I think (hope) we all understand that it's fine to disagree. We can all have different opinions about the ethics of game marketing and whatever else, and still get along without a breakdown bringing us back to our tribal roots.
Yup. This is a really important point here.
The last thing we need is to sort ourselves into factions and fight each other over our predictions. We don't want a debate like this to corrode the otherwise friendly atmosphere we've striven to cultivate on this forum.
On a related note, I need to remind folks here that the Site Rules mandate respectful behavior. I don't like to say "mods are watching," but we are, and folks should keep that in mind when posting.
It's too early to say if the game will be a great success or a great failure We basically have 0 information about it right now. All we can say for sure at this moment is that there are Illithids walking on Baldur's Gate.
no missing indicates "twitch gameplay" (no negative connotation, that's just the technical name).
i think it's going to be formally similar to dragon age 3 in terms of basic perspective and timekeeping aspects, probably just a modern looking rpg, not isometric, not very tactical in the classical sense etc.
About Thaco’s insistence that it shouldn’t be called III:
Calling it Baldur’s Gate III generates more hype than if it was called anything else. Do you actually think if it had another name, there would be a completely off topic subsection for the game here?
The hype gets people talking about it. It gets webzines to do interviews and speculations on it even though nothing has been released except that it is a new D&D game being made by Larian and has mindflayers (one of the few monsters that WotC has Copyrighted).
WotC know this. Larian knows this. But as long as they are upfront with the game being a completely new adventure, they get to get away with it.
Be hyped for a new Larian game
Be hyped for finally getting a 5e D&D game.
Don’t be hyped for Baldur’s Gate III because you will be disappointed.
@deltago I don't give a crap how effective the strategy is. They are promising something with the title that they KNOW they aren't delivering. Its unethical, and I refuse to support it.
" But as long as they are upfront with the game being a completely new adventure, they get to get away with it."
square is up front that each ff sequel is it's own self contained story.
larian are using the name bg 3 to get people's hopes up when it has nothing to do with the previous games.
they decided to call the original sin games that as they were different from the main divinity games [ even tho 1 was meant to be a prequel] and this feels like how Bethesda is with fallout. larian has more respect for their own series then they do with one they did not make.
Personally, I'm glad that it's a new story because the Bhaalspawn story is over. I'm also glad that they chose to make a Baldur's Gate title because I love the original games and would love to experience something new and modern that is connected to them. I don't think the title should have been called Baldur's Gate 3 but that is just a personal thing. Final Fantasy has a different story, characters, and setting for each game so it's not completely unheard of to do this sort of thing. I do think the original games set a precedent by having them connected by story, characters, and gameplay but I'm not going to have a aneurism over it. Hopefully they will make a small reference to the secretive Ilithid plot that was mentioned in the series and it looks like many characters from the originals will make cameo appearances. The game has the same forgotten realms setting connecting it as well. Using the Baldur's Gate 3 IP does set expectations from gamers that play Baldur's gate titles (as apposed to just Baldur's Gate IP) for a specific type of game experience and I hope they can respect that.
Based on the video posted earlier in this thread. It looks like Swen has always wanted to do a D&D game and has based his games on that inspiration. His team is skilled and his studio is basking in success. He has taken the opportunity to do the ultimate project. I'm not sure why he chose Baldur's Gate rather than doing something new in the forgotten realms. It could be that the title just means something to him or it was a personal goal. Most likely it was needed to garner the attention just to get as much support and interest as possible from a marketing standpoint because his ambitions are extremely high and BG3 was the only way to get a project this massive off the ground.
I hope they deliver an art style that is less cartoony than DOS2 and more in line with the CG trailer they have released. I hope there are 6 party members with a top down isometric perspective ( or something adaptable that can look similar if wanted ). I'm hoping for RTwP gameplay but if they don't go that route then hopefully they have something innovative that sets their gameplay apart from everything that came before it.
The reality of the situation is that WOTC would not give this IP to just anyone. This game was either going to be AAA or not created at all. From my stand point there is no reason not to hope for the best. If it's a disappointing game then so be it, you don't have to buy it. At the least, it's production gives us something to hope for at the moment and could lead to a new and fun experience.
Warning! The following post is entirely conjecture.
Yeah I have a feeling it may have gone down like this:
Larian: "We want to make a D&D game."
Wizards: "No." Some time later, after Larian's DOS(2) success...
