@the_sextein Thanks for your good words, but rest assured: everyone in the company (in past and present) support that decision. Trent said Larian proved they could deliver, Phil can't hold his excitement:
@deltago That sounds like a very harsh criticism, and I personally didn't got the impression you got when I played DOS 1. There was a long way since they had created DOS 1, and DOS 2 is critically acclaimed, so I trust them.
I can't even begin to understand where this hostility to turn-based CRPGs is coming from. Until Dungeon Master and Diablo (respectively) nearly every one in existence was turn-based. Wizardry, Ultima, Might & Magic, the entire Gold Box series etc etc etc.
Until Dungeon Master and Diablo is a weird statement, since they were 10 years apart.
Ultima was indeed turn-based until U7. Gold Box was always turn-based.
But Wizardry always was phase-based, which is not the same thing at all. Might and Magic was phase-based until MM3, when it became turn-based. Bard's Tale was also phase-based.
In fact, phase-based was very popular in the past, the reason it is not anymore is that it is difficult to combine with tactical movement of individual party members.
You might say this is semantics, but as I pointed out before there is a large difference between RTwP and phase-based combat on one hand and turn-based combat on the other. With turn-based, you never waste attacks or spells since you can pick your target only when you attack. Deciding whether to focus on one dangerous enemy at the expense of risking wasting attacks and spells always was an important tactical part of phase-based and RTwP games.
I seriously wonder: are you, folks who say that writing in DOS games is somehow of a bad quality, indeed aware of the actual story and writing after 1st chapters of each game? Eg. In DOS 1 EE only 20% of players found Icara's cabin. And the main story, the actual- and very grim- events starts developing only after that. Only less than 10% of players found a way to handle Tenebrium, and without it you can't understand the core aspects of the story as you simply can't access the appropriate areas..
I played for 7 hours and din't liked the story, the combat(too slow), the character progression, not much cool stuff to do, the mechanics like cooldowns an max one summon, honestly is not an bad game, with an "speed mod" can become good, but i rather re play icewind dale 1/2 or baldur's gate 1/2 or play the thousands of NWN1 modules AGAIN.
I hope they won't design the game with both RTwP and TB as options. One or both will suffer as a result. Pick one and make it perfect. I hope for the legacy of IE that it will be real time with pause. Theres really no reason to change that.
Remember how Sword Coast Legends tried to be D&D and Diablo/MMO at the same time..and how that worked out.
There's a reason we're still here 20 years after BG was released. It's not because of the engine, or RTwP combat, or the engine, or the ruleset, or the engine.
It's because both entries in the series told an engaging story with fun and interesting companions. If BG3 does that it will not matter if it's set in Waterdeep or Kara-Tur, in the Time of Troubles or the current 5e timeline, whether it's turn-based or RTwP, or whether it's 2e or 5e.
Did I mention it's not the engine?
Heh, and I do think it's the engine! Seriously. I have played many games with engaging strories and interesting companions, yet most of them only once. On the other hand I don't think BG story is that good and companions that interesting, yet I've played it countless of times. Why? Because it's still fun, and that fun comes by largest part from gameplay mechanics. I interact with the story maybe 10% of the gameplay time and with companion's personalities maybe around 1% of the time. The rest is going around the world battling baddies while doing sidequests and gaining power. IMO, if this gameplay aspect wasn't fun, the game would be burried in history, and the same applies to potential BG3. But opinions vary, naturally.
People talk about real time games as if they don't work turn based with the toons simply acting out actions that aren't really happening until it's their turn. Your fighter doesn't attack every time you see his sword swinging. Even in real time, you give a command and sometimes the character will just stand there a minute, waiting until it can act. Visually real time is more immersive, but I don't find the play much different. I'm an old school tabletop player, so my opinion is colored by growing up on turn based play.
People talk about real time games as if they don't work turn based with the toons simply acting out actions that aren't really happening until it's their turn. Your fighter doesn't attack every time you see his sword swinging. Even in real time, you give a command and sometimes the character will just stand there a minute, waiting until it can act. Visually real time is more immersive, but I don't find the play much different. I'm an old school tabletop player, so my opinion is colored by growing up on turn based play.
