It's also a huge fallacy to say that DOS was a game players needed desperately, when a lot of the CRPG community don't even recognise it as a true CRPG, and are so quick to dismiss its qualities. I still see a majority of people in this very site claiming that PF games are the only and true successors to BG. So why were PF games not something players were in desperate need for? Why aren't they the ones getting the 90+ scores? Why do they have 7.5 and 7.8 scores respectively, from the very users that so badly have been needing these games in their lives for 20 years? Answer: They are not that good. It hurts, the truth, but it is futile to look away from it.
In terms of "which game is the true successor to BG", you can count out Divinity entirely. Divinity was never intended to be nor designed around the legacy of BG and was only targeting BG fans in the same way the Divinity franchise always has, by being just another RPG on the market.
Divinity's historical legacy is a combination of Ultima and Diablo. And it's never really tried to be anything else. Div Os's new and unique selling point was co-op.
So when discussing like-for-like as you purported earlier as the base of your position on the concept of quality, the topic was merely isometric, party based, companion filled RPGs. If you want to make allusions to Divinity being a better true successor to Baldur's Gate than XYZ then you're moving into completely potty range.
The two games competing for the True Successor moniker are Pillars of Eternity and Pathfinder. I'll talk about Div Os 2 later in the post, don't worry, I'm not brushing it under the carpet.
Now Pillars 1. Is Pillars 1 going to be treated as the successor to BG 1 or BG2?
Maybe. It sure LOOKS like those games from a visual point of view. But are they what the fans of BG 2 were hoping for?
Well, Pillars of Eternity sure beat that drum during kickstarter that it wanted people to expect a BG2-like experience. Did it meet that expectation?
The NUMBERS and LOGEVITY of those numbers suggest not. Sure, there are lots of positive reviews. But there's very few people banging that drum beyond the game's own hype machine. You can't really force people to self-hype something they're not really convinced about.
Perhaps, and this is only a perhaps, the positive reviews are more a case of people just saying "thanks for trying" and "hey, don't worry mate, I still enjoyed it" in the same way you would to a friend. Not to say only friends are making reviews, that's clearly not the case, but Obsidian does have a long history of games and support which does provide natural emotions of friendliness. Their haters likely having stopped bothering to follow their games years ago.
Now what possible stats could I use to prove such subjective and speculative interpretation of random reviewers, each of whom have their own minds and thoughts?
Well, because Pillars 2 kinda flopped didn't it.
Well, it had quite a lot of players. But not many. Less in fact than the first game. But, again, lots of nice positive reviews.
So what gives?
Why didn't the second game IMPROVE on the NUMBERS of the first game? Why did they, in fact, REDUCE.
That doesn't follow the BG and BG2 heritage well at all does it. BG2 was a Phenonium. Pillars seems to have been, erm, a Respectable Attempt?
So what is it that PoE seems to be lacking? And I'm not just talking about personal opinions here. How is it mechanically and factually different to BG2?
My first thought would be things like, but not exclusively, an unfamiliar and untested base system that, while it aims to ape D&D, doesn't really do it in a way BG fans were expecting or being bothered enough to figure out. A loot system that didn't inspire much excitement, you never really spent your time picking flowers in the BG games, you tended to get excited about a bag of gold and a flaming long sword, you know what I mean. A much reduced set of Character Building options, due to the fact that they were starting so much from scratch.
Does PoE therefore emulate either BG1 or BG2 ENOUGH to be considered a True Successor?
Well, if it is, it suggests the actual market for that moniker is actually quite small.
Which definitely is not case.
PoE one could have ended up like BG1, a fondly remembered experiment that led to one of the greatest RPGs of all time. However, PoE2 kinda proved that was never gonna happen didn't it.
As only a reduced percentage of those positive reviews actually converted to numbers and positive reviews for part 2.
Now, PK Kingmaker does have a shot at the BG legacy title.
And yet PK itself does have a lot of actual mechanical differences to BG2. However, where it IS similar, and different from PoE is that: it does indeed have a familar D&D-like base system. And it does indeed have a VAST Character Building retinue. And while its loot is similarly disappointing in parts, it at least still follows the primary objective of being excited by a bag of gold and a flaming sword. Sadly, it still has flower picking, so I would say, and hence why I said earlier, they are both pretty similar in the loot quality department.
And the NUMBERS seem to suggest that MORE people are interested in PK as a whole than PoE. PK has a BUZZ around it that is STRONGER than PoE's ever was.
This suggests that the BG fanbase is making their decision regardless of reviews. Not only are more people playing PK, but more people are interested in seeing where it goes.
At this point in time.
So regarding Div Os 2, which you've been demanding I talk about for so long, well, yes, it's an extremely popular game. It is indeed the currently top of the tree game of all 6 here above discussed, both in reviews and numbers.
However, you seem more interested in using Div Os 2 as a tool to disparage both PK and PK 2, when it's unfair to pit a sequel to a first time game and it's unfair to pit a sequel that been out for a couple for years to a game that only came out less than a moth ago.
Sure, you can pit it against PoE2, but then why bother, there's no competition there. But then why even bring Div Os into a discussion that has arisen because you are offended that people are saying PK is attracting the BG fanbase better than PoE did.
Because for you it's merely a tool for comparing like-for-like QUALITY. But in terms of like-for-like Divinity isn't even competing for nor in the same market as the purely BG fanbase. Divinity is for Divinity fans with a heritage in Ultima and Diablo. And in that regard is proving to be a game of quality AND popularity.
How it competes with PK 2 - we can't possibly comment on that at this point in time.
What we do know at this point in time is that PoE underwhelms PK on popularity and underwhelms Div on percentage positive. Since Div isn't in the running for the Successor title, then I would say that PK has a very credible argument for why it could well be the True Successor.
But BG3 is actually the technically True Successor anyway, so that's all a bit moot anyway. And there's zero point bringing that game into the discussion at this point in time.