Wizards: "Okay, you can make a D&D game, but it has to be called Baldur's Gate 3."
Edit: Act 2
Larian: "Why does it need to be called Baldur's Gate 3?"
Wizards: "Don't you guys like money?"
Larian: "Yeah, I guess we do."
Probably something like that. Except I think WotC asked for Requests for Proposals from a select group of companies and Larian won out due to their recent success and them saying “yes we can do mind flayers.”
I honestly don’t think it is a coincidence that both BG3 and the cancelled Beamdog product has mindflayers in it. Wizards asked for them because it is one thing other companies like Pathfinder can’t copy.
I honestly don’t think it is a coincidence that both BG3 and the cancelled Beamdog product has mindflayers in it. Wizards asked for them because it is one thing other companies like Pathfinder can’t copy.
Though they could just invent a slightly different Lovecraftian race by copying from the same source D&D did.
In other news, since the article mentioned that they've decided to remove the game mechanics of attack rolls missing their target from the game's combat system
My interest has just been entirely shot down. This implies a design direction I not only have no interest in, I openly detest.
"There are some things on the chopping block, however. It's an interpretation of D&D, specifically 5th Edition, because porting the core rules, which Larian tried to do, doesn't work. Or it works, Vincke clarifies, but it's no fun at all. One of the culprits is missing when you're trying to hit an enemy, and while the combat system has yet to be revealed, you can at least look forward to being able to smack people more consistently.
"You miss a lot in D&D—if the dice are bad, you miss," he says. "That doesn't work well in a videogame. If I do that, you're going to review it and say it's shit."
Missing isn't what is bad about DnD. Creating builds that matter and ones that suck isn't a bad thing. Have different difficulty levels if you care so much about that. Make the standard difficulty the easy mode, even.
Taking out bedrock, foundational mechanics of DnD, that neither BG1 or 2 or NWN 1 or 2 or any of the Gold Box games took out, tells me you're releasing Skyrim and Dragons. Not for me.
Yeah it sounds uncomfortably close to Bethesda's own "streamlining" method through which they turned an RPG franchise with incredibly complex gameplay systems and a huge abundance of player options into a glorified open world hack-and-slash. Attacks having a chance to miss was one of the first things they got rid of over there, too.
in an action game, there's no need to abstract existing immersive mechanics using dice, and it would be silly to see your shot, having been accurately placed, formally "miss". so it's probably going to be some kind of action gameplay. i don't think it's bad, because i like action games... many other d&d rules can still work in an action game.
the importaint thing about 5e is that primary stats really define your character. you can elaborate on that in different ways, and i think it's all good as long as it has the spirit of the original system.
for example, instead of chance to hit you could have a stat that determines if characters (you and enemies alike) are able to perform some combo or break a parry... it doesn't have to be streamlined, it can actually be more complex
I'd be out at that point, because that's definitely not my cup of tea. I like my RPGs to be full on nerdy stat-crunching RPGs and not be diluted down with action gameplay.
Besides, if you had set out to make "Baldur's Gate III" and you've ended up with an ARPG, you've kind of failed in my book.
in an action game, there's no need to abstract existing immersive mechanics using dice, and it would be silly to see your shot, having been accurately placed, formally "miss".
That problem was settled by NWN 1, and in a way that felt nice. Parrying or dodging looked smooth, for the time and even now.
But yeah, you're right, DnD mechanics are meaningless in an action game. Which appears to be what this is going to be, Skyrim and Dragons, where hand-holding wins the day and the developers assume you are too stupid to figure out systems that worked entirely well in virtually every other DnD game to date.
I'd be out at that point, because that's definitely not my cup of tea. I like my RPGs to be full on nerdy stat-crunching RPGs and not be diluted down with action gameplay.
Besides, if you had set out to make "Baldur's Gate III" and you've ended up with an ARPG, you've kind of failed in my book.
Pretty much this, part of the fun of DnD was figuring out all the multilayered systems and getting better and better at using them to your advantage. I was doing this at 13 with NWN 1 and it wasn't particularly difficult.
Listening to these devs talk about how this "isn't fun" because you fail sometimes is like nails on a chalkboard to me.
How could they possibly make it anything but isometric tactical real time with full party control? That's what BG is. It basically invented the genre.
They are calling it Baldur's Gate 3 and not Forgotten Realms: Vermintide or even Baldur's Gate: Mind Flayer Invasion.