I also grew up on turn based play, and I think it makes a large difference in some situation & have pointed them out before. But again, the major difference is that with real-time with pause or phased combat you can easily waste attacks. You just need to compare BG and the Goldbox games. They play quite differently due to fighters not wasting time trying to attack enemies that will already be killed by an arrow or spell in flight, and because you place fireballs with pinpoint accuracy in Goldbox.
People talk about real time games as if they don't work turn based with the toons simply acting out actions that aren't really happening until it's their turn. Your fighter doesn't attack every time you see his sword swinging. Even in real time, you give a command and sometimes the character will just stand there a minute, waiting until it can act. Visually real time is more immersive, but I don't find the play much different. I'm an old school tabletop player, so my opinion is colored by growing up on turn based play.
I also grew up on turn based play, and I think it makes a large difference in some situation & have pointed them out before. But again, the major difference is that with real-time with pause or phased combat you can easily waste attacks. You just need to compare BG and the Goldbox games. They play quite differently due to fighters not wasting time trying to attack enemies that will already be killed by an arrow or spell in flight, and because you place fireballs with pinpoint accuracy in Goldbox.
I agree there are major differences from turn based play (which was my introduction to D&D in P&P games). If you're playing in a party and using AI the difference may not be particularly obvious, but if you're micro-managing a solo character the difference is huge. Taking advantage of the opportunities to manipulate the real time situation is a large part of why I've played BG so much over the years. I like turn based play for other games (like Heroes or Civilization), but have found D&D computer games using that system rather slow and cumbersome. Still, I would always be happy to be convinced otherwise .
Yes, I agree that turn based takes away the overkill possibility, which is more realistic. I actually hated real time games for awhile. It just took getting used to hitting pause frequently (which I still find immersion breaking), but meh. A good i game is a good game either way. If everything else is top notch, then tb or rt shouldn't matter to much. To each his own.
my issues with tb in recent games. now i have to say recent games because i don't mind it in say alot of jrpgs or even fallout 1,2 or arcanum.
is that they are way to slow. now those 3 crpgs i named have one thing in common. they have a speed slider to make combat go by faster. due to the slow combat it makes battles become more tedious and makes me not want to play the game. it's my same issue with tactical rpgs the speed of combat just makes me not want to play the.
thats why i said i use cheats when i play the newer shadow run games. it just runs to slow for me and battles go on to long. and games like dos 1 and, wasteland 2, and tides all have this issue. the animations are to slow so battles take forever. thats why i prefer real time combat in these types of games. battles don't take forever and i can move on with the game. it's also why i'lll never play toee.
I hope they won't design the game with both RTwP and TB as options. One or both will suffer as a result. Pick one and make it perfect. I hope for the legacy of IE that it will be real time with pause. Theres really no reason to change that.
Remember how Sword Coast Legends tried to be D&D and Diablo/MMO at the same time..and how that worked out.
Sword Coast Legends is just a shame because on the surface at least I could see something like it working. Even with the more generic game it was. Provided that it gave DM's the tools to tell a compelling story. Just because it would be something that more casual people could just pick up.
Unfortunately, as someone who tried in vain to make stories with it I can say that it was really restrictive in what anyone could do. No branched dialogue trees, a preview system that required you to replay your whole module to retest it (even just for one area), and severe limits on text length. It was a constant exercise in frustration. DMing is ultimately more than just combat encounters after all.
Anyways, I think its issue was that going into it it lacked a clear direction for what it was trying to do. I don't think its because it was trying to do two things though. It sounds like having both systems has worked out alright with Pillars of Eternity 2 for instance. At the end of the day I think more than anything it comes down to planning this all ahead of time and coming up and proceeding with an effective implementation plan.
I never noticed the battles being too long. I never really thought about it, though, just fought them. I'm a 3.5e devotee, and toee was impressive in how true to the ruleset it was. I don't think the story was properly told and couldn't get hooked because of that.
