The stronghold, at the very least. It was a major problem in the first game to have your base of operations be a thing that you had to return to with travel time, so it’s a significant course correction to have it come with you.
Sure but that’s a mechanics improvement that people aren’t going to realise because they never bought the game… because an Age of Sail / Pirates setting has never been popular in CRPGs. They should have stuck with high fantasy.
Having a turn-based mode as an option is always welcome especially with large parties but again… people need to play the game to get a feel for any potential improvements there. They didn’t buy it, didn’t play it, and still didn’t do either when turn-based was added.
Larian had zero reason to change a winning formula so I’m not sure why that factors in your mind? Literally a “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”.
I agree that budget isn’t the defining difference, the setting is. DOS2 starts you off on a ship then dumps you on a tropical island. Did it suffer? No… because their game is clearly not a Pirates (Age of Sail) game. You even see a shot of the characters on a big ship during the trailer but then go straight back to combat on land.
There are many discussions on this particular issue and John absolutely refuses to acknowledge it because he likes the setting.
Or maybe he (you said John, but did you mean Josh?) doesn’t acknowledge it because, like me and those I’ve talked to, he considers it to be a non-factor; and there’s a very good reason to change your setting up for the sequel so that it doesn’t feel like you’ve already played that game. The lore already had these regions baked into them, and it still fits the definition of high fantasy even if it’s also in a pirate setting.
Larian had zero reason to change a winning formula so I’m not sure why that factors in your mind?
Because Baldur’s Gate has historically been RtwP, so deciding that the third one didn’t need to be is a good indication of which way the wind is blowing with regards to those designs. Pillars of Eternity was, of course, pitched as an unofficial continuation of Baldur’s Gate’s legacy before BG3 happened, which is why the marketing copy for it says things like “gather your party” and “venture forth”. I haven’t played the recent Pathfinder games, but I understand they came to the same conclusion that Obsidian did by adding turn-based after the fact.
I’m not doubting that the setting affected your choice, but at large, I’m not convinced it was a significant factor in the game’s success.
Sure but that’s a mechanics improvement that people aren’t going to realise because they never bought the game… because an Age of Sail / Pirates setting has never been popular in CRPGs. They should have stuck with high fantasy.
Having a turn-based mode as an option is always welcome especially with large parties but again… people need to play the game to get a feel for any potential improvements there. They didn’t buy it, didn’t play it, and still didn’t do either when turn-based was added.
Larian had zero reason to change a winning formula so I’m not sure why that factors in your mind? Literally a “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”.
I agree that budget isn’t the defining difference, the setting is. DOS2 starts you off on a ship then dumps you on a tropical island. Did it suffer? No… because their game is clearly not a Pirates (Age of Sail) game. You even see a shot of the characters on a big ship during the trailer but then go straight back to combat on land.
There are many discussions on this particular issue and John absolutely refuses to acknowledge it because he likes the setting.
Or maybe he (you said John, but did you mean Josh?) doesn’t acknowledge it because, like me and those I’ve talked to, he considers it to be a non-factor; and there’s a very good reason to change your setting up for the sequel so that it doesn’t feel like you’ve already played that game. The lore already had these regions baked into them, and it still fits the definition of high fantasy even if it’s also in a pirate setting.
Because Baldur’s Gate has historically been RtwP, so deciding that the third one didn’t need to be is a good indication of which way the wind is blowing with regards to those designs. Pillars of Eternity was, of course, pitched as an unofficial continuation of Baldur’s Gate’s legacy before BG3 happened, which is why the marketing copy for it says things like “gather your party” and “venture forth”. I haven’t played the recent Pathfinder games, but I understand they came to the same conclusion that Obsidian did by adding turn-based after the fact.
I’m not doubting that the setting affected your choice, but at large, I’m not convinced it was a significant factor in the game’s success.