Originally Posted by Emrikol

Yes, I know you have given examples of other TB types. But the type of TB we've all been talking about it the kind that will be found in BG3. So, the examples you have given and the arguments you have made are not consonant with the gameplay in question.


Seriously? EXACTLY how are the SIX types of TB methods I've described not consonant with BG3? I'm eager to see your rational explanation or cogent argument for this one.
EXACTLY what kind of TB game do you think BG3 is going to be, because you've never defined exactly what you mean by TB and you've never defined exactly what kind of TB BG3 is going to be.
Is BG3 going to be IGoUGo? Well then the examples I've given are consonant with BG3.
Is BG3 going to be IGoUGo with or without reaction? Well then the examples I've given are consonant with BG3
Is BG3 going to be phased IGoUGo with reaction? Well then the examples I've given are consonant with BG3
Is BG3 going to be WeGo? Well then what I've described is consonant with BG3.
Is BG3 going to be WeGo with reaction? Well then the examples I've given are consonant with BG3.
Is BG3 going to be phased WeGo with or without reaction? Well then the examples I've given are consonant with BG3.
Is BG3 going to be some 7th (or 9th depending upon how you count #3 & #6) kind of TB approach I've never heard of?

So please, explain exactly what kind of TB methodology BG3 is going to be and also explain why that doesn't fit into what I've described?

Originally Posted by Emrikol

Originally Posted by Vlad the Impaler
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Originally Posted by Vlad the Impaler
In other words, pure hack and slash problem/puzzle solving that is fundamentally not much different from playing Risk or a small unit tactical wargame.

Combining two genres (hack/slash and problem/puzzle) and calling the combination "pure" is nonsensical. Even so, there is more to these games than that (exploration, story, character interaction, effects of choices).


And now you dishonestly cherry pick a comment out of context to misrepresent what I mean. And you have the gall to accuse me of being nonsensical.

I quoted the entirety of your post. So it was not "cherry picked," and hence, neither dishonest, nor a misrepresentation.


Except you did cherry pick my comment out of context from the post to which I was responding and in which I was describing the nature of that specific example the other person gave. There is nothing nonsensical about my comment. A combination of two things can be pure if the combination involves only two different things. Salt water can be pure salt water, i.e. pure water and pure salt combined to make pure salt water. You dishonestly misrepresent my comment as if it is about the game in general rather than the specific example/situation to which I am referring. Cherry picking words out of context and then misrepresenting the original meaning is intellectually dishonest.

Last edited by Vlad the Impaler; 25/08/20 03:37 AM.