I would honestly settle for just "using the DnD ruleset". We've been so long without any real game just doing that I would be happy and buy it almost without thinking.
Removing the most utterly basic of systems makes it no longer DnD. It makes it a glorified cash-grab trying to appeal to the masses by gameplay and the fans of the series by nostalgia. Screw that.
I would honestly settle for just "using the DnD ruleset". We've been so long without any real game just doing that I would be happy and buy it almost without thinking.
Same, in the RTwP vs turn based argument I prefer the former but not completely against the latter, its just that the Original Sin games utilise a very unsatisfying combat system, so I really hope they don't intend to apply that to BG3.
People here are reading way too much into a pretty ambiguous comment from Sven. There's no good reason to jump to the conclusion that they're making an action RPG. Especially if you've played the OS games. There's no reason to think they're getting rid of to-hit rolls as a mechanic. All he said was that they didn't like how *often* you could miss. This could be as simple of a tweak as adding a graze category.
People here are reading way too much into a pretty ambiguous comment from Sven. There's no good reason to jump to the conclusion that they're making an action RPG. Especially if you've played the OS games. There's no reason to think they're getting rid of to-hit rolls as a mechanic. All he said was that they didn't like how *often* you could miss. This could be as simple of a tweak as adding a graze category.
Yeah. I agree. People really have taken a molehill and turned it into a mountain without any supporting context or evidence.
I recall thinking the same thing as @DinoDin that the comment Swen said was that it's not fun how "often" you miss in 5e. That doesnt meant "to-hit" is dead and gone, it might just mean the game is balanced so that rather than missing (random number) 50% of the time, you'll only miss or be missed around 25 percent of the time. For all we know, the other 25% will be grazes, or other meaningful combat interactions (Or, they might not).
The one thing I will say is: incidentally - I disagree with him that 5e has a lot of missing. I dont know how many people here play 5e actively, but I've found that my players hit EVERYTHING. The game seems to have intentionally gone in that direction. Rather than low HP high defense enemies, the MM is largely populated with high HP, medium/low AC enemies.,
Even if they just added grazes instead of (or in addition to) misses, you have to admit that it's a really weird direction to take a D&D game in. Attack rolls are sort of the bread and butter of the whole D&D thing, in fact Wizards calls (used to call?) the underlying ruleset "D20", which got its name from the die you roll when you make attack rolls and saving throws. They're kind of messing with the foundations, however charitably you want to interpret those statements.
Is it possible that they had just lowered the AC of some enemies compared to an earlier development version of the game, and that's all that Swen meant to convey? I mean, it's possible, but in that case he really should have made his point more clear, because Baldur's Gate fans (and CRPG fans in general) typically don't appreciate it when what you're saying sounds like you're taking out basic RPG functionality from your game. It's either a game design fiasco or a communications one. Let's hope it's the latter.
In other news, since the article mentioned that they've decided to remove the game mechanics of attack rolls missing their target from the game's combat system, I've decided to register on Larian's forum and petition them to reconsider that decision.
Maybe it's not too late, and if there's a chance my armchair-game-designer input could help make the game a more faithful sequel to BG, I'm willing to write a few strongly opinionated posts. It's what I do best, after all.
"Increasing the hit chance means that you need more HP or the combat will end quickly. Then you need more and more healing available because everyone has a lot of HP and get hurt with every hit. Every weapon swing hits the gap of enemy armor and no armor can deflect an arrow, regardless of the angle, distance and type of arrow. No archer misses, doesn't matter the windage, distance, moving target, etc, so ranges and damages needs to be redone. Now OHK spells like Wail of the Banshee are too strong since everyone has 50 hit dice of HP. Now you need to balance the magic system or have spells like Finger of Death being the best spells in the game and weak skeletons since always hit can destroy everything so summoning/creating undead needs to be balanced. Now the entire magical system needs to be "rebalanced" and.... The game is SCL2 with BG3 name."
People here are reading way too much into a pretty ambiguous comment from Sven. There's no good reason to jump to the conclusion that they're making an action RPG. Especially if you've played the OS games. There's no reason to think they're getting rid of to-hit rolls as a mechanic. All he said was that they didn't like how *often* you could miss. This could be as simple of a tweak as adding a graze category.
It won't be an action RPG. They said they ported the rules to the letter at first which rules that out.
