Yes because mechanical fidelity is the lowest priority in continuing the series. Continuation of the story and tonal fidelity matter a lot more. The Fallout series went from a turn based 2.5D isometric RPG to a real time action RPG, and one of the best instalments in the series follows the latter formula.
WillOfTheWest
joined 1 year ago
Same IP; returning characters from the original series; revisiting important locations from the original series; uses a D&D ruleset for resolution; expands upon the story of the Bhaalspawn crisis over a century after the incident, especially via the
spoiler
Dark Urge storyline.
All of this is apparent through playing the game.
I make a deliberate attempt to not sealion,
spoiler
"Where is the evidence for that opinion?"
"But doesn’t [x] really mean [y]?"
"What about [other issue]—how do you explain that?"
"What’s wrong with a polite question?"
"I’m just trying to engage in civil debate."
This series of questions may seem like a well-intentioned search for answers. It’s not—it’s a simplified example of a rhetorical strategy called sealioning. Sealioning is an intentional, combative performance of cluelessness. Rhetorically, sealioning fuses persistent questioning—often about basic information, information easily found elsewhere, or unrelated or tangential points—with a loudly-insisted-upon commitment to reasonable debate. It disguises itself as a sincere attempt to learn and communicate. Sealioning thus works both to exhaust a target’s patience, attention, and communicative effort, and to portray the target as unreasonable. While the questions of the “sea lion” may seem innocent, they’re intended maliciously and have harmful consequences.
Amy Johnson, The Multiple Harms of Sea Lions :::
You're sealioning in this very thread; you're just feigning ignorance and exploiting the fact that a term originating from a webcomic isn't well defined. Here you are incessantly replying in multiple comment chains, asking asinine rhetorical questions, insisting you just want an open discussion, and making sure to explicitly mention how civil you have remained. The only point of contention is that you're asking rhetorical questions instead of asking for evidence.
It's abundantly clear what you're doing. I've given my points, you've countered. It's in a public forum that others can access and make their own judgment. My standard for engaging discussion doesn't include chasing comment chains and rebutting throwaway remarks only to have them slightly rephrased or framed in a flimsy example. I will not engage with you after this comment.
That's fine. I stick by my philosophy that stooping to someone else's level makes you no better. I'm not in this to change minds; this isn't some /r/changemyview substitute. I'm offering examples which I find make him a bad choice for mod, and it's up to individuals to assess whether those posted examples are acceptable conduct for a moderator.
Have a good I agree it's too much time; I'm also getting too many notifications while overleaf is open. Have a good one.
My entire argument on burggit...
Your argument was that an unsavoury instance was against hosting your personal flavour of unsavoury content; hence you felt the need to browbeat instead of simply finding a better instance.
This appears to be your main method of "engagement" in discussion: incessantly hammer on your point, making persistent bad-faith invitations to "debate," then when you rile up the user to the point of them flaming you, you claim that you're remaining civil. It's called sealioning, it's a common enough trolling phenomenon that there exists an often cited web-comic about it..
Co-existing in a space isn't an open invitation for you to repeatedly argue the same point past a persons point of comfort, for the sake of your personal definition of "debate". When it's clear the debate has run its course and the person is clearly being emotionally effected, if you persist then you're acting in bad faith.
That's a bad faith interpretation of my comment. Note that I did not link to every single instance of him being against defederation, as the issue isn't him stating an opinion. The problem is the sarcastic and aggressive way in which he chooses to interact with other users; sarcastically calling for defederation from lemmy.world because he saw a racist meme, and stating that he's up at 3am losing sleep because he loves arguing with idiots.
If you are being flamed, you report. Stooping to their level makes you no better.
Here he is actively flaming/trolling in Main Community and Agora. He even states he's willingly losing sleep because he likes arguing so much. Just because the person you're disagreeing with is being salty doesn't mean you have a free ticket to stoop to that level. It's not moderator-worthy conduct.
https://sh.itjust.works/comment/282908
https://sh.itjust.works/comment/291136
Yea @imaqtpie, Yea @annegreen, Yea @Seraph089.
From account history they have good engagement.
Nay @Apytele, Nay @sweetholymosiah.
Limited engagement. Can't really comment on them yet.
Nay @goat, Nay @difficult_bit_1339.
Actively enshittening Agora and flame warring since its inception. @goat is evidently some manner of troll and "controversy" isn't a selling point for moderation. This is an alt for his burggit account; he's butted heads with admins over there because not allowing gore isn't "free".
I just go for completed series nowadays. It's just not worth the time ranting and actively waiting for the completion of certain series. I've made a conscious decision not to start on Rothfuss's trilogy until he finishes the final book.
I also find that recently I go for books with more mature themes; not gore- and sex-fests where everyone is morally grey for the sake of it, but stuff like Robin Hobb's books which explore feminism through a fantasy lens, or stories with characters who confront their flaws rather than being some ideal version of a character archetype.
I'm looking for community engagement without the homogenised superculture. I'd like to be able to discuss books on a small book community without someone jumping in with "I also choose this guy's dead wife" or "not my proudest fap" because it's a low effort way of garnering meta-points. I also like the lack of an account-based point system.
So far Lemmy is delivering and so I'm engaging here a lot more actively than I ever did on Reddit.
The site defaults to sorting by active posts. There are options for hot, new, and top over the past day. I tend to sort by new.
view more: next ›
Baldur’s Gate is part of a setting several decades older than the game franchise of the same name. It was an official setting of D&D a decade before the first game. In the sense of a ROLEPLAYING game, fidelity to the source material is paramount.
The original games were developed at the end of the life cycle of the edition they used for the mechanics. The ruleset got a major revision the same year BG2 was released. There have been several major editions since. Edition warring aside, no one can argue that the Forgotten Realms played in 5th edition isn’t the same Forgotten Realms played in AD&D 2E. The tone and continued narrative of the setting is the key feature in maintaining the soul of a property, not mechanical fidelity.
The game respects the official canon of the Forgotten Realms, including the canonical ending to BG2 where Gorion’s Ward rejected divinity and eventually led to Bhaal’s revival. Characters from the original series return as companions for BG3, with stories acknowledging the Bhaalspawn crisis. One of the origin playthroughs is the exact same story as the first Baldur’s Gate.
If your only complaint is lack of real time with pause then I reckon it’s you who isn’t the real Baldur’s Gate fan.