“Reading the reddit threads, I would like to clear up something,” Vincke said. “WOTC is not to blame for us taking a different direction. On the contrary, they really did their best and have been a great licensor for us, letting us do our thing. This is because it’s what’s best for Larian.”

  • Coelacanth@feddit.nu
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Personally, I think the presentation is what sets BG3 apart. I agree that D:OS2 has a more fun combat system, but that’s not really the key to mainstream appeal.

    Stuff like zoomed in dialogues with actual motion capture and visible facial expressions really pulls you in in a way zoomed out isometric dialogue presentations never can.

    Not saying BGIII is bad, but it would’ve (in my opinion) been better without the DND rubbish.

    Maybe a better game, but definitely not as successful. Between the movie coming out the same year and Stranger Things and Critical Role (and their Amazon show) and what have you, D&D was already in the zeitgeist. It was absolutely an important aspect of BG3 hitting that mainstream success, imo.

    • Dojan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      It is primarily the combat system I’m talking about though. I would’ve loved to see BDIII but with DOS general combat and combat movement. I don’t care for the “does 1d4 lightning damage” stuff.

      I’m obviously not saying that DOSII had the better dialogue and quest systems. BGIII is obviously rooted in the same engine and tech as DOSII, but it’s been built upon wonderfully. I enjoy BGIII, and Larian has once again done an excellent job. I just think DOSII was the better game on a mechanical level, disregarding the story/graphics/tech, etc.