellectual resources to draw upon and are an emotional knee-jerk reactionary. Your forceful confirmation of that was not needed.

Now that I give you the source you wanted you throw another question?
I'm just answering what you wanted. Does this game's story has anything to do with BG1 and 2? Answer: No

Yes, it really doesnt make sense to market a game like BG3 when they are actually selling DOS3. People that play these kind of games are really specific about what they like, so its sad that Larian blew this big oportunity.

"A straw man (or strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent." which is the only thing you've been doing this entire time. Claiming others have said something they haven't (lying) or "misinterpreted" with malicious intent - a very clear straw man in each and every case.

The ONLY case where you stood a chance of refuting it you've decided to cut my comment short. How fitting.

Talk about "much intellectual resources".

You are dishonest and disgraceful to the core. What I and Adgaroth have told you directly refuted your accusation of:



Instead of acknowledging that you stuck your foot in your mouth yet again, for the umpteenth time, you're trying to bluff your way out of it and pretend that the idiocy here wasn't your own.

Also an interesting phrase on taking the name of BG3,enjoy it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGnGOnzlC4s

3:45

So... in other words, none of your accusations of strawman arguments of mine are actually strawman arguments - just like I said. So, you used a phrase you didn't grasp the meaning of and proceeded to repeatedly make absurd non-arguments, due to not having any ground to stand on. And now you're trying to run from that fact by posting the proof that you were wrong all along - which everybody can see, BTW. Will you ever cease acting dishonestly?

Errr... just because it's not a direct continuation of that story does not mean it has nothing to do with that story. I fully expect certain characters from the original BG games to be there (one of the things that were claimed to not be there by mr "much intellectual resources") and I expect the current story to be heavily influenced by events from those games. If you had different expectations then I'm afraid we've had a miscommunication...

I think you have a very different usage of the statement "objective fact" than the vast majority of people would. They're utilizing another game's engine and some of the assets, however, this hardly qualifies the entry as a "DOS" game rather than a "BG" game.

If this game utilizes the Baldur's Gate lore, setting, races, etc., then it's a Baldur's Gate game. The game could quite literally be an FPP entry, but if it's confined within the BG universe, then it's a BG game and if this game builds upon the story and lore of the prior entries in a meaningful way to be considered a sequel, then it's even something that could reasonably be called "BG3".

The "fact" of the matter is that a lot of people are upset that this game is saving time and resources by using the assets of another game, or that this game plays more to the strengths of the developers making the entry, but that has absolutely no baring on whether or not this game would be considered "Baldur's Gate".

I'll say these things:
1.) It makes sense for the developers to use turn-based as a mode for combat because it's both easier to balance for, fits perfectly with the ruleset and it's something they're experienced with and accustomed to. For some that's a turn off and for others it's an improvement, but that's neither here nor there. This situation is a lesser example of Fallout NV which was developed by the original developers.

2.) The game is very early in production. They hinted towards bugs needing fixing, problems with the UI and adjustments that can be made. Ambience from color schemes, saturation, etc., is very easily adjustable as evidenced by user modding of other major games. These adjustments can likely be made to the game still.

3.) I agree that there are some things that share too much of a similarity due to asset sharing. This is both to the benefit and detriment of the game, but with so little of the game shown and with so much left to do in terms of developing the game, it's a bit too early to start pulling out the torches and pitchforks.

Hmm, so basically you're saying that for example, in this very specific case, me not understanding what a strawman is due to not "much intellectual resources" and thus making myself a fool, is being dishonest?

That, by very definition, is the structure of a strawman argument - while I hate taking wikipedia as a quote (as I've done in my previous post since I'm lazy) I feel like I must:

Structure

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

Person 1 asserts proposition X.
Person 2 argues against a superficially similar proposition Y, falsely, as if an argument against Y were an argument against X.

Also, very lovely way of taking the whole *Insert quote to make myself look smart* comment about you completely out of context, thus completely destroying any signs of sarcasm whatsoever (which you've also done with the two cases of sarcasm in my first post).

You've accused me of several things and disregarded all of my arguments as strawman arguments and knee-jerk reactions, while all you've done is decided to interpret everything as whatever you want, claiming what everyone else is actually claiming in every single sentence and presenting THAT as the truth. You're actually right, this isn't a strawman policy in most cases, it's blatant lying and malicious misinterpretation.

Good job, you were right about something! Go you!

Well,the fact is that he said the BG1 AND BG2 story is closed,the game happens 100 years after that,and Descent into Avernus is it's precuel. I said nothing but there'll be characters of the previous installments on the new one. I don't see how that adds so much weight to what you're trying to prove.

Again, claiming I'm saying something I'm not. I very clearly said (and thankfully you didn't edit my post by cutting out half the the sentence this time) that they didn't say it has nothing to do with the narrative and/or characters (i.e., the story), and I never said it is a direct continuation of BG2's story.

YET AGAIN you're lying and saying others are lying. Please stop this madness

I never said that they said the story would be a direct continuation, I said that "please tell me how you know the story has nothing to do with the narrative and/or characters in those 2 games." - which are two VERY separate things, which Delicieuxz is trying to equate in order to look smarter than he is and create anger.

I suppose he succeeded.

Yes. You clearly do not grasp what a strawman is and what it isn't. Also, if you think you've found fault with "much intellectual resources", then you're demonstrating that you haven't much intellectual resources.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/much
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/much
"Much is now generally used with uncountable nouns. The equivalent used with countable nouns is many."

Generally - not exclusively. My usage of it is an older one, but still a usable one.


But... I didn't do that. I pointed out that you don't know what a strawman is - I didn't assert it. And I didn't then argue against it, but I pointed out that your recurring misuse of the term without learning from your mistake is making you look foolish.



You have yet to demonstrate that you understand what a strawman argument is. None of your alleged examples of strawman arguments in that long post you made which I went over here are strawman arguments.

When somebody shows that you are wrong, you can't just say they're making a strawman by saying that you said what you said and pointing out that it's wrong. That's foolish.

I never changed the meaning of what you said with any edits.

Why are you pretending that I've lied? I haven't. I also didn't say that others (plural) are lying - only that you have repeatedly lied, which you have.