People talk about real time games as if they don't work turn based with the toons simply acting out actions that aren't really happening until it's their turn. Your fighter doesn't attack every time you see his sword swinging. Even in real time, you give a command and sometimes the character will just stand there a minute, waiting until it can act. Visually real time is more immersive, but I don't find the play much different. I'm an old school tabletop player, so my opinion is colored by growing up on turn based play.
I also grew up on turn based play, and I think it makes a large difference in some situation & have pointed them out before. But again, the major difference is that with real-time with pause or phased combat you can easily waste attacks. You just need to compare BG and the Goldbox games. They play quite differently due to fighters not wasting time trying to attack enemies that will already be killed by an arrow or spell in flight, and because you place fireballs with pinpoint accuracy in Goldbox.
I agree there are major differences from turn based play (which was my introduction to D&D in P&P games). If you're playing in a party and using AI the difference may not be particularly obvious, but if you're micro-managing a solo character the difference is huge. Taking advantage of the opportunities to manipulate the real time situation is a large part of why I've played BG so much over the years. I like turn based play for other games (like Heroes or Civilization), but have found D&D computer games using that system rather slow and cumbersome. Still, I would always be happy to be convinced otherwise .
It's mostly a high-level problem when you fight a large number of magic resistant enemies with high hit point amounts. Looking at the Goldbox games, combat usually resolves pretty fast up to at least Level 10-12, but if you get in the epic level range (as in Dark Queen of Krynn and Pools of Darkness) it becomes cumbersome.
Partially, it also depends on encounter design. Filler combat needs to be either rare or quick to resolve, otherwise turn-based combat can make the game slow-paced.
I am firmly in the camp that game #3 in a series of games must follow the core recipe of the previous games in the series. So for me it will matter if Larian changes core elements of the game from the first two games, and no matter how good other aspects of the game might be I will feel betrayed and be very angry. If they wanted to make a different game, then they should do that, meaning create a brand new IP that does not carry the name Baldur's Gate. For me, a "Baldur's Gate" game means: single-player, party-based, isometric, and RTwP combat. Anything else is not truly a Baldur's Gate game.
The negativity on here is getting crazy. The game hasn’t even been 100% confirmed yet and mostly everyone has already decided that Larian are gonna mess it up. Give the guys a chance people. These guys know how to make a game. Both Divinity’s were VERY well received. And we have no details on what formula they are gonna use so come on, give them a chance.
A Baldur's Gate game is a game around (more or less) the BG city, a city in the Forgotten Realms, or at least having connections to that (BG2). A Baldur's Gate name is more than a computer game, it comes from D&D first and foremost.
What would they betray? How much time should have passed since the original games' release? 50 years?
The vanilla, pre-EE game isn't nearly as strong, and personally, I think BG1 by itself, if not BG2, is pretty lousy compared to the better half of modern games. It was spectacular for its time and spectacular even for many years after, but 20 years is a lot of time for other games to catch up. Gaming has advanced dramatically since 1998, and even the best games of that era eventually start to lose their shine.
Yes. While there should be something unwritten which would give the vibe of the same feeling, a new game should be - first and foremost - the game of this era. And considering there're many mentions that DOS 2 had that "BG vibe" from best gaming sites and journalists, there's hope they will be able to do that.
People are anxious of the unknown. Plain as that. This is especially true about things they care for. And without having official informations to go by, humans cannot help but try to speculate about all kinds of stuff.
@byrne20 Most of the complaints here have nothing or little to do with the actual quality of the game. People are worried that the game ultimately will change too much and not FEEL like Baldur's Gate. Its kind of a lose/lose situation. Larian has a few options for what the game could be about, and none of them sit well with me:
1. Its a "spiritual successor". The game won't have anything to do with the Bhaalspawn. This is troublesome because the entire series was ABOUT this specific character. Calling the game "BG3" implies the continuation of the story. If its not, this is just a blatant lie and a cash grab title banking on nostaliga to move units. Even if the game is amazing, its dishonest at BEST.
