What's important is doing a good job with what a game is. And a Baldur's Gate series game should be an RTwP game, as well as a game that respects and honours the other characteristics of the Baldur's Gate experience. Larian should be doing that and shouldn't be making D:OS 2.5 with the Baldur's Gate license.
That... Doesn't make sense when you think about it for more than five seconds. BG1 and 2 were RTwP because that was the best method of adapting the edition of D&D they were made with to the screen.
Just like with the claim that Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 had RTwP combat due to technical limitations, what you've just said is another false claim regarding why BG 1 and 2 have RTwP combat. Making Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 RTwP wasn't forced by any technical needs, but was a creative choice made free from pressure to make it any particular way.
As I wrote in another recent post:
"Where did you get that idea from? It's wrong. There were loads of TB PC games out when BG invented RTwP, and BG's RTwP system actually calculates rounds in the background. It would have been less work for BioWare to go full TB-only in BG than to implement RTwP. But James Ohlen wanted Baldur's Gate to be real-time and Ray Muzyka wanted it to be turn-based, and so they created a system that caters to fans of both styles. There was never a factor of technical limitations at play, and if there had been it would have been simpler to just implement TB."Likewise, when BioWare made Dragon Age: Origins, claiming it to be a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate without the license from WotC, BioWare was free from technical limitations (and also ruleset limitations) and were completely free to make the combat system anything they desired - and they desired and chose to make it RTwP.
Baldur's gate was RTwP because RTwP is what BioWare wanted it to be. It had nothing to do with the underlying ruleset or any technical limitations. BioWare was free to choose any combat system they wanted, and they chose to create a new one, which was RTwP.
Meanwhile, 5e has a LOT more decisions every player has available to make every turn, so it makes sense to reconsider whether or not a RTwP system makes sense for converting that.
That doesn't make sense. Every turn the player still has 2 decisions to make: Movement, and action. There aren't any more things to consider.
Limiting yourself to one gameplay style for no real reason other than tradition doesn't make much sense.
Not for tradition, but because it's what the series' identity is based in, because the Baldur's Gate series invented the RTwP genre, because RTwP is a great system that can be far better than D:OS2's TB combat (DA:O already has better combat, and it's RTwP), and because it's disrespectful and unfaithful to co-opt a series and turn into a clone of another series. Larian should just release their game as D:OS 2.5 or D:OS 3 if they're going to do that.
So, to turn your point from the middle of your wall of text back on you, there is no inherent advantage to Turn Based or Real Time with Pause, what matters is how well you use them.
Just like your assertion about why BG1 and BG2 have RTwP combat, which is wrong, your assertion that I wrote a wall-of-text is likewise wrong. You should put some effort into understanding the things you're going to claim before you present them as arguments.
A "wall of text" is text without proper indentation. If I'd made my post as a wall of text, it would have appeared like this:
The answer is simple: Because there is no trend that games with either TB or RTwP combat systems do better than the other type of game due to the combat system. Each game does well based on the sum of its parts, and either RTwP or TB can be done in a way that is good and compliments the game. D:OS2 didn't become popular specifically because it has TB combat, but because of the sum of its parts. The same false argument that TB games are doing better than RTwP pause games keeps coming up by people who I have to assume are not experienced with the PC RPG genre, because otherwise why would they be oblivious to the actual recent history of RTwP and TB PC RPG game releases and receptions? Why are they only familiar with D:OS2 and speak totally uninformed and baseless assumptions about what the market has been approving of in recent years? There's literally one TB game that has been a mega hit (D:OS2), while other TB games have done decently to terribly. If people were loving TB games because they're TB, then Torment: Numenera wouldn't have been a flop. Then PoE2 would have improved in sales and reviews after getting TB added. But T: Numenera did flop and PoE2 didn't improve in sales or reviews after getting TB added. And Pathfinder: Kingmaker, which is RTwP, has blown both of those games away in popularity. And Pathfinder: Kingmaker is getting a much-anticipated sequel. So, there is no truth to arguments that TB is more popular. D:OS2 is a recent popular game, and D:OS2 has TB. That doesn't make TB a better system, it just means that there are a lot of D:OS2 fanboys out there who don't know much of anything about PC RPGs and only know D:OS2 and so fanboy to get a carbon-copy of it. If Larian made BG3 with RTwP and they did a good job with the RTwP system so that it was at least as good as Dragon Age: Origins' (but hopefully better), there would then be just as many fanboys of BG3 with RTwP demanding that every next game be RTwP because TB is out-dated and not relevant anymore in modern gaming. Fanboy thinking isn't based on situations actually are, it just distorts perception of reality to put the one thing they liked recently on a pedestal and create a mythology about its importance.
While I agree that neither RTwP or TB is inherently better than the other, one may be more suited for a particular series, for a particular audience, and for a particular experience. When making a Baldur's Gate game, RTwP is central to its identity and experience, and is what decades-long fans of the series hope to get to play in a new Baldur's Gate game.