But if Swen Vincke wants everyone to hit every time in D&D combat or even just more often, that change opens the door to a myriad of collateral changes. What's the point in wearing armor anymore? What's going to heal all that extra damage? Etc etc. Start changing things and you quickly have a game that has nothing from D&D left. What happened to SCL even with the director of Dragon Age Origins at the helm?
I get it, they want to make the rules better for a video game. Unfortunately, Larian's "better" is worse for me. I hated the Divinity Original Sin combat. Not because it was turn based but because of the system itself. I think all IE games and NWN1&2 have vastly better combat systems than DOS. But clearly this developer thinks otherwise.
We'd be lucky to get a core rules option for BG3 because they're still riding high on the success of D:OS2 and probably think their combat system is dope.
Oblivion removed the missing from Morrowind and in order to """balance""" things, made arrows much slower, made enemies with insanely more health, etc because you can't just remove missing and make everything rest the same.
Examples? Can my longbow have an historically accurate range if i can hit 90% at the maximum range, regardless of the "angle" that he hits on enemy armor, windage, moving target, etc?
Can my Finger of Death be OHK on failed save?
Why i should use an stronger summon spell, if an lv 1 skeleton can hit every time with D6 damage and i can easily create an army of then? And due the overrepresentation of swords on medieval fantasy(that was backup weapons irl), an skeleton army that always hit will be OP.
All ranged, offensive magical and summoning combat will be impacted, not just the melee.
(...)I get it, they want to make the rules better for a video game. Unfortunately, Larian's "better" is worse for me. I hated the Divinity Original Sin combat. Not because it was turn based but because of the system itself. I think all IE games and NWN1&2 have vastly better combat systems than DOS. But clearly this developer thinks otherwise.
We'd be lucky to get a core rules option for BG3 because they're still riding high on the success of D:OS2 and probably think their combat system is dope.
The worst part is the justificaty. "Doesn't works on video game" is a statement that makes no sense.
Did missing not worked on BG 1?
Did missing not worked on BG 2?
Did missing not worked on IWD 1?
Did missing not worked on IWD 2?
Did missing not worked on NWN 1?
Did missing not worked on NWN 2?
Did missing not worked on ToEE?
Did missing not worked on Pathfinder Kingmaker?
Did missing not worked on non D&D related games like Diablo 1? Diablo 2? Migth & MAgic VI? Might & Magic VII? Might & Magic VIII? Daggerfall? Morrowind? Arcanum?
I an fine alternative rules for DOS2 fans with no misses, but cooldowns, toy range for ranged weapons, gargantuous hp, etc; if they make it optional. If they let me play with core D&D rules.
Again, guys, the relevant quote is: "One of the culprits is missing when you're trying to hit an enemy, and while the combat system has yet to be revealed, you can at least look forward to being able to smack people more consistently."
That doesn't say misses have been removed. All it says is you hit "more consistently". We have no idea what this means. It could be as little as a 5% increase in hitting over core rules. It's definitely *not* saying to-hit rolls are removed.
Comments
The last thing we need is to sort ourselves into factions and fight each other over our predictions. We don't want a debate like this to corrode the otherwise friendly atmosphere we've striven to cultivate on this forum.
On a related note, I need to remind folks here that the Site Rules mandate respectful behavior. I don't like to say "mods are watching," but we are, and folks should keep that in mind when posting.
i think it's going to be formally similar to dragon age 3 in terms of basic perspective and timekeeping aspects, probably just a modern looking rpg, not isometric, not very tactical in the classical sense etc.
Calling it Baldur’s Gate III generates more hype than if it was called anything else. Do you actually think if it had another name, there would be a completely off topic subsection for the game here?
The hype gets people talking about it. It gets webzines to do interviews and speculations on it even though nothing has been released except that it is a new D&D game being made by Larian and has mindflayers (one of the few monsters that WotC has Copyrighted).
WotC know this. Larian knows this. But as long as they are upfront with the game being a completely new adventure, they get to get away with it.
Be hyped for a new Larian game
Be hyped for finally getting a 5e D&D game.
Don’t be hyped for Baldur’s Gate III because you will be disappointed.
" But as long as they are upfront with the game being a completely new adventure, they get to get away with it."
No they don't.
larian are using the name bg 3 to get people's hopes up when it has nothing to do with the previous games.
they decided to call the original sin games that as they were different from the main divinity games [ even tho 1 was meant to be a prequel] and this feels like how Bethesda is with fallout. larian has more respect for their own series then they do with one they did not make.
