There is also a very large difference between a RPG having voice and being called more like Call of Duty, I mean that is about as apples and oranges as you can get.
Precisely. The point was the exaduration. Comparing game with heavily customisable characters, to other fully voiced RPGs is like comparing apples to oranges.
Originally Posted by Pandemonica
They can't make games that are only attractive to people that go to D&D cons, that roleplay their favorite character and want to live in the days of the past. For better or worse, developers have to worry about production value more and more.
Why? Larian already proved superbly successful without full, VO and fancy cutscenes. Generally, the more you spend the more you need to sell. And I am perfectly happy with Larian just being very successful - I don’t need them to be the most successful ever. If you make a game, and make more money then you invested in it, it’s surely good enough. If making more money then that requires undermineing, rather then expanding, of what the game is about, then surely that’s not a good way to go.
And if Larian isn’t interested in making a game about role-playing, but a spin off using some roleplaying game appeal (like h&s diablos using loot system, story driven action-adventure like Witcher3), in this case a systemic coop sandbox game (which I think that is what D:OS was better described as) - why on earth would you use D&D? It’s just a bad fit. That would explain why Larian feels the need to modify it so extensively, but if so: why use the IP? It just seems to lead to a weaker title then straight up D:OS3 or actual BG3. Was additional funding really that substantial?
