I watched the gameplay demo and I just don't understand how is this successor to bg series. It just doesn't have the same "gamefeel" as the other 2, it is so much closer to dos than to bg. I liked dos, I liked dos 2, I am sure it will be competently made game, but how is it bg3?

I don't know, pillars of eternity, pathfinder kingmaker felt a lot closer to bg than this. It feels like a very different subgenre. Not only combat is turn based only, but also aesthetically it is just not "it". Probably reused assets didn't help. I felt like I was in fort Joy, not in sword coast.

I am ok with different ruleset, I am more than ok with a new story, I am ok with their engine, but what I don't understand why is it called bg3 when everything except for setting is different from previous series. For me it really fails to capture spirit of bg, it feels like dos game in bg universe. I am dissapointed.

It has cameos from BG1&2, it continues the story in some form (Bhaal is probably involved) and it's set in Baldur's Gate. It also aims to set the new bar for cRPGs, or at least D&D adaptation like the original series did.

Well the reason why it's called BG3 is because it flows from what happened after BG games and other stuff that happened after BG2

Please read everything here. There has been lengthy discussion on the matter.

http://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=659630#Post659630

I see that I am late to the party. Same points have been raised before. I think I am disappointed because setting is very low on priority list for me. A book, a movie and a game can have same setting even follow same plot points, but are completely different experience for me. On the other hand fallout and outer worlds have completely different settings, but have simmilar "gamefeel". I guess for me gameplay > setting.

Just to clarify .. I don't wish to begrudge you the opportunity to voice your concerns, but was just pointing it out so you could see how others have expressed similar concerns and the responses they were given.

What is there to get? It's a sequel made by a new developer.

I personally think of the IE games as modules in the same rule set, that being the IE engine as well as 2nd Ed. D&d. There's no reason why there could not be a continuation of those old modules with new rules, E. G. A new engine as well as new d&d edition. The only thing that seems to be bothering people is the number at the end, signifying a direct sequel instead of a spin off. If that is the case, maybe you should take a long look into the mirror and ask yourself, do I really want to be this pedantic?

I disagree that it's just being pedantic. Calling it BG3 does imply some expectations of gameplay. If final fantasy tactics was called final fantasy 8 it would have left a lot of people disappointed and frankly mislead. If a studio made Half life 3, but it played like call of duty or borderlands (even set in half life universe), it would not be what people wants or expects, even if the game in isolation is fine.

Well anyway, I made my peace. I expected BG3 and what I am geting is BG tactics. It's ok. I like that variation as well, just not what I was hyped to see.

For anyone familiar with Larian's sensibilities and preferances it doesn't come as surprise.

They seem to look at Baldur's Gate from a very different perspective - they think if it as: "computer adaptation of a table-top game", rather then "single-player focused, narratively focused adventure with RtwP combat". They look at the origin, rather then the final result.

Their approach is valid - in many ways their design, does emulate a table-top experience to a higher level - even if I would say that they are missing the point - Baldur's Gate strength was what it turned Table-Top inspiration into.

As to earning the right to being BG3, and not "Larian DnD game set also in Baldur's Gate". Swen comment that it will tie into events which took place in previous titles, and already there are some thematic similarities between the new and the old. But yes, in many ways, including genre, it is a completely different game.

I agree that Pillars of Eternity definitely nailed the feeling of Baldur's Gate adventuring, however in the same art-style let's not forget Siege of Dragonspear. It could have been a breathtaking return to the realm we all know and love, but it.. wasn't. It was interesting to play through I guess, but I want epic tales, surprises, complex voiceacting, immersive music and meaningful choices regardless of the graphics engine. And I think Larian have done an excellent job taking WotC's (and Mike Mearls') demanding requirements for a next-gen D&D game, and are producing something brilliant. My Baldur's Gate 2 map will forever hang in the centre of the gaming wall, but let's get a 2020 Baldur's Gate game please, and not judge an epic endeavour by passionate creators to the masterpieces of the past.

I hope you gather some hype for the BG3 we're getting friend! I totally feel where you're coming from, I almost cried when I saw the engine and imagined DoS3 instead of BG3, but the more I research Swen and the team, the more hope I have.

because the sword coast absoluteley doesnt have forests and dungeons.
god damn it yes, some studios have a visual style.
Pillars of eternity for example perfectly illustrates that the people at obsdian have no creative bone in their body, because, lets face it, all they do is deconstruct other peoples stuff.

