virion, it's a pleasure to read your comments.
I'm happy if you better understand what is the point of this topic because there is a lot of topic which complain but this one isn't and it's why I like him more.
I think the sentence of Sven is really... risky.
If by " I don't think what was in the game actually mattered." Sven means they don't have to keep the places, the story, the npc, etc. I'll say hell yeah, sure.
But if it means they don't care about what constitue the core of the game it's a fail, from my point of view.
If by "What materred is they redefined what is an RPG. And we have to do the same. Somehow." Sven means they have to do something amazing and which will become a reference without loosing the essence of the serie, so yeah, sure, obviously it's a good idea.
But if it means they don't care about the legacy of BG and jsut want to "redefine what is an RPG" so it's a BIG fail. Cause I don't get why take the licence so.
I mean when Redprojekt did The Witcher 3, they "redefine what is an RPG" but they did it without forgetting the legacy from the two first opus.
If they just want to "redefine the rpg" I don't know why they ask for the BG licence (except for the huge fan base and money) ?
We see a lot of games which "redefined" rpgs or fps, or rtc or etc. And they do it as stand-alone or as "game+1".
But doing something who redefined the rpg doesn't mean you have to forget the legacy of the precedent opus. On the contrary, I think they will hardly create something legendary without gathering the expectations from both DoS and BG gamers.