why the hate on BG3

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

yes yes that's it that's all i'm doing it's not that you're such a deluded fanboy you literally can't read sentences

Again:

edit: and yes, Grunker, I realize you say you're not upset by the fact that it's different from the originals, but the originals had six and you're sad there aren't 6. Maybe that's a big coincidence, but it's still functionally similar to being sad that it's not like the originals.

clearly i am a nostalgic bg3-hater who can only view it in the light of the sacrilege it's committing to bg2 about which i can say no evil

When did I say you were?

 

[Grunker]

When did I say you were?

you got alzheimers?

Grunker says he's not like that or whatever, but he's still falling into the same pattern: complain about how it's different from the original game

also as you yourself point out, my complaint that there is not full-fledged character customization of a bigger party isn't even about it being different from the original, since the original basically had no character customization

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

When did I say you were?

you got alzheimers?

Grunker says he's not like that or whatever, but he's still falling into the same pattern: complain about how it's different from the original game

I think you're having a reading problem. That's looks nothing like "Grunker is clearly a nostalgic bg3-hater". I'm saying you're complaining about the same things that others do and arguing in a similar way, so you're naturally going to be lumped in with them at some point.

Stop quacking like a duck and maybe people will stop calling you one.

also as you yourself point out, my complaint that there is not full-fledged character customization of a bigger party isn't even about it being different from the original, since the original basically had no character customization

Again:

edit: and yes, Grunker, I realize you say you're not upset by the fact that it's different from the originals, but the originals had six and you're sad there aren't 6. Maybe that's a big coincidence, but it's still functionally similar to being sad that it's not like the originals.

 

[Grunker]

I'm saying you're complaining about the same things that others do and arguing in a similar way, so you're naturally going to be lumped in with them at some point.

your inability to comprehend that i might be critical about certain aspects of the game without the underlying reason being that i want it to be exactly like the original is on the one hand understandable since the bg3 threads are just about reduced to shitposting central for people who will hate anything in the game regardless of context, but on the other hand once it turned out i vastly favoured such ie-sacrilegious decisions as making the game 5E and turn-based it should be clear even to the most massive Larian-fanboy that i was not in the aforementioned camp

so why would anyone still lump me in there if not for maybe the fact that if you made the opposite meme where all the retards pushed each other to smack down on even the most sane and understated bg3-criticism with soaring fanboy fervor, you would be in that meme

hell, the last time you launched into a full-fledged butthurt-campaign over me in a bg3-thread, i wasn't even criticizing bg3 but rather lolling at a couple of fans in a Larian Forums thread

 

[Joyvankek]

How about instead of addressing some imaginary group from your delusions and building ad hominem on it, you put an actual effort into a counter argument, or just stfu if you haven't anything interesting to reply?

>imaginary group
hardly imaginary when they've posted hundreds of posts in the other thread.

it's always the same whit over and over. yes, Grunker says he's not like that or whatever, but he's still falling into the same pattern: complain about how it's different from the original game, offer arguments that make no sense, rinse repeat.

it's a lie to say rusty isn't putting any effort forth just because he mentions the fact that it's the same small group of faggots doing this after 2 pages of arguing about this topic.

edit: and yes, Grunker, I realize you say you're not upset by the fact that it's different from the originals, but the originals had six and you're sad there aren't 6. Maybe that's a big coincidence, but it's still functionally similar to being sad that it's not like the originals.

>Muh hundred of posts.
Listen here you fucking retard, how me not liking A.I controlled companions make me a part of that group?
Since you are so happy to throw labels around I will just assume, you and rusty are both members of Larian sicrit fanboy fagboy club, and are drilling each other asses with your limp dicks while screeching at anyone who have any critique towards Larian and what they're doing with BG3.
>offer arguments that make no sense, rinse repeat.
Considering how retarded you already proved yourself to be, I won't take your opinions about what dose or doesn't make sense seriously.
Also nice reddit spacing, maybe you should go back home? I am sure they miss you.

