Sales numbers are in some cases also associated with the before mentioned brand recognition/loyalty. I myself bought games like NWN2, DA2, Diabloe 3 and likely more due to the games that came before. Even if it was a dissapointment and I had them uninstalled, I did buy them and added to the numbers, no matter how good or bad the game was.
I think the DND experience came a lot sooner than NWN2, NWN2 was trying to ride the popularity train. Neverwinter Nights 1 was supposed to be the sequel to the BG series (I think there were old tooltips in the originals that talked about exporting your character to NWN before stuff was established to not work like that. In the BG games, especially 1, there is even foreshadowing that Amn and Neverwinter would be settings).
As to why there has not been a big breakout game for the DND ruleset? Likely because no game studio made an actual good game for it. It is like many other things in the world too, a possibly great premise for something but lousy execution. Some of the sony Spiderman films are considered this, with reboots/different attempts. The DC cinematic universe is like this according to some. The Fantastic Four movies. Many videogame to movie adaptations and other way around. Avatar the Last Airbender movie (I apologize for ATLA fans for bringing this up).
DnD for a while was also not as popular as videogames itself I figure, with the era of 4th edition being considered a flop according to many DND players not helping. So many factors why there was not a breakout game for it, but it is definatly more complicated than just looking at sales numbers in a vaccuum without context. Especially with DnD being on the rise and becoming more and more popular as a tabletop RPG. (In part likely also due to DnD streams popping up more and more)
We will have to agree to disagree at this point. There were games that were made along side D&D ones, that were better received than them, that were terrible writing. Oblivions story, tbh felt like it was put together by an 8yr old. NWN was executed well. BG was also executed well, especially for its time. BG2 wasn't bad, wasn't great but was enjoyable.
As far as DC goes, DC sucks tbh. They don't have very many good heroes, and their alter egos aren't great at being relatable. That's why Marvel is so much more appealing. Stan Lee made the alter Egos more relatable. How many of us nerds were Peter Parker? That is also why Spiderman specifically did well, a lot the villains were relatable too. People that werent so bad, just took a wrong turn or made a bad decision somewhere. Doc Conner, Harry Osborne, Felicia Hardy, Eddy Brock, all of them aren't that bad.
DC is great at making villains relatable, but its heroes, not so much. Superman is terrible. Some Jesus figure, that none of us can relate to. Smallville is the only Clark Kent that was really relatable, and well Dean Kane did a decent job in Lois in Clark. The opposite Captain America was someone we wanted to be, we could never be Superman tho. Batman and Catwoman are our anger at the system and our frustrations turned vigilante. Wonder Woman is also not relatable at all. The CW made DC have relatable alter egos, and that's where DC hit a stride. This is all my feelings on it, but a lot of people agree. Marvel has better heroes, DC has better villains. Spiderman is what happens if DC and Marvel have a baby. Hence why its prolly the most popular solo franchise of the comic book industry.
