Originally Posted by WarBaby2
Originally Posted by Gothfather
It is reasonable to dislike or like the game, it is unreasonable to expect BG III to play and feel like BG I & II, especially mechanically.


Let's just say: There is big group of Buldur's Gate and CRPG vets that might disagree with you there, and Larian took them all aboard when they took up this IP... whether they like it or not. Seriously, this happens all the time these days... Star Wars, Star Trek, Ghostbusters, etc. etc. etc. and it's always the same apologia when it goes south: "It's not like the original property of old you remember, and that's a good thing" or "...and it shouldn't be!" or "...deal with it!" etc. blah blah, all the stupid hot takes one can imagine...

Yea, no, you take up an existing IP for an easy nostalgia headstart and name recognition, you have to deal with the baggage... that's how it works. You don't want that? Make/stick to your own IPs, and leave the classics alone. End of story.


And you just proved how unreasonable you are. You ignored all the FACTS I pointed to and stomped your feet, in a tantrum. The very classic you are defending did the very thing you are against. They took an existing IP, AD&D to get easy nostalgia headstart with name recognition then radically change the mechanics of the IP so they didn't have to deal with the "baggage" of the AD&D rule set. now you are complaining that Larian is being faithful to the IP? Do you not see your own hypocrisy?

All the other examples you gave DO NOT APPLY here. Why? because all those examples are NARRATIVE changes. You can't point to narrative failings with Larian's BG III, so are sticking to mechanical. And the very RULES of the IP of the game are not mechanically similar to the first games. The current IP rules are not even close to the original games anymore. To be 100% accurate the original games are not and were not faithful to the source material at all. The fact you point to Larian shows you don't even understand the history of the BG series at all.

Obsidian and inXile Entertainment both FAILED to be granted the license for over a decade!!!! because they wanted to make a game mechanically similar to the original games. Larian makes very different games from either company. So why give them the IP? Because the games Larian makes, at least their last 2 games, are closer mechanically to D&D than anything being made today. So you got a FAITHFUL representation of D&D but you don't want a faithful representation to D&D you want an unfaithful representation. So ironically you wanted the very thing you complained about with star wars star trek and ghostbusters. You wanted a "Its not like the original property of old you remember..." You can't even be consistent and rational about your dislike of the current game.

You remind me of people complaining a movie based on a book is faithful to the book and not previous movie adaptations that made wild changes to the source material. You'd be the kind of guy that would complain the up coming Dune film doesn't include weirding modules from David lynch's film and then rage how yet another franchise remake isn't being faithful. lol The irony and hypocrisy is strong with this one. lol