I dont understand why its ok for other companies to have an artstyle but when larian does it its verboten.
tbh. i wish larian would bring back their old style, by which i mean lots of tits

Divine Divinity : RTwP ---> DOS : Turn based
Fallout ( 1 and 2 ) : turn based ---> Fallout ( 3 and 4 ) : Action RPG with "Shooting" mechanics
Final Fantasy : Old opus : turn based OR Zelda-like ---> New opus : Action-RPG

And i can go on...

There's absolutly not the first time that a saga change the gameplay mechanics ... but before people wasn't so quickly outraged / scandalized.

It's "BG" because of the setting of the story, the "rights" to do it that WotC give them, it's an RPG ( and with larian probably a good one, even if i accept than some peoples dont like DOS games, it would be dishonest to deny that these games , was globally well receiveid ---> The formula works and many people like it, even if it's not "the purist old fans of BG 1 & 2" ).

It's not a direct sequel and so?
DOS 2 is not a sequel to DOS 1 because it take place 1000+ years after? Fallout 3 and 4 are not sequel because it take place many years after too? Dragon Age 2 and Inquisition dont even take place in the same country than the first opus...
If the Bhaalspawn story is ended, good, because a good story must come to an end, before getting boring or incoherent. A rich setting like BG / Sword coast / Forgotten Realms can bring to life many others stories than the ones tied to the Bhaalspawn, it would be a pity to limit the storytelling to these themes. And, i dont work for larian, but i think we'll have some good lore addition / easter-eggs about the events , and the time-lap after, of old games, for making the connection.

the more the time pass, the more i've the impression that some just want to find any details to be grouchy about the game.

I guess change is scary..

I think we can give some rest to this topic, till we see alpha or beta version. I am 100% sure they got the message already and
at this point it will just effect the development negatively if people continue DAO2 vs BG3 topic.

I had concerns at beginning, but I think they will make a good game. They also listened, to the community, and mentioned many of the stuff,
they plan or already planned to change in the current game accordingly.

Constructive ideas are good to have and worth to mentions, but just saying that it is not BG, changes nothing.

Agreed luckily it does same to be dying off the hole BG3 is not a true BG game thing which I never got to begin with it does same a bit pointless to say that when we have only seen a bit of BG3

Newer final fantasy games have made drastic changes to the formula as far as game mechanics go. Same goes for resident evil games and actually many other Japanese games.

Suspend your disbelief long enough and you'll see the changes. Not everything remains the same in the pre-alpha version.

I apologize, I am not game or art critic, I don't even have the right vocabulary to express myself, so I am reduced to vague concepts like "feeling" or "vibes".

I meant that half life, borderlands, gears of war have their own unique identity just as BG and DOS. I am ok with continuation or drastic changes if the new game is doing it's own thing. FFVII had a huge gameplay, graphics etc changes when it continued it's series from SNES to PS. And yet it was distinctly FF game. FFXV is almost unrecognizable in it's game mechanics or graphics from older titles, but it feels distinctly final fantasy game. And the feeling I get watching BG3 footage is that is distintcly DOS game. It's not close enough to BG to be bg game and not far enough from DOS to have it's own distinct identity. As someone said already - if you were watching the footage and you didn't know what game was playing, what would your guess be? For me it has very strong DOS vibes.

Don't try... Many of us tried to understand for the last 3 weeks as you are now but...
You won't be understood here even if lots of players has the same feelings as you.

You're feelings ? It's because of pre-alpha, it's because of placeholder, it's because of D&D, it's because of...
Don't worry, this game is named BG3 because it will have a (probably far) link with the story, and because Larian/WoTC decided to name it BG3.
Not enough for you ? You're probably an old guy that don't want things to change (even if that's totally not what you said).
And don't try with exemples, Divinity is not the same as Divinity : Original Sin, so why BG3 should be the same experience as BG2 ?

Yea, all this looks stupid,... I know.
I still totally agree, it don't relaly looks like a BG game...

I can see this is more about your feelings than common sense. Otherwise you guys would have probably given up with the complaining already, hah

deleted by self

At present this is not a BG game. It may be a D&D game but it is not a BG game. It could end up a BG game, but would have to undergo drastic changes from what we've seen thus far, which I highly doubt will happen. So claiming that we all have to wait until the game is released to make a judgment is fallacy.

