Originally Posted by Gothfather
Originally Posted by WarBaby2
Originally Posted by Gothfather
You can't make this argument about forceful dismissal of "old school fan's" with regards to Baldur's gate 3 without being a hypocrite because the exact thing you are criticizing Larian for is what Bioware and Black Isle did in BG I & II. This argument has no leg to stand on.

Fact: Baldur's gate I & II are not faithful games to their source material
Fact: Baldur's gate III is a more faithful game to it's source material.
Fact: The source material for BG III is NOT BG I & II
Fact: "Old school fans" when BG I & II were released already existed and they were players of D&D, a game over 20 years old when BG I was released. The parallels are striking.

Doesn't this make BG I & II guilty of the very thing you are accusing Larian? Doesn't this mean that fans wanting BG III to be more like BG II just be "pouty" self-entitled jerks, holding a position of Rules for thee, but not for me?

How is your argument not hypocritical?


Because sometimes you can divorce previous adoptions from their source material, and sometimes you can't. It mostly comes down to how well an individual adoption can stand on it's own legs... but aside from that, my argument isn't how "faithful" to the source material BG3 (or even BG1-2) is, that's not what this tread is about, my argument is: Larian claimed to create a faithful continuation of an existing property: the Baldur's Gate games - using their take on the D&D 5e rules as a baseline... not Divinity: Original Sin, Dungeons & Dragons... and for now, it seams like they, at least failed on the second part.



You contradict yourself in your own argument. 'My argument isn't how "faithful" to the source material BG 3 is', I am just complaining larian claimed to make a faithful continuation and failed to make the game faithful to D&D. WTF? lol Larian is guilty because their more faithful representation of the rules isn't good enough but BG I & II's less faithful representation is good enough, but again its not about being faithful to the source material its about larian not making the game faithful to D&D? wut???

Okay that is the most asinine, contradictory and hypocritical position I have seen in a long time. There is no logic, rigor, nor any intellectual honesty in your position. It is obvious you are just doing a larian is bad argument. You make one excuse for this position when shown it doesn't hold water you claim something else, when that doesn't hold water you claim is really a different reason. You keep changing your position and reasons so often that you finally claimed two exact opposite positions in the same post. Its not about being faithful its about larian claiming to be faithful and failing to do so?

~golf clap~ that truly ended the argument because you can't converse with the irrational.


I don't think this conversation has a common at all, you gotta differentiate the Forgottem Realms and RIvellon. It's a very emotional issue, not so much logical. But this again is a main difference, of the Rivellon and Forgotten Realms setting. It's like drinking tea with monk Drider Bruce Lee in the Underdark it would work in RIvellon but not in Baldurs Gate 3 (i think there is nothing like it, if it comes to the not implemented alignment system).

Last edited by Yezam; 08/10/20 07:43 PM.