Originally Posted by BananowePole
Originally Posted by kanisatha
The OP did not say "compete" but rather "compare." And comparing the two games is absolutely appropriate and justified. If a smaller and less wealthy studio like Owlcat can provide all of that richness and diversity of options in their game, a Larian game that does not do the same will inevitably be evaluated as being inferior.


Warlords Battlecry 3 has much more races than Warcraft 3, more units, longer campaign, much richer hero customization and build, but it is better than Warcraft 3? Definitely no.

Quality and quantity are totally different things. Following your reasoning, TES: Daggerfall is the best game ever made.

Another thing is, how much fun BG 3 will deliver to a player? How about replayability? You can't just say ''this game is better because it has 5 more races and 10 more classes''.

As for me, i have played Pathfinder: KIngmaker and it was a decent game, but i had much more fun in D:OS 1 and 2 or even Pillars of Eternity.

If we take into acount the saying ''you're as good as your last game'' - Larian is definitely a winner to me.


I was only making the point that people should stick to debating what someone actually says and not change what the other person was trying to say. I myself agree that quantity of options is good only upto a point, whereas quality is always a good thing.

But as for comparing specific games, for me P:Km (and the PoE games for that matter) blows away the D:OS games. D:OS had no meaningful choices in character creation, or in the game/story. All "classes" were exactly the same where everyone can do all the same things everyone else can do. P:Km is easily the best game for me thus far among the contempory crop of cRPGs.