That is a generalized opinion, you can improve such posts by substituting 'we (all)' with 'I' and ending the statement with 'in my opinion', 'I think' or 'I feel' for example.
Thereby you would produce a possibility that someone could actually ask you why you think so.

Fallout 1&2&New Vegas&Arcanum&Vampire:The Mascarade - single player, single Playable Character RPG with open-world exploration, with character creation with results in unique interactions with the enviroment based on character build

While many things changed throughout the years, the appeal and core of those games didn't. The issue with BG3 is not that it impliments features in different way - it's that, like D:OS1&2, it will most likely to be a different genre, with differet appeal and focus then BG1&2. More appropriate, though more extreme, would be Fallout1&2-->Fallout 76, quality of the latter game aside.

Would you call D:OS a sequel to Divine Divinity? Never played DD but it seems more like Diablo, then D:OS. On top of that D:OS isn't Divinity3, it's D:OS.

Disclaimer: I don't mind what BG3 is.

Except the whole point, which I keep saying, is that this is a pre-alpha.
Pre-alphas change drastically all the time. Pre-alphas are not meant to show what the end game will look like.

This is why game commercials and videos usually say 'Pre-alpha/development footage is not an indication of the finished product' in tiny letters.

So asking people to cool their horses and wait until it's bloody playable is actually a reasonable thing to do.

Depending on how you define a "BG game," this could be indisputably true. Also, depending on how you define a "BG game," this could be indisputably false.

How can it not be close to BG when it's based on Dungeons and Dragons and the story is linked to BG1 and 2? You are judging based only on combat and graphics. I get that, but look at the bigger picture, my man.

I mean... I'm glad it has evolved to turn based and its 3D, coz games have to evolve.

Back in the day there were multiple DnD based series, most of them in Infinity Engine: Icewind Dale, Baldur's Gate, Planescape: Torment, Neverwinter Night. All of them were quite distinct, not only in terms of atmosphere, location and story, but purpose, focus, appeal, structure, design. Using DnD setting and systems is just ingredient - how one uses it, and for what purpose is another story.

"Evolved" for you. Devolved for me. Your perception of the game having evolved is not objective truth.

Is the combat system going to drastically change between now and EA? Will party size change? Other major gameplay elements? I can see aesthetic and graphics elements changing, but nothing truly core to how the game plays. So clearly you and I have a very different understanding of what "drastic" changes means. And since I am NOT expecting any drastic changes that are meaningful to me between now and EA, it is absolutely reasonable and appropriate for me to judge and criticize the game as I see it now.

So you're going to come onto the forums and tell people who are excited for the game how much you're not? I don't go to baseball games and tell people how much I don't like baseball, because that would be silly.

Putting aside the matter of combat resolution mechanics - as we must talk about that on another thread - are you actually saying you would prefer a game with sprites on a 2D image with false perspective over the same game with 3D assets and a real perspective? To me, such increased technical fidelity is undoubtedly an improvement rather than a drawback.

Well said.

I can understand core gameplay changes being upsetting, but decades between releases and adapting to a different engine/developer/ruleset can do that.

It's like Fallout 2 to Fallout 3. The change was jarring, the lore messed up, and Fallout fans were peeved. When Fallout New Vegas adapted the same gameplay changes, but with appropriate lore from the original developers it was acceptable and considered the spiritual "Fallout 3" (rather than Van Buren).

Same with GTA changing from an isometric game in GTA2 to what it's become now.

I do think that isometric view has certain advantages over 3D engine. Nothing is obscured, no need to rotate the camera, and geography of the place is easy to remember - experience is smooth and enjoyable. Meanwhile full 3D, rotatable bird of eye view leads to one loosing sence of direction, which leads to waste of time.

Still, there are benefirst to full 3D engine. Larian's games are highly interactive and that is not something one can do in pre-rendered enviroment. Engine they built is pretty excellent, allowing for sizable maps, and seemless transition between interior and exterior, and they use verticality which 2d game can't emulate.

I think there is use and benefit of both, and none of straight up better then another. Larian uses 3D engine and takes an advantage of it, well worth dealing with some of it's frustrations.

