Interesting. Apart from ignoring the fact that I did in fact play both BG 1&2, you've went on to claim I'm a fanboy that wants nothing more than a D:OS 2 copy. Ignoring these interesting "facts", 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.
Style and tone wise, BG 1 and 2 were very diverse games (not in between each other but in between each area you were in), meaning you made that entire claim based on approximately 1 hours worth of gameplay in the prologue where your main objective is to get the tadpole out of your head before you die (yes, very light-hearted that).
The ONLY 2 things that are true from your entire rant you've just thrown at me is that the gameplay is different (TB vs RTwP) and it's visual look (thank god for that, I for one don't like counting pixels). If you didn't believe so much in the RTwP style you wouldn't have gone through the trouble of providing irrelevant sales statistics of RTwP vs TB games (in which you're basically showing RTwP is better for sales, which undermines your point of them being cash-grabbers even more)
But please, feel free to cut up my entire super long three-paragraph post some more and counter any points you think you should by personally attacking me and/or anyone else that disagrees with your logic, I'm sure that'll do wonders to vindicate your point of view.
You stuck your foot in your mouth by coming at me with a strawman argument. Now you're trying to obfuscate your mistake by ranting about other things - things which are just as absurd as your previous arguments.
Quote
Ignoring these interesting "facts", 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.
Wrong. We know that Larian's game's story has nothing to do with the story and characters of BG1 and BG2 because Larian have stated so. And because what's known of the story for Larian's "BG3" game is completely unrelated to the Baldur's Gate series. Because WotC marketed Descent Into Avernus (which has nothing to do with the Baldur's Gate series) as the prequel to Larian's "BG3". You speak out of sheer ignorance at every turn.
Instead of heaping on layer upon layer of efforts to hide your multiplying mistakes and fanboy hubris, you should do what you obviously didn't do from the beginning and actually read the post that I made and which you responded to with nothing that is relevant to it:
Quote
Originally Posted by Ignatius
I'm sorry, but this doesn't make a great deal of sense. Power says what 'Truth' is, and the power here is WOTC, who own the IP 'Baldur's Gate'.
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 (hence why they've basically just copy-and-pasted D:OS2 into D&D and made minor changes, while greatly over-exaggerating the significance of the minor changes and additions):
The choices that we made are ours. Why did we go for turn-based instead of real-time with pause? Because D&D to us is a turn-based game and we're really good - or we have become really good - with turn-based combat. So that, I think, is one of our strengths, and trying out real-time with pause for now, just because the originals were that? It's a big risk. Because the team would have to think completely differently, our combat would be completely different. And we didn't really feel good about that. Normally we do try out a lot. Normally we try out a lot before we make a decision, but with real-time with pause and turn-based we didn't, we just said "Okay it's just gonna be turn-based."
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.
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.
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).
So, TB games are not particularly popular and they have a higher failure-rate than RTwP games. It is only D:OS2 which has been a big hit in the TB genre.
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
1. a person, as an artist or writer, who exploits, for money, his or her creative ability or training in the production of dull, unimaginative, and trite work; one who produces banal and mediocre work in the hope of gaining commercial success in the arts: As a painter, he was little more than a hack.
2. a professional who renounces or surrenders individual independence, integrity, belief, etc., in return for money or other reward in the performance of a task normally thought of as involving a strong personal commitment:
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.