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

your inability to comprehend that i might be critical about certain aspects of the game without the underlying reason being that i want it to be exactly like the original

Again, I comprehend it just fine:

edit: and yes, Grunker, I realize you say you're not upset by the fact that it's different from the originals, but the originals had six and you're sad there aren't 6. Maybe that's a big coincidence, but it's still functionally similar to being sad that it's not like the originals.

How many times will I have to quote this before you read it?

is on the one hand understandable since the bg3 threads are just about reduced to shitposting central for people who will hate anything in the game regardless of context

Yes, that's my point. I am in no way calling you a BG3 hater. Just pointing out that you're arguing the same way they do.

so why would anyone still lump me in there if not for maybe the fact that if you made the opposite meme where all the retards pushed each other to smack down on even the most sane and understated bg3-criticism, you would be in that meme

How about the meme where someone goes on for 3 pages arguing that the game should have 6 active party members (coincidentally like the originals had), but is totally not like the other guys arguing that the game should be like the originals.

You keep talking about customization, when even BG3 doesn't offer a lot of it. Frankly, I can't see a single justification for what you're arguing other than it being like the originals, so how are you any different from the other people who argue exactly like that? Because you say you aren't? Well, ok, I'll take your word for it. But that makes no difference when we still have to wade through pages of your complaints.

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

Listen here you fucking retard, how me not liking A.I controlled companions make me a part of that group?

Not sure what you're talking about here, but you sound like a fag.

Considering how retarded you already proved yourself to be, I won't take your opinions about what dose or doesn't make sense seriously.

Oh no. I'm not being taken seriously by the guy with 18 messages to his name.

Also nice reddit spacing, maybe you should go back home? I am sure they miss you.

This isn't 4chan, autismo.

I can space however I want.

 

[luj1]

I have some faith in combat and the subsystems

The game is 5E.

and? Solasta is 5E too and has excellent combat (despite the bland design)

 

[luj1]

true, maybe i'm wrong, maybe fallout wouldn't be better with tactical party-based combat

as is proven by the overwhelming praise of fallout's non-controllable companions

fallout would have been a worse game if it was designed with the player having full control over the entire party
contrast to how easy it is to cover every weakness in the modern wasteland games

Fallout Tactics is excellent and much closer to a real RPG experience but people don't understand this

 

[Grunker]

How about the meme where someone goes on for 3 pages arguing that the game should have 6 active party members (coincidentally like the originals had), but is totally not like the other guys arguing that the game should be like the originals.

what a lovely catch-22: you can't ever criticize or comment on anything in bg3 that is different than in the original games, because if you do, you are automatically arguing like a bunch of retards and therefore your argument is invalid

so if they added horrible first person shooter segments and i said "i think those are bad" you would be there with your genious reply: "that sounds EXACTLY like some nostalgic fanboy who just wants everything to be as in the originals would say you larian-hating ingrate"

lol. such an obvious fallacy

maybe it's not that i sound like these people or make the same arguments. maybe it's just that you are unable to tell the difference because to you it's all criticism about bg3 WHICH SHALL NOT BE TOLERATED even if it is just someone going "lol" at a bunch of degenarate larian forum posters jerking off to halfling blowjobs

 

[rusty_shackleford]

true, maybe i'm wrong, maybe fallout wouldn't be better with tactical party-based combat

as is proven by the overwhelming praise of fallout's non-controllable companions

fallout would have been a worse game if it was designed with the player having full control over the entire party
contrast to how easy it is to cover every weakness in the modern wasteland games

Fallout Tactics is excellent and much closer to a real RPG experience but people don't understand this

what is the difference between a tactical game and an RPG for you people?

 

[Joyvankek]

Listen here you fucking retard, how me not liking A.I controlled companions make me a part of that group?

Not sure what you're talking about here, but you sound like a fag.

Considering how retarded you already proved yourself to be, I won't take your opinions about what dose or doesn't make sense seriously.

Oh no. I'm not being taken seriously by the guy with 18 messages to his name.

Also nice reddit spacing, maybe you should go back home? I am sure they miss you.

This isn't 4chan, autismo.

I can space however I want.

