Originally Posted by Warlocke
Originally Posted by Gothfather
Originally Posted by WarBaby2
Originally Posted by rockmassif
When it was announced that BG3 is going to be a turn-based game, if you followed any new at all you would know that the game was going to be very similar to DOS2 in terms of combat and generally how it plays out. I don't understand why you would think pre-ordering BG3 would be a good idea if you never really liked DOS games to begin with. If you want a nostalgic experience there are already similar games to BG1-2 out there, Pillars of Eternity, Pathfinder etc...


/snip

As for the: WotC whanted the game to be BG3 D:OS eidtion... I doubt it. Then again, who really knows what Wizards wants for it's IPs these days? ...but that's a wholly different discussion.


Well I can tell you didn't read my original post.

We do know the WotC don't want games made similar to how obsidian make their games aka similar to how BG I & II are made. how because I told you already with sources that two companies that came from interplay/black isle both tried to get the license for baldur's gate 3 for over a decade and they were always rejected Larian tried first in 2014 and got it a few years later. Why? what is the fundamental difference? In every other metric Obsidian has more experience. More experience in game design, more experience with D&D games specifically, has more successful games under its belt and has a bigger purse than larian. So how did Larian get the license? Obsidian make RTWP games and Larian makes TB games (at least their last two). RTWP is a huge mechanical departure from D&D.

Do we know for sure why WotC chose Larian? No, but it is pretty obvious from the clues to see the why behind their choices.

[Source] https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/0...t-the-rights-to-baldurs-gate-3-a-e3-2019


I think it goes too far to say it is just the turn based combat mechanics that are the reason why Larian got the job. That is part of it, sure, but it is also their open quest design. Anyway, in an interview one of the big shots at WotC said that everybody there pretty much unanimously loves DOS1/2, and they felt that these games spoke to what they felt Baldur’s Gate was and should be more than any other games on the market. I concur. I’m having a blast with Early Access.


Okay my bad i need to explain what i meant better...

I'm not saying TB period is the reason you get a BG license. I am saying TB is the reason larian got it vs obsidian. Obsidian and Larian both showed they can create RPG gameplay with complicated quests offering multiple resolutions. Both can handle the scope of the title, both could make interacting systems needed for a modern RPG. both can make varied environments. So why larian over Obsidian? What does larian do that Obsidian doesn't do? Larian had to do all of the above, but i do maintain that if Larian did all of the above in a real time game they would not have gotten the license. I remember when Larian made games similar to Bethesda's games for their earlier divinity series. That would not have convinced WotC to grant the license. So what did? I submit that the difference is TB. You can build great games like Obsidian but WotC isn't going to give you the license for BG III, we know this because they refuse to give obsidian the license for over a decade. But if you can make great games like Obsidian AND do so in a TB environment you can get the license. So TB doesn't automatically get you the golden ticket but with out TB you fail.

Is that a better explanation?