Based on the video posted earlier in this thread. It looks like Swen has always wanted to do a D&D game and has based his games on that inspiration. His team is skilled and his studio is basking in success. He has taken the opportunity to do the ultimate project. I'm not sure why he chose Baldur's Gate rather than doing something new in the forgotten realms. It could be that the title just means something to him or it was a personal goal. Most likely it was needed to garner the attention just to get as much support and interest as possible from a marketing standpoint because his ambitions are extremely high and BG3 was the only way to get a project this massive off the ground.
I hope they deliver an art style that is less cartoony than DOS2 and more in line with the CG trailer they have released. I hope there are 6 party members with a top down isometric perspective ( or something adaptable that can look similar if wanted ). I'm hoping for RTwP gameplay but if they don't go that route then hopefully they have something innovative that sets their gameplay apart from everything that came before it.
The reality of the situation is that WOTC would not give this IP to just anyone. This game was either going to be AAA or not created at all. From my stand point there is no reason not to hope for the best. If it's a disappointing game then so be it, you don't have to buy it. At the least, it's production gives us something to hope for at the moment and could lead to a new and fun experience.
Yeah I have a feeling it may have gone down like this:
Larian: "We want to make a D&D game."
Wizards: "No."
Some time later, after Larian's DOS(2) success...
Wizards: "Okay, you can make a D&D game, but it has to be called Baldur's Gate 3."
Edit: Act 2
Larian: "Why does it need to be called Baldur's Gate 3?"
Wizards: "Don't you guys like money?"
Larian: "Yeah, I guess we do."
Scene.
I honestly don’t think it is a coincidence that both BG3 and the cancelled Beamdog product has mindflayers in it. Wizards asked for them because it is one thing other companies like Pathfinder can’t copy.
Though they could just invent a slightly different Lovecraftian race by copying from the same source D&D did.
My interest has just been entirely shot down. This implies a design direction I not only have no interest in, I openly detest.
"You miss a lot in D&D—if the dice are bad, you miss," he says. "That doesn't work well in a videogame. If I do that, you're going to review it and say it's shit."
Missing isn't what is bad about DnD. Creating builds that matter and ones that suck isn't a bad thing. Have different difficulty levels if you care so much about that. Make the standard difficulty the easy mode, even.
Taking out bedrock, foundational mechanics of DnD, that neither BG1 or 2 or NWN 1 or 2 or any of the Gold Box games took out, tells me you're releasing Skyrim and Dragons. Not for me.
Well, have no fear! Larian will insure none of those pesky gameplay bugs like "challenge" and "losing" will effect your experience of BG3.
Yeah, valuing honesty and accountability. How dare I.
the importaint thing about 5e is that primary stats really define your character. you can elaborate on that in different ways, and i think it's all good as long as it has the spirit of the original system.
for example, instead of chance to hit you could have a stat that determines if characters (you and enemies alike) are able to perform some combo or break a parry... it doesn't have to be streamlined, it can actually be more complex
Besides, if you had set out to make "Baldur's Gate III" and you've ended up with an ARPG, you've kind of failed in my book.
That problem was settled by NWN 1, and in a way that felt nice. Parrying or dodging looked smooth, for the time and even now.
But yeah, you're right, DnD mechanics are meaningless in an action game. Which appears to be what this is going to be, Skyrim and Dragons, where hand-holding wins the day and the developers assume you are too stupid to figure out systems that worked entirely well in virtually every other DnD game to date.
Pretty much this, part of the fun of DnD was figuring out all the multilayered systems and getting better and better at using them to your advantage. I was doing this at 13 with NWN 1 and it wasn't particularly difficult.
Listening to these devs talk about how this "isn't fun" because you fail sometimes is like nails on a chalkboard to me.
They are calling it Baldur's Gate 3 and not Forgotten Realms: Vermintide or even Baldur's Gate: Mind Flayer Invasion.
I would honestly settle for just "using the DnD ruleset". We've been so long without any real game just doing that I would be happy and buy it almost without thinking.
Removing the most utterly basic of systems makes it no longer DnD. It makes it a glorified cash-grab trying to appeal to the masses by gameplay and the fans of the series by nostalgia. Screw that.
Same, in the RTwP vs turn based argument I prefer the former but not completely against the latter, its just that the Original Sin games utilise a very unsatisfying combat system, so I really hope they don't intend to apply that to BG3.