>Not sure what you're talking about here, but you sound like a fag.
You're thinking out loud, that's why you are hearing something that sounds like a faggotry. Time to face the mirro little buddy.
>Oh no. I'm not being taken seriously by the guy with 18 messages to his name.
Considering the quality of your posts, having 1795 of that posted here, is nothing to be proud of.
>This isn't 4chan, autismo.
So you visit reddit lite, that used to be chan in the past? It seems that you are the one who is confused about where you are currently faggot.
>I can space however I want.
While I can call you out on it, and no jannies from 4cucks, or trannymods from reddit will come to save you from that.

 

[Aarwolf]

Big parties are good, because I have a lot of friends and like to have them around in my table top games. I play CRPGs for fun and to feel the same (or close to) feeling of having bunch of friends around me.

It's stupid and immersion breaking for me, that I have, say, eight companions, but can only take half of them with me when battle occurs and the rest is sitting idle.

You want challenge? You're tired of micromanaging your crew? You can play with two or three of them, or solo. Or you can just go play Skyrim/The Witcher/Nu-Fallout, but stop ruining my experience.

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

what a lovely catch-22: you can't ever criticize or comment on anything in bg3 that is different than in the original games, because if you do, you are automatically arguing like a bunch of retards and therefore your argument is invalid

No, the retarded part about how you're arguing is that you have no justification for it other than that it's like that in the originals. You *say* that it's because of customization, but there is none in the originals and next to none in BG3.

so if they added horrible first person shooter segments and i said "i think those are bad" you would be there with your genious reply: "that sounds EXACTLY like some nostalgic fanboy who just wants everything to be as in the originals would say you larian-hating ingrate"

No, because first person would not allow the game to be played as an iso rpg. You can point to a specific difference, see? It's not like you have to make something up like non-existent customization.

lol. such an obvious fallacy

Says the guy who's been posting nonsense arguments for 3 pages about something he's supposedly not upset by.

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

>Not sure what you're talking about here, but you sound like a fag.
You're thinking out loud, that's why you are hearing something that sounds like a faggotry. Time to face the mirro little buddy.

*mirror.

>This isn't 4chan, autismo.
So you visit reddit little, that used to be chan in the past?

Uh oh. It looks like referencing 4chan broke its brain and it doesn't understand how to use quotes or form sentences anymore.

It's ok, autismo, DU will put you out of your misery soon enough.

 

[Grunker]

no, the retarded part about how you're arguing is that you have no justification for it other than that it's like that in the originals

not a single time did i reference the originals as why i wanted a bigger party - and in fact, you yourself pointed out that one of the core strengths of having more party members wasn't even utilized in the originals

the totality of your idiocy is like watching an eclipse without the orange edges hinting there is something behind the all-absorbing darkness and emptyness

something he's supposedly not upset by.

the upset-card seems a somewhat dubious tactic from someone who is spam-reacting retardred and who went ballistic when i had the audacity to go 'lol' at a few posters' lengthy argument about the correct anatomy of halfling-human sex

non-edgy, maybe, but certainly not non-upset

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

not a single time did i reference the originals as why i wanted a bigger party - and in fact, you yourself pointed out that one of the core strengths of having more party members wasn't even utilized in the originals

Amazing. You just stopped right there and lost your ability to read the next sentence.

Again:

You *say* that it's because of customization, but there is none in the originals and next to none in BG3.

So you have no logical reason to be upset by a lack of more party members. The only logical reason you'd be able to suggest, which I haven't said you are doing, is that the originals had six.

It's not that you're saying it, it's that your argument about customization is so obviously hollow that it's the only reasonable option left.

And btw, your constant defensiveness and the silliness of your argument makes it look like that is in fact the real reason you're criticizing the change.

the totality of your idiocy is like watching an eclipse without the orange edges hinting there is something behind the all-absorbing darkness and emptyness

That's a terrible thing to say about yourself, sir, but if you're going to, try to spell emptiness right at least.

the upset-card seems a somewhat dubious tactic from someone who is spam-reacting retardred and who went ballistic when i had the audacity to go 'lol' at a few posters' lengthy argument about the correct anatomy of halfling-human sex

non-edgy, maybe, but certainly not non-upset

You seem upset. I'm rating your posts retarded because I feel they aren't very smart. I'm trying to help you become a better poster. Pls no bully.