2. The game follows the canon of the pnp setting with Abdel Adrian. Aside from the nod to the novels (blegh) this is a very similar problem to point 1 above. BG was a game series, whose canon was separate from pnp. Things went very differently between the two. BG3 would still be a very dishonest title.
3. The game IS a direct sequel and follows the Ascended ending. With charname becoming a new deity. Did you pick the mortal ending (like me)? Too bad! You played wrong! Did you pick evil or good? Hope the devs agree with you!
4. Same as above, but the mortal ending. Did you ascend to godhood! Nope, you didn't! At least this one doesn't carry the good/evil problem of the point above.
5. The story is complete and satisfying as is. All questions have been answered. Trying to shoe horn a new story in will break what was already a good story.
6. Maybe its a descendant of charname? So, who did you romance? There is only about half a dozen possibilities here.
No matter what happens, Larian are going to alienate a LOT of players, and not because of quality. The game either won't be BG3 in any sense of what such a title implies, or it won't feel like previous games in the series.
I'd personally be absolutely fine, even excited, for option 1. But for the love of all that is holy, don't call it "BG3". Option 6 is very intriguing, but Larina would have to write a lot of variability into the game to work properly. Do they have the resources to do that without sacrificing quality in other areas?
Yeah, the classic BG games are about a specific character - Bhaal. So I guess we have good reasons to wait for a continuation of the story. And to me, that would justify the name 100%.
another thing is people are alot more judgmental of a game if you call it a spiritual successor.
this is why tides of numenera is heavily criticized. they said it was a spiritual successor to planescape torment. and when the game came out it turned out to be a mediocre retelling of planescape and not a game that tried to do it's own thing.
Yes, too many games tried to be "too spiritual", "too successory", because they tried to "stay true" to these classic games, and forgot to be independent games with experiments of their own. PoE and TToN come to the mind. This is why I think @semiticgod is so much correct.
Dragon Age: Origins tried to be a new game who had a vibe of old games. This game is still valid, and it's a hit on its own. The game didn't just try to be isometric, it went further, and gifted us 3D, which allowed, among other things, much deeper party interactions.
I certainly hope it doesn't deal with the bhaalspawn. Their story has concluded. Maybe some references to it and the war to be the last one, but I want a new story. I don't like what D&D did with the canon bhaalspawn, but it's not really possible to incorporate all the huge events that happened in the games into the lore without taking some sort of hard stance on what the hell happened. I really enjoyed D:OS2, so I have faith that Larian can make a great game, and they've proven it. The Larian people have been heavily influenced by the Baldur's Gate games, and love them as much as we do. Will it be exactly like the originals? No, absolutely not. New mechanics, storytelling techniques, changes in lore, what's socially acceptable and technological advancements over the last 20 years should be in the game.
these days developers just can't let a series end. there are so many games where i can point to a place where the story had a nice conclusion then they make a sequel that ruins it.
baldurs gate is a nice example of this. it ended. it tied everything up with a bow there is no reason to un tie this bow with out ruining what made it work.
Not really my kind of game, and they obviously were really ARPG's, but they got decent reviews at the time. So I don't think its that big of a deal that another game use the title. Even if it has a 3 at the end.
Also its worth noting that WoTC has made some changes to Baldur's Gate. Its now described as the "Gotham" of the Sword Coast (and there is a lot of talk about the disparity between different parts of the city). So that is probably going to be relevant.
I can't even begin to understand where this hostility to turn-based CRPGs is coming from. Until Dungeon Master and Diablo (respectively) nearly every one in existence was turn-based. Wizardry, Ultima, Might & Magic, the entire Gold Box series etc etc etc.
Until Dungeon Master and Diablo is a weird statement, since they were 10 years apart.
Ultima was indeed turn-based until U7. Gold Box was always turn-based.
But Wizardry always was phase-based, which is not the same thing at all. Might and Magic was phase-based until MM3, when it became turn-based. Bard's Tale was also phase-based.