Yeah. I agree. People really have taken a molehill and turned it into a mountain without any supporting context or evidence.
I recall thinking the same thing as @DinoDin that the comment Swen said was that it's not fun how "often" you miss in 5e. That doesnt meant "to-hit" is dead and gone, it might just mean the game is balanced so that rather than missing (random number) 50% of the time, you'll only miss or be missed around 25 percent of the time. For all we know, the other 25% will be grazes, or other meaningful combat interactions (Or, they might not).
The one thing I will say is: incidentally - I disagree with him that 5e has a lot of missing. I dont know how many people here play 5e actively, but I've found that my players hit EVERYTHING. The game seems to have intentionally gone in that direction. Rather than low HP high defense enemies, the MM is largely populated with high HP, medium/low AC enemies.,
Is it possible that they had just lowered the AC of some enemies compared to an earlier development version of the game, and that's all that Swen meant to convey? I mean, it's possible, but in that case he really should have made his point more clear, because Baldur's Gate fans (and CRPG fans in general) typically don't appreciate it when what you're saying sounds like you're taking out basic RPG functionality from your game. It's either a game design fiasco or a communications one. Let's hope it's the latter.
An small decision will lead to a chain reaction of changes as i've mentioned here https://forums.beamdog.com/discussion/75721/will-be-close-to-pnp#latest
"Increasing the hit chance means that you need more HP or the combat will end quickly. Then you need more and more healing available because everyone has a lot of HP and get hurt with every hit. Every weapon swing hits the gap of enemy armor and no armor can deflect an arrow, regardless of the angle, distance and type of arrow. No archer misses, doesn't matter the windage, distance, moving target, etc, so ranges and damages needs to be redone. Now OHK spells like Wail of the Banshee are too strong since everyone has 50 hit dice of HP. Now you need to balance the magic system or have spells like Finger of Death being the best spells in the game and weak skeletons since always hit can destroy everything so summoning/creating undead needs to be balanced. Now the entire magical system needs to be "rebalanced" and.... The game is SCL2 with BG3 name."
It won't be an action RPG. They said they ported the rules to the letter at first which rules that out.
But if Swen Vincke wants everyone to hit every time in D&D combat or even just more often, that change opens the door to a myriad of collateral changes. What's the point in wearing armor anymore? What's going to heal all that extra damage? Etc etc. Start changing things and you quickly have a game that has nothing from D&D left. What happened to SCL even with the director of Dragon Age Origins at the helm?
I get it, they want to make the rules better for a video game. Unfortunately, Larian's "better" is worse for me. I hated the Divinity Original Sin combat. Not because it was turn based but because of the system itself. I think all IE games and NWN1&2 have vastly better combat systems than DOS. But clearly this developer thinks otherwise.
We'd be lucky to get a core rules option for BG3 because they're still riding high on the success of D:OS2 and probably think their combat system is dope.
Examples? Can my longbow have an historically accurate range if i can hit 90% at the maximum range, regardless of the "angle" that he hits on enemy armor, windage, moving target, etc?
Can my Finger of Death be OHK on failed save?
Why i should use an stronger summon spell, if an lv 1 skeleton can hit every time with D6 damage and i can easily create an army of then? And due the overrepresentation of swords on medieval fantasy(that was backup weapons irl), an skeleton army that always hit will be OP.
All ranged, offensive magical and summoning combat will be impacted, not just the melee.
The worst part is the justificaty. "Doesn't works on video game" is a statement that makes no sense.
Did missing not worked on BG 1?
Did missing not worked on BG 2?
Did missing not worked on IWD 1?
Did missing not worked on IWD 2?
Did missing not worked on NWN 1?
Did missing not worked on NWN 2?
Did missing not worked on ToEE?
Did missing not worked on Pathfinder Kingmaker?
Did missing not worked on non D&D related games like Diablo 1? Diablo 2? Migth & MAgic VI? Might & Magic VII? Might & Magic VIII? Daggerfall? Morrowind? Arcanum?
I an fine alternative rules for DOS2 fans with no misses, but cooldowns, toy range for ranged weapons, gargantuous hp, etc; if they make it optional. If they let me play with core D&D rules.
That doesn't say misses have been removed. All it says is you hit "more consistently". We have no idea what this means. It could be as little as a 5% increase in hitting over core rules. It's definitely *not* saying to-hit rolls are removed.