 

[Grunker]

"i would like more than 4 companions because more combat complexity and more customization"

"but there wasn't even customization in the ie games"

"i never said there was, in fact it's something i dislike about the ie games"

"SO YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE A NOSTALGIC REASON FOR WANTING IT! SO YOU'RE JUST LIKE THE NOSTALGIC HATERS!!!"

 

[Cryomancer]

I have some faith in combat and the subsystems

The game is 5E.

and? Solasta is 5E too and has excellent combat (despite the bland design)

Solasta would be way better in any other ruleset(except 4e).

favoured such ie-sacrilegious decisions as making the game 5E and turn-based

Turn Based is fine. But 5e is so far one of the greatest problems of BG3.

So you have no logical reason to be upset by a lack of more party members. The only logical reason you'd be able to suggest, which I haven't said you are doing, is that the originals had six.

Also, 5E has bounded accuracy and no more DR/high AC, which means that numbers of unities in a side is way more important than anything else. Having 6 party members will trivialize a tough encounter with 4 party members.

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

"i would like more than 4 companions because more combat complexity and more customization"

"but there wasn't even customization in the old games"

"i never said there was"

"SO YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE A NOSTALGIC REASON FOR WANTING IT! SO YOU'RE JUST LIKE THE NOSTALGIC HATERS!!!"

Once again, you prove you have a hard time reading. How sad for you.

Again:

edit: and yes, Grunker, I realize you say you're not upset by the fact that it's different from the originals, but the originals had six and you're sad there aren't 6. Maybe that's a big coincidence, but it's still functionally similar to being sad that it's not like the originals.

This doesn't look like screaming at you that you're a nostalgic hater. I was merely telling you why you're getting lumped in with the irrational Larian bad crowd.

 

[Joyvankek]

>Not sure what you're talking about here, but you sound like a fag.
You're thinking out loud, that's why you are hearing something that sounds like a faggotry. Time to face the mirro little buddy.

*mirror.

>This isn't 4chan, autismo.
So you visit reddit little, that used to be chan in the past?

Uh oh. It looks like referencing 4chan broke its brain and it doesn't understand how to use quotes or form sentences anymore.

It's ok, autismo, DU will put you out of your misery soon enough.

Oh no, I've made a grammatic mistake, how will I look into your gay eyes without a shame crushing me from inside.
>Uh oh. It looks like referencing 4chan broke its brain and it doesn't understand how to use quotes or form sentences anymore.
That's rich coming from someone who switched to arrow quoting before, also I will be using whichever system I prefer, and you can do shit about it.
>It's ok, autismo, DU will put you out of your misery soon enough.
Are you trying to intimidate me with some mod? Considering that you managed to stay here for so long, with post quality like that, I have good chances myself.
Unless you are buddy buddy with him similar to you relationship with rusty, then I indeed may have some problems.
Nevertheless I am done with you.

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

Oh no, I've made a grammatic mistake, how will I look into your gay eyes without a shame crushing me from inside.

You seem to fantasize about homosexuality a lot.

I'm afraid I have to inform you that this is a straight thread, sir. Please go to the Wrath of the Tranny thread to wax about your sodomic tendencies and whatnot.

And learn how to use quotes. I know you think the fact that you've been to 4chan makes you special, but no one wants to read your text blobs.

edit: lmao 20 posts and he's already found the ignore button. so much for the mighty 4chaner. what a little bitch.

 

[NJClaw]

The only games with full party control that get close to being difficult are ones where you have no control over the units you're given, such as battle brothers.

what is the difference between a tactical game and an RPG for you people?

Zed Duke of Banville, I think we need you here.

 

[Nortar]

what is the difference between a tactical game and an RPG for you people?

It's almost like asking what is RPG.
The dividing line is thin and blurry, but for me the deciding factor would be the continuity of the world.

Pure RPGs usually would have a seamless transition from exploration to combat, while Tacticools can be chunked by separate combat missions (i.e. Troubleshooter, Blackguards, X-Coms).

 

[Reinhardt]

you have no control over the units you're given, such as battle brothers.