Isn't what is to come in BG3 kind of both? DOS2 was a hybrid of isometric and 3D (though more isometric IMO). BG3 looks like the camera can come down even lower, giving more of a 3D feel when wanted. How locking the camera at distance and at a certain angle with no ability to rotate can be seen as better than this is perplexing.

It is an evolution! 3d graphics came after 2d. It's just that you don't like the evolution.

BG3 is a fully-3D modelled environment as far as I can see, that has an adaptive camera system that can visualise in third person behind a character, or draw back to a high angle. It's obviously not new as many RPG and FPS games have had similar capabilities, but you do need to work out how to deal with moving the camera through the environment so you are seeing what you need to without occlusion. If you look back at the beginning of the PAX East reveal after Astarion tries to pick the lock, the camera gets temporarily caught up in the door. That can be particularly difficult in third person perspective when the character is in a confined space, and the camera system can find anywhere "behind" the character that isn't stuck in the scenery.

If you keep a fixed camera orientation, view distance and perspective, even with a 3D environment as D:OS had, you don't need to worry about about coding the logic for camera pathing in the environment, because you can pre-validate how the camera sees the entire map by moving around it in a simple play-test. That usually means there are many parts of a real 3D environment that you can't see directly, which are usually "visualised" in some other way - for example if characters move behind a wall ( from the fixed camera perspective ) you might show them in outline form. If you use a 2D axonometric perspective painted backdrop, as in BG1/2, then you need to use this sort of fixed camera.

I can understand the "getting lost in the environment" problem when play areas get large, but this can usually be resolved by having a command to re-orient to a standard high-angle camera in a known orientation to allow the player to re-familiarise themselves with their position in the overall environment.

It is not the same studio. What did you expect? It's like if you were giving DOS3 to Obsidian. Do you think it would be exactly the continuation of the previous one? Certainly not.

Yep
Looks nothing like Baldur's Gate
Recently, they declared that there would be no day/night cycle in the game, everything exactly like Divinity.
This left me even more disappointed

Day/night cycle is not a difficult concept, but it can be costly and/or difficult to implement.

BG1/2 was graphically fairly crude, and did not really have a light and shadow model to speak of, so each outdoor map just flipped between light and dark versions. NWN2 had the option to activate dynamic daylight for an outdoor map, with settings for different colour temperatures for dawn, dusk, midday and so on, as well as being able to set the length of a day in real playtime. This was much more sophisticated than BG1/2, but could look quite strange with heavy blocky shadows moving in obvious steps over the landscape. It can make planned, handcrafted encounters and experiences behave oddly, when you can never be sure what they will look like, or even if the player will be able to see what they are supposed to see.

The other major problem is implementation cost, in terms of real-time processing. Lighting and shadows are some of the most costly parts of the rendering cycle. To get better quality results without trashing the FPS can require all sorts of "cheating" techniques, such as pre-calculated light maps, which simply do not work with truly dynamic lighting. Experimentation and research for cheaper and higher quality techniques are always on-going, of course, but there comes a point where a developer has to make choices based on what they have available to them.

It will be interesting to see how Cyberpunk 2077 handles day/night since they made a big thing out of that, but I don't think we have seen it yet.

Pillars of Eternity 2 Deadfire
Day/night cycle, weather, NPCs with routines etc.. budget less than BG3.

But why put aside combat mechanics? It is a core element of the game. And I was specifically making this comment with respect to combat mechanics, although such things as deviating from a core focus on single-player and reducing party size are also important considerations for me. I have already said on many occasions in this forum that I am fine with technological improvements that reflect a game being made in 2020 rather than in 1998. TB combat, as an example, is not in any way, shape, or form a technological improvement.

Neverwinter Nights and D:OS1&2 and BG3 are not isometric, nor pararel projection (I will be honest, I don't distinguish nuances, beyond that they present 3D objects in 2D enviroment.) They are 3d enviroments with camera positioned from high up.

Isometric view is beneficial to games which essencially take place on a flat plane. No need to wiggle camera around. Unless one utilises benefits on 3D engine, I see move to 3D to be detrimental (not the case with Larian works as they take an advantage of it). Different technologies are better for certain games. Heroes of Might&Magic5 gains nothing from being 3D. RTS tend to work better in isometric view. Can you imagine playing Starcraft in full 3d, and fighting camera in addition to regular management. I should also mention when talking isometric vs. 3D, I am talking about perspective, not the assets (pre-generated 2d background vs. 3D assets. Games can use 3D assets and still use parallel projection, like Civilization5, Diablo3, Starcraft2, Warcraft3, while Civ6 and D:OS1&2, NWN1&2, XCOM1&2 are 3D enviroments, with angled top down camera.) It's just as I don't see 3D platformers to be inherently better then 2D or 2,5D ones.

