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.
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.
"please tell me how you know the story has nothing to do with the narrative and/or characters in those 2 games." That was your question and I already answered,sorry but I don't understand what you want xD. In any case I'm not answering more about this,I don't want to turn this into another warzone so please both of you drop it. We're going nowhere with this. Thank you.
"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.
Generally - not exclusively. My usage of it is an older one, but still a usable one."
I don't think it's incorrect, I've just decided to use that with you since you seem to think you're smart.
"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 claimed my misuse of it is dishonesty which is clearly not true. It's either a misunderstanding from my part (stupidity), which automatically absolves any potential dishonesty, or actual intentional dishonesty, which would mean I fully understand that I'm bullshitting and am therefore not stupid. Unfortunately, I've made a mistake but still you can't have it both ways - which is precisely why I'm saying that particular one is a strawman argument - you're claiming both is possible, which is untrue. If you claimed that I was infactual however (instead of lying or dishonest), you would be correct. Which I would expect from someone with your grasp of language and grammar and the importance you put on in.
Unfortunately, as I've said, I've made a mistake and took most of your claims as "straw men" while they were in fact malicious misinterpretations or straight up lies.
Wait, did anyone actually hope for the actual story of the Bhaalspawn to continue after the way BG2 ended?
You are dishonest and disgraceful to the core. What I and Adgaroth have told you directly refuted your accusation of:
Originally Posted by Ugmaro
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.
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.
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 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.
Pretending? You're claiming I "accused" you that "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." which you apparently "refuted" by saying that BG3 takes place after descent into avernus and is not a direct continuation of that game (and not even you but Adgaroth did that), which refutes it about as much as me saying that that you're not a human being because you like The Beatles or some other, fully random, incoherent things...
"only that you have repeatedly lied, which you have." - yes, another accusation without any proof. Please, stop the lies
Edit: additional lies:
"You haven't read my post" later: "You haven't read my post" later: "You've been dishonest"
Unfortunately, as I've said, I've made a mistake and took most of your claims as "straw men" while they were in fact malicious misinterpretations or straight up lies.
Well, I was going to leave this alone, as Adgaroth requested, but it seems you can't help yourself from digging your hole deeper because you made multiple additional false accusations.
When you have your mistake pointed out to you, and you deny that it is a mistake and continue to do it over and over again, then what would you call that? I can't know if you're lying or just lacking understanding. But I did say multiple times that you've failed to grasp what a strawman argument is. So, I didn't accuse you of lying over that. I accused you of lying over other things in the previous discussion, going back a few pages.
"only that you have repeatedly lied, which you have." - yes, another accusation without any proof. Please, stop the lies
That was not a lie.
Quote
Edit: additional lies:
"You haven't read my post" later: "You haven't read my post"
Those aren't quotes of mine, so you're being dishonest.
Actually, the quotes of what I said are:
Quote
No, it's missed primarily by just you. You have constructed an absurd strawman argument that obviously was made either having not read what I wrote, or out of a raging fanboyism that utterly blocked everything I wrote out from your mind so that you could only react to a figment of your imagination.
Quote
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
And you still show no signs of having actually read my post that you tripped and fell over
Considering that your initial and subsequent responses to my post were oblivious of what it said and instead attacked a strawman argument that I hadn't said in my post, it's clear that you had not read it. That is a deductive conclusion, and what you've shown me.
Quote
later: "You've been dishonest"
You've been dishonest constantly in this discussion. See above in this very post for the latest example of you being dishonest.
So after my initial sarcasm, where I stated RTwP is the only thing that makes a BG game actually part of the series in your mind, you said, and I quote:
"And further, I didn't say that RTwP is the defining trait of Baldur's Gate - I specifically stated that Larian's D&D RPG has literally no association with the Baldur's Gate series in any of its components - not its story, not its gameplay, not its narrative, not its characters, not its style and tone, and not is visual look. It is not even a sequel to anything in the Baldur's Gate series but is a sequel to Descent Into Avernus."
Which is in fact the only thing you said apart from spewing more obscenities about fanboys and such. When I decided to actually take my time and respond to these, as I previously thought it's apparent, you decided to claim this is absurd, just as you've done in your most recent post and haven't actually replied to any of them:
Originally Posted by Delicieuxz
Originally Posted by Ugmaro
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.
Then, at the end, you've quoted someone else and yourself, making your post twice the size to obscure what you're saying - which is in fact, nothing apart from saying I was obscuring something. At this point I thought you were perhaps just not too bright, as y'know, I've clearly responded to what you said. After that, you've become even more malicious, calling me a liar:
Originally Posted by Delicieuxz
Originally Posted by Ugmaro
Originally Posted by Delicieuxz
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.
Just like you decided to ignore everything out of your favor so shall I. Can I get a source on that please?