In fact, phase-based was very popular in the past, the reason it is not anymore is that it is difficult to combine with tactical movement of individual party members.
You might say this is semantics, but as I pointed out before there is a large difference between RTwP and phase-based combat on one hand and turn-based combat on the other. With turn-based, you never waste attacks or spells since you can pick your target only when you attack. Deciding whether to focus on one dangerous enemy at the expense of risking wasting attacks and spells always was an important tactical part of phase-based and RTwP games.
I understand what you are saying about being phase-based (in which a large group of monsters attack then all the party members attack) but this is comparing an apple to a slightly different type of apple. It is in every way both sides taking turns, it just doesn't break it down to individual units, but rather Side A and Side B. You can't select individual monsters to attack but you CAN select which group to hit. So yes, I would have to argue this is semantics.
The reason I bring up Dungeon Master and Diablo despite the gap between them is that with the first, it was the first time a tile-based game was having you perform actions in real-time, and Diablo was basically the first to do it from an isometric perspective, in an even more "real-time" way. I think both are clearly the major exmaples of the shift in both of them. After Dungeon Master, the blobber went from the Wizardry/Might and Magic style to stuff like Eye of the Beholder and Lands of Lore. Diablo created an entire genre and opened the door to the isometric perspective.
another thing is people are alot more judgmental of a game if you call it a spiritual successor.
this is why tides of numenera is heavily criticized. they said it was a spiritual successor to planescape torment. and when the game came out it turned out to be a mediocre retelling of planescape and not a game that tried to do it's own thing.
This is exactly it. If T:ToN had been exactly the same game it is, but with zero references to anything about PsT, I am 100% certain a lot more people would've liked the game. Ditto for inXile's other recent game, BT4. And this is what I'm saying about Larian's game. The exact same game but with no reference to the Baldur's Gate franchise I would be quite open to even if it had elements (TB for example) that I did not like. But if they call it BG3 and then go against the basic elements of the original games, then I and surely a great many others have every reason to be upset.
Hmmm. Not sure about this. Did not play DOS II, but played DOS I. It was way too juvenile and cartoony for me, and after the while the whole environmental combat thing just felt like a cheap gimmick. I really wish they had some of the original creative team, maybe people from Obsidian or Beamdog, but Larian? Ehhh, I'm not saving my money.
There is no ONE factor that made the BG games special. It was a multiplicity of factors all coming together perfectly that made those games special. Each of those factors individually can be readily found in many many RPGs so the individual factors themselves are nothing special. So saying this one thing (and nothing else) is what made the BG games awesome is rather disingenuous. Nobody gets to be the gatekeeper of what made the BG games special. Each one of us has our particular view of what made those games special to us, and they're all equally valid views.
I never got a 'BG vibe' from the D:OS games. The DA games had far more of a BG vibe than the D:OS games. I don't see the D:OS games as good RPGs. So saying Larian did a great job with the D:OS games so we ALL should trust Larian to make a great BG3 just like their awesome D:OS games is absolutely not going to fly with me.
Comments
@deltago That sounds like a very harsh criticism, and I personally didn't got the impression you got when I played DOS 1. There was a long way since they had created DOS 1, and DOS 2 is critically acclaimed, so I trust them.
Until Dungeon Master and Diablo is a weird statement, since they were 10 years apart.
Ultima was indeed turn-based until U7. Gold Box was always turn-based.
But Wizardry always was phase-based, which is not the same thing at all. Might and Magic was phase-based until MM3, when it became turn-based. Bard's Tale was also phase-based.
In fact, phase-based was very popular in the past, the reason it is not anymore is that it is difficult to combine with tactical movement of individual party members.
You might say this is semantics, but as I pointed out before there is a large difference between RTwP and phase-based combat on one hand and turn-based combat on the other. With turn-based, you never waste attacks or spells since you can pick your target only when you attack. Deciding whether to focus on one dangerous enemy at the expense of risking wasting attacks and spells always was an important tactical part of phase-based and RTwP games.
Anyway, i expect that BG3 = SCL2
If Larien Studios implements the pnp rules, will be great. If they decide to "simplify" and "ballance", then will be SCL2.
