I can't say for the first 2 because I've never played them, and I'm not saying all the witcher games are the same, but I can recognise them at a glance on the first 5 minutes as being part of the same series,I've played them and enjoyed all without ANY issue (and I player witcher 1 when it came out,not after playing 3,so you could tag me as a purist in that regard) I'm not against change in videogames,I'm against dishonest marketing.
And I'm against hyperbole. Can we perhaps agree that for now it isn't looking good enough for you and we all wait a little until we see some more before reaching for the pitchforks?
I've said it multiple times,I can only give my opinion based on what I've seen and a few interviews,and I don't have any problem on changing my opinion if or when I'm proved wrong,maybe one year from now the game screams BG everywhere but divination is not my school of magic so until then this is what it is. And I think is better to give feedback now that things can easily change and not when the game releases, if ''wait and see'' worked they wouldn't be undergoing an EA period.
I can't agree on that because is looking good enough,I'm not saying the game is or will be bad,I'm saying it's not BG enough (or at all) to be called BG3,thus my dishonest marketing problem.
It's not dishonest marketing because they're not selling what we saw. What we saw is meant to drum up interest. Get people thinking 'Hey! A new Baldur's Gate! Let's see how it looks on launch!' Not 'Let's buy exactly what we see, right at this moment.'
They're not marketing, or selling, the pre-alpha. Save your criticisms for when the game actually releases. THAT is when Larian is saying 'We are happy with what we have done so far, and think you will be, as well.'
Once again; my analogy works: You are complaining that milk, eggs, flour & sugar don't look like the $500 wedding cake you saw in the photo. It has to be mixed & baked first. There's still a long way to go.
