> And in my opinion, as the game is marketed, this game should target D&D fans, not the majority of pc players that never played the tabletop game before. Those players are more than welcome to try the game, and maybe they even find it to their liking so much that they get interested in tabletop D&D but the game should not be catering their interest in a more traditional rpg game.
Certainly, that's why I'm saying I'm interested to see how Larian will address this. Meanwhile, I see no harm in providing a non-dnd-player point of view. I'm sure Larian welcomes feedback from all kinds of backgrounds, especially from a mass, non-dnd player.
To me, BG3 looks like the next best thing after Dragon Age: Origins. I don't care if it's DnD, I just want a good game. And from a good game perspective, Dragon Age yet feels better:
- With the characters. Every name is a stroke of genius in background, voice acting, dialogues, story. Alistair. Morrigan. Sten. Duncan. To me, they're masterpieces.
- With the introductions. All the so very different ways and personal dramas of PCs. Noble betrayal , brother rivalry, gangsters, freaking Harrowing - just wow.
- Combat I actually prefer in DOS, but DA:O was decent in that area.
I subconsciouly compare BG3 to DA:O, because I want to see the same level of awesomeness from the guys who, in my mind, are absolutely capable of delivering it.
But even then, DOS2 is a very good game on its own. Larian, already on top of their DOS2 success, are making a new huge RPG. Of course it's expected to be at least as good as other notable RPGs of the past, be it DnD or not, many people want the game to be an atomic bomb in the RPG genre. How they're going to achieve that with marketing it as DnD... well... may be they won't. And BG3 would still be good. Just not the atomic bomb many people want.