I played for 7 hours and din't liked the story, the combat(too slow), the character progression, not much cool stuff to do, the mechanics like cooldowns an max one summon, honestly is not an bad game, with an "speed mod" can become good, but i rather re play icewind dale 1/2 or baldur's gate 1/2 or play the thousands of NWN1 modules AGAIN.
Remember how Sword Coast Legends tried to be D&D and Diablo/MMO at the same time..and how that worked out.
Heh, and I do think it's the engine! Seriously. I have played many games with engaging strories and interesting companions, yet most of them only once. On the other hand I don't think BG story is that good and companions that interesting, yet I've played it countless of times. Why? Because it's still fun, and that fun comes by largest part from gameplay mechanics. I interact with the story maybe 10% of the gameplay time and with companion's personalities maybe around 1% of the time. The rest is going around the world battling baddies while doing sidequests and gaining power. IMO, if this gameplay aspect wasn't fun, the game would be burried in history, and the same applies to potential BG3. But opinions vary, naturally.
I also grew up on turn based play, and I think it makes a large difference in some situation & have pointed them out before. But again, the major difference is that with real-time with pause or phased combat you can easily waste attacks. You just need to compare BG and the Goldbox games. They play quite differently due to fighters not wasting time trying to attack enemies that will already be killed by an arrow or spell in flight, and because you place fireballs with pinpoint accuracy in Goldbox.
I agree there are major differences from turn based play (which was my introduction to D&D in P&P games). If you're playing in a party and using AI the difference may not be particularly obvious, but if you're micro-managing a solo character the difference is huge. Taking advantage of the opportunities to manipulate the real time situation is a large part of why I've played BG so much over the years. I like turn based play for other games (like Heroes or Civilization), but have found D&D computer games using that system rather slow and cumbersome. Still, I would always be happy to be convinced otherwise
is that they are way to slow. now those 3 crpgs i named have one thing in common. they have a speed slider to make combat go by faster. due to the slow combat it makes battles become more tedious and makes me not want to play the game. it's my same issue with tactical rpgs the speed of combat just makes me not want to play the.
thats why i said i use cheats when i play the newer shadow run games. it just runs to slow for me and battles go on to long. and games like dos 1 and, wasteland 2, and tides all have this issue. the animations are to slow so battles take forever. thats why i prefer real time combat in these types of games. battles don't take forever and i can move on with the game. it's also why i'lll never play toee.
Sword Coast Legends is just a shame because on the surface at least I could see something like it working. Even with the more generic game it was. Provided that it gave DM's the tools to tell a compelling story. Just because it would be something that more casual people could just pick up.
Unfortunately, as someone who tried in vain to make stories with it I can say that it was really restrictive in what anyone could do. No branched dialogue trees, a preview system that required you to replay your whole module to retest it (even just for one area), and severe limits on text length. It was a constant exercise in frustration. DMing is ultimately more than just combat encounters after all.
Anyways, I think its issue was that going into it it lacked a clear direction for what it was trying to do. I don't think its because it was trying to do two things though. It sounds like having both systems has worked out alright with Pillars of Eternity 2 for instance. At the end of the day I think more than anything it comes down to planning this all ahead of time and coming up and proceeding with an effective implementation plan.
It's mostly a high-level problem when you fight a large number of magic resistant enemies with high hit point amounts. Looking at the Goldbox games, combat usually resolves pretty fast up to at least Level 10-12, but if you get in the epic level range (as in Dark Queen of Krynn and Pools of Darkness) it becomes cumbersome.
Partially, it also depends on encounter design. Filler combat needs to be either rare or quick to resolve, otherwise turn-based combat can make the game slow-paced.
What would they betray? How much time should have passed since the original games' release? 50 years?
Yes. While there should be something unwritten which would give the vibe of the same feeling, a new game should be - first and foremost - the game of this era. And considering there're many mentions that DOS 2 had that "BG vibe" from best gaming sites and journalists, there's hope they will be able to do that.