Don't lie to me and to everybody else here. I have answered and refuted everything you claimed. And you have only heaped absurdity upon absurdity. If I come across that comment being made by Larian again, I will post it. But Larian have confirmed that their D&D DOS2 clone doesn't involve BG1 and 2's story or characters.
You have answered nothing this whole time, instead hiding behind your rhetoric. Unfortunately for you, "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." doesn't mean that "We know the story of BG 3 has nothing to do with the main protagonist and the continuation of his story because Larian have stated so" but it means "We know the story of BG 3 has nothing to do with any of the characters that have had a significant impact on the events that took place in BG 1 and BG 2 and the events in BG 3 are not at all shaped by the events that took place in BG 1 and BG 2 because Larian have stated so", which is as far away from the truth as anything.
Just stop with the deception and misdirection. Yes, you got me on the "strawman" - good for you, with the entire frustration I was feeling I'm surprised that's the only stupidity I said. Oh, and the misquotation at the end, where I tried to add a modicum of decency to your lines by only pointing out the obviously false parts and not the entire shitstorm you threw at me. Well done! Have a cookie.
How adult and accurate, insulting other people only bec. they do not share your opinion. Please grow up.
Raze has already made the point:
Originally Posted by Raze
I think points can be made without personal insults. Even if you think it is accurate, or is actually accurate, the argument will be missed as the insult is responded to.
I would like to move on from this rather than further fan the flames. Thanks.
This will never be a baldurs gate 3 larian...just look what you've made and how angry a lot of the old baldurs gate players are.
Just a bunch of entitled manchildren throwing a fit when things aren't going exactly how they would in their own personal perfect world.
How adult and accurate, insulting other people only bec. they do not share your opinion. Please grow up.
I don't have a problem with different opinions. I do have a problem with the sense of ownership and entitlement the BG fans have toward the game. If Larian made a game I didn't like, I would express my opinion and move on. I like how the game is shaping up, so I'm here. A lot of the whiner crowd seems bent on trying to force Larian to change the game to their vision, when what's important here is Larian's vision.
No one want them to change their game. Fans don't want this game to be "the BG3".
The name of Baldur's Gate 1 and Baldur's Gate 2 is still alive after 20 years because of fans. Changing so many things and doing a "DoS-like" with the legendary game we honnor for so many years is a shame (maybe you are only Larian fans, or not whatever, but yeah, the Baldur's Gate games from 1998 still has community, new mode,...).
But yea stop the obvious comments. Of course they CAN call it BG3, they have the rights, WoTC """is the creator of D&D"""" and blablabla... It's just a perfect f*** to all fans that created the legends.
Just stop with the deception and misdirection. Yes, you got me on the "strawman" - good for you, with the entire frustration I was feeling I'm surprised that's the only stupidity I said. Oh, and the misquotation at the end, where I tried to add a modicum of decency to your lines by only pointing out the obviously false parts and not the entire shitstorm you threw at me. Well done! Have a cookie.
Now stop lying
That's an amazing shitpost you made, perhaps even more so than the many others you made before it.
As you are aware despite your public denial of it, I addressed your comments and refuted them, and I have not lied - but you have been outed for lying multiple times. It is the peak of immaturity to try to cover your own butt by lobbing that which you've done at somebody else, hoping that it confuses people and does something to hide your guilt.
Um, throwing out a bunch of nonsense that has no relation to the reality of what has transpired here does nothing to defend your position and doesn't make a point for you. You replied to my responses with comments which were completely irrelevant to what I said, and you became increasingly immature as you proceeded to do the same thing ad nauseum throughout many more posts. You are simply embarrassed at the mistakes you made and are trying to blame others for what you did - namely lying, but also much else. I assure you that you have fooled nobody here.
I have no wish for Larian to change their game, but certainly the title by dropping the '3'. It doesn't warrant it. Baldur's Gate: Inspired Title absolutely, but that '3' just does not belong. This game seems (thus far) to be taking a very similar overall approach in terms of its technical design; it's a CRPG, it's party-based single-player, it's D&D and I've no doubt Larian carries the spirit of it with them through the design of this....but it is not a sequel and does not deserve the '3' in its title.
They've stated as much themselves, this game's story stands very much on its own. There may be in-game talk of what happened the 100 years prior during the Bhaalspawn saga, maybe a few NPCs that were present and/or involved in it will be party members or NPCs here (though Larian has been understandably cagey about that so far)...but it is not a sequel. Nothing, thus far, suggests it even remotely is. In fact I've found it to be quite the opposite, much of the interviews have been very, very careful to avoid inferring a sequel but are quite clear about it being its own thing.
I have no doubt I will play this game. How I feel about its gameplay and such I won't know until I'm playing it...but I do know I deplore the obvious and vulgar marketing of using the '3' in the title when it really doesn't need it.
Use the Baldur's Gate name to carry on the spirit, but that '3' needs to go. To do anything less is to spit on the legacy upon which you're trying to profit from.
