Why would that be a bad thing though for them? I guess some BG fans would hate it, however, didn’t OS2 sell like 2 million?
I didn't realize people on this forum actually had that piece of shit of Dragon Age Origins in such a high regard.
It's not that people hold it in such a high regard, but in the context of what might happen to BG3 it's a bearable amount of popamole and it has some good points outside of that, like the origin stories. Again, you can't expect a TB party-based 5E 2D RPG with great itemization and story, it's just not gonna happen.
Dragon Age was pretty good when Bioware could get out of their own fucking way. The story is generic and dumb, VO was okay, and characters were mostly forgettable. The combat was pretty good, though. I liked the multiple abilities for different classes and they all felt different and viable enough to be interesting. The game is incredibly easy now but it was decently difficult back in the day.
DA2 and DA3 were complete garbage, though.
So, if Larian is making a big AAA title and it hits big time, then BG fans become irrelevant no?Why would that be a bad thing though for them? I guess some BG fans would hate it, however, didn’t OS2 sell like 2 million?
Making an analogy with shooters, lawbreakers tried to mix and attract arena shooters fans and hero shooters fans and failed miserably. Why an hero shooter fan would play LB instead of overwatch? And why an arena shooter would play LB over Quake? See, they tried to please Greeks and Trojans and ended pleasing no one. Puzzle gimmicky battles, cooldowns, armor and magical armor <<<insert other 5000 "modern" bs mechanics>>> can be interesting for D:OS players, but for BG fans, can be awful. The same way, an D:OS2 fan can see problems on BG. This will be awful. Is like trying to mix an Argentine Dulce de Leche with Italian Pasta Salad and American Bacon. Will just not work. What makes BG interesting is that spells, cast by an PC or NPC are insanely deadly and the combat is tense. What makes D:OS2 great is the tactical aspect. Petrification on failed save for an BG fan will not be an problem and make sense in the world. For an D:OS2 can be seen as an unbalanced broken mechanic.
So, if Larian is making a big AAA title and it hits big time, then BG fans become irrelevant no?Why would that be a bad thing though for them? I guess some BG fans would hate it, however, didn’t OS2 sell like 2 million?
Making an analogy with shooters, lawbreakers tried to mix and attract arena shooters fans and hero shooters fans and failed miserably. Why an hero shooter fan would play LB instead of overwatch? And why an arena shooter would play LB over Quake? See, they tried to please Greeks and Trojans and ended pleasing no one. Puzzle gimmicky battles, cooldowns, armor and magical armor <<<insert other 5000 "modern" bs mechanics>>> can be interesting for D:OS players, but for BG fans, can be awful. The same way, an D:OS2 fan can see problems on BG. This will be awful. Is like trying to mix an Argentine Dulce de Leche with Italian Pasta Salad and American Bacon. Will just not work. What makes BG interesting is that spells, cast by an PC or NPC are insanely deadly and the combat is tense. What makes D:OS2 great is the tactical aspect. Petrification on failed save for an BG fan will not be an problem and make sense in the world. For an D:OS2 can be seen as an unbalanced broken mechanic.
You're making a lot of assumptions based on nothing.
drama
whatdrama
It's a fairly tame discussion. Try Breaking Bad. That'll blow your fucking tits off if you find this exciting
what
I think the Goldbox games might be comparable. In Pool of Radiance your mages max out at like, level 6, I think?Has any game ever had characters level as slowly as in real tabletop? I'm not that experienced with tabletop, but my understanding was that it's much slower.
I didn't realize people on this forum actually had that piece of shit of Dragon Age Origins in such a high regard.
It's not that people hold it in such a high regard, but in the context of what might happen to BG3 it's a bearable amount of popamole and it has some good points outside of that, like the origin stories. Again, you can't expect a TB party-based 5E 2D RPG with great itemization and story, it's just not gonna happen.
Dragon Age was pretty good when Bioware could get out of their own fucking way. The story is generic and dumb, VO was okay, and characters were mostly forgettable. The combat was pretty good, though. I liked the multiple abilities for different classes and they all felt different and viable enough to be interesting. The game is incredibly easy now but it was decently difficult back in the day.
DA2 and DA3 were complete garbage, though.
the combat was, shit it still is, busted
Dragon Age was pretty good when Bioware could get out of their own fucking way. The story is generic and dumb, VO was okay, and characters were mostly forgettable. The combat was pretty good, though. I liked the multiple abilities for different classes and they all felt different and viable enough to be interesting. The game is incredibly easy now but it was decently difficult back in the day.
DA2 and DA3 were complete garbage, though.
the combat was, shit it still is, busted
I disagree. I thought it was pretty good (especially with the fix pack that did things like applying bonuses correctly to two-hand weapons, etc.). I got a lot of hours out of that game.
I think people are forgetting how dry the CRPG scene was in the late 2000s. Getting a game like DA:O in 2009 was a pretty nice deal. It's easy to be dismissive now, being on the other side of the CRPG "renaissance" fostered by Kickstarter and mid-tier indie studios like Warhorse. None of that shit was really around in the late 2000s.
BG3 being like DA:O isn't the best-case scenario, it's a nightmare scenario.