1. Its a "spiritual successor". The game won't have anything to do with the Bhaalspawn. This is troublesome because the entire series was ABOUT this specific character. Calling the game "BG3" implies the continuation of the story. If its not, this is just a blatant lie and a cash grab title banking on nostaliga to move units. Even if the game is amazing, its dishonest at BEST.
2. The game follows the canon of the pnp setting with Abdel Adrian. Aside from the nod to the novels (blegh) this is a very similar problem to point 1 above. BG was a game series, whose canon was separate from pnp. Things went very differently between the two. BG3 would still be a very dishonest title.
3. The game IS a direct sequel and follows the Ascended ending. With charname becoming a new deity. Did you pick the mortal ending (like me)? Too bad! You played wrong! Did you pick evil or good? Hope the devs agree with you!
4. Same as above, but the mortal ending. Did you ascend to godhood! Nope, you didn't! At least this one doesn't carry the good/evil problem of the point above.
5. The story is complete and satisfying as is. All questions have been answered. Trying to shoe horn a new story in will break what was already a good story.
6. Maybe its a descendant of charname? So, who did you romance? There is only about half a dozen possibilities here.
No matter what happens, Larian are going to alienate a LOT of players, and not because of quality. The game either won't be BG3 in any sense of what such a title implies, or it won't feel like previous games in the series.
I'd personally be absolutely fine, even excited, for option 1. But for the love of all that is holy, don't call it "BG3". Option 6 is very intriguing, but Larina would have to write a lot of variability into the game to work properly. Do they have the resources to do that without sacrificing quality in other areas?
this is why tides of numenera is heavily criticized. they said it was a spiritual successor to planescape torment. and when the game came out it turned out to be a mediocre retelling of planescape and not a game that tried to do it's own thing.
Dragon Age: Origins tried to be a new game who had a vibe of old games. This game is still valid, and it's a hit on its own. The game didn't just try to be isometric, it went further, and gifted us 3D, which allowed, among other things, much deeper party interactions.
baldurs gate is a nice example of this. it ended. it tied everything up with a bow there is no reason to un tie this bow with out ruining what made it work.
This is not the same thing as when we get a new Terminator or something like that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldur's_Gate:_Dark_Alliance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldur's_Gate:_Dark_Alliance_II
Not really my kind of game, and they obviously were really ARPG's, but they got decent reviews at the time. So I don't think its that big of a deal that another game use the title. Even if it has a 3 at the end.
I understand what you are saying about being phase-based (in which a large group of monsters attack then all the party members attack) but this is comparing an apple to a slightly different type of apple. It is in every way both sides taking turns, it just doesn't break it down to individual units, but rather Side A and Side B. You can't select individual monsters to attack but you CAN select which group to hit. So yes, I would have to argue this is semantics.
The reason I bring up Dungeon Master and Diablo despite the gap between them is that with the first, it was the first time a tile-based game was having you perform actions in real-time, and Diablo was basically the first to do it from an isometric perspective, in an even more "real-time" way. I think both are clearly the major exmaples of the shift in both of them. After Dungeon Master, the blobber went from the Wizardry/Might and Magic style to stuff like Eye of the Beholder and Lands of Lore. Diablo created an entire genre and opened the door to the isometric perspective.
This is exactly it. If T:ToN had been exactly the same game it is, but with zero references to anything about PsT, I am 100% certain a lot more people would've liked the game. Ditto for inXile's other recent game, BT4. And this is what I'm saying about Larian's game. The exact same game but with no reference to the Baldur's Gate franchise I would be quite open to even if it had elements (TB for example) that I did not like. But if they call it BG3 and then go against the basic elements of the original games, then I and surely a great many others have every reason to be upset.
I never got a 'BG vibe' from the D:OS games. The DA games had far more of a BG vibe than the D:OS games. I don't see the D:OS games as good RPGs. So saying Larian did a great job with the D:OS games so we ALL should trust Larian to make a great BG3 just like their awesome D:OS games is absolutely not going to fly with me.