Camera in D:OS2 didn't impact my enjoyment, but it did annoy me. As I play games using pararel projection, I notice lack of zoom in older titles, but never feel a need to rotate the camera, as everything is perfectly well on display.

the discussion on what is and isnt isometric is a pedantic argument.
yes, a birds eye view doesnt equal an isometric view.
however, colloquial use equates the two

In user experience they are quite distinct, so I don't believe it is.

A game like Syrim is 3D, so can't quite consider DOS2 3D. A game like BG2 is isometric, but can't quite equate DOS2 to that either. I stand by the "hybrid" assessment.



Inherently? Maybe not. Overwhelmingly? Absolutely. It's like comparing a LED TV to a tube TV

If you choose to use computer graphic terms to describe player perspective, that's your choice, though it will be difficult to have meaningful argument if one has to guess if the terms you use represent their meaning, or one you made up for them.

I'm not using terms, I'm using examples.

Do you study computer graphics or work in the field?

I'm not entirely sure why you linked to first person: whatever is or isn't being discussed, it's definitely not that.

Although one could argue it's a bit of a technicality (and I might argue that as I did engineering drawing back in... well, about the 18th century), isometric is colloquially understood to mean a bird's eye tactical view as opposed to a third-person being-in-the-thick-of-it view, and that has been the situation for very many years now. Yes, the terms have been inaccurately conflated, and yes, it is often possible to switch or even zoom between views since they're both 3D, but it's just the way of things.

I suppose a true isometric view may be regarded as something like "2D isometric" nowadays even though I accept it's a tautology; but IMHO it's more of an anachronism. Though my opinion may be of dubious relevance as I am not the most widely-travelled gamer, the only "2D isometric" game I've played in recent years is Tyranny, and while I enjoyed it, for me personally the seemingly artificially limited perspective detracted from the game rather than enhancing it. Which is as subjective a point of view as can be but my feeling was one of it trying to enforce the vibe of a bygone time and succeeding in a way that didn't flatter it.

True, but Deadfire is 2D false-perspective maps, with a simple lighting model, like BG1/2. As I said above, this is technically much easier to give a day/night cycle than when using a fully 3D environment.

I suppose Deadfire is as close as anything to being an updated version of the BG1/2 technology ideas, if that's your thing, but I'm not really a fan of 2D false-perspective maps if 3D is available.

No, and it's possible my terminology is not on point, in which case I hope someone will correct me. I am just in favour of trying to use precise descriptors for the sake of the argument. For example, right now I am just trying to figure out what we are talking about in the first place. My initial response was to the following post:



And it was: "Yes, I do believe there are games which will benefit of using pararel projection/isometric view/false perspective, over 3D with real perspective, as the latter does have some drawbacks, which the former doesn't". With the response from you, that BG3 does both... which it doesn't because the two are mutually exclusive.

I apologise if I came out condecending or/and longwinded. Short answer: both have their place, depending on game design. Also you are wrong about platformers;). Snake Pass was great though,

the only real difference between 3d and isometric i see is that in an isometric perspective there tend not to be items hidden by the camera angle, i say tend because i absoluteley know some games that are isometric that can have enemies hidden by perspective (see Synthetik for a recent example)
Likewise, 3D graphics can have a fixed camera perspective and a design favoring visibility.

as such, yes i think this discussion is pedantism.

I applaud you for that. But in this case, I don't think the descriptions you linked are actually helping to clear things up. I think the misunderstanding is a lot deeper than terminology can resolve and honestly.



Same. No offense taken, no offense intended.

I was only putting it aside because there is a sticky thread for that, and I wasn't otherwise clear about what aspect of the conversation you were replying to.

My preference is also RT, single-player, but I prefer full 3D over the original BG presentation. I quite like what I see, but clearly we have TB and strong MP emphasis. In the light of this reality, my feedback and thinking are more about how I can make practical suggestions that will improve the shipping experience for me; and if it is possible to eventually make it even better with mods, everyone can be happy. Well, happier, perhaps.