Originally Posted by spacehamster95
As I said before, the original BG saga's fundamental design philosophy was to recreate DnD within the framework of a video game. BG3 has the same spirit. That makes it a Baldurs Gate game above all else for me.

There have been quite a few developers who tried to recreate Dungeons & Dragons in a video game, before and after Baldur's Gate.
That doesn't make them Baldur's Gate games but Dungeons & Dragon games.

Also, regardless of what might have been meant to be done with Baldur's Gate originally (I can't find any source for your comment about BioWare being forced to create a Diablo clone, though I wouldn't doubt it much), the games that were made were liked for being as they were, not for what they might have been or were supposed to be.
If the games had been turn-based, they might not have even been as well-known as they are now.

Originally Posted by spacehamster95
About the companions, sorry mate, but that just makes no sense. Because Wyll mentions a devil that must mean they copied the Red Prince's backstory? U are serious? They are nothing alike, Wyll and the Red Prince storywise. I don't even understand how can one make that claim. This is what I mean when I say that these "criticisms" are divorced from reality...

I'm just saying that they are going with similar elements.
Wyll is a noble who is known for fighting, and he made a pact with a devil.
The Red Prince is a prince who is known for fighting, and he summoned demons.

Last edited by EliasIncarnation; 10/10/21 06:22 AM.