As unbiased as you can manage to be, do you think BG3 will be better/worse?

I’m not gonna lie… I generally hate BioWare games.

At this point, it's impossible to judge. The storyline of BG 2 with its extremely high level of detail, even in all side quests, will of course be hard to top. In terms of content, it's as detailed as an anime, in which even the secondary characters are illuminated in the best possible way. During encounters, especially with third parties, you then always had the tension in the back of your mind: how will these characters react when they meet? That's what makes the reencounters so extremely remarkable. It was an absolute satisfaction to see Neb, the disgusting child murderer, or Tazok from BG 1, whom you only met briefly and could never really "get to grips with" in the first part, then really flatten in the second part. The foresight was already good back then, they had already planned such encounters from the first part for the second part, I had the feeling.

The characters and companions were also unique and not too aloof, just strong personalities. Some characters were written in such a wonderfully conservative way that you were happy as a little schoolboy to provoke them in answer options in dialogues, just to hear their statements.

And they hired really excellent German dubbing actors back then. Nowadays that's difficult, I know. But for the immersion, that's a factor that shouldn't be underestimated. Hearing your favorite game in your native language is irreplaceable and top-notch!

These are all core points that I prefer anytime to more modern games. Only super graphics and action cinema will never replace a good storyline or attention to detail for a truly multi-faceted immersion-building gaming experience!

Let's see how BG 3 performs and feels in the end in this regard.

@ Beeber, Imagine Mass Effect series and Dragon age Origin, 20 years ago Bioware was a king of RPGs with their top-notch 2d sprite technology, and real-time Dungeons & Dragons 2.5E.
For me, Larian has picked big shoes to fill, I'm not yet sure if have they succeeded to exceed those godly expectations. Baldur's Gate 3 is a good game already, but can it be better than the
best RPG- series of all time? Only time will tell.

Today's Bioware is only a shadow of its former glory days, bullied creatives out of their company by EA and their greedy monetization practises.

It's something that I have problems to judge without inserting a constellation of caveats.

- There is a significant gap in tech between the two releases, so of course BG3 looks better...
- ...but I was generally speaking more fond of the type of aesthetic BG2 was striving for. Grounded look, no unnecessary cartoony effects and over the top animations, etc.
- I like turn-based combat FAR more than RTWP. The latter was more an acceptable compromise than an ideal to me. And I say this as someone who, all things considered, still values the combat one of the highlights of the old Infinity Engine games.
- I absolutely LOATHE the user interface in BG3 in some areas, especially hotbars, unity selection and movement
- I think games like POE, Solasta and Pathfinder all give glimpses of how an UPDATED BG2 interface would still work better and how the BG3 UI could be improved in many areas.
- despise what nostalgia could suggest some people, the old BG games were never a particularly high hallmark of quality writing and complex story telling, so not particular attachment in that sense...
- ...But I do appreciate that they started "small" rather than going bombastic from the get go with super high-tier scenarios.
- I'm not the biggest fan of the "diorama vibe" that the map is giving in BG3. Everything seems to be 20 meters away from everything else, areas "curl" on themselves, the "world" has a ridiculous compact feeling in it. Ironically the more abstract and technically simple approach used by other titles in the genre, where small areas are connected through a travel map, results far more effective in selling the illusion of scale for the world.
- BG3 is FAR more reactive to the player's input that the old BG games could ever dream to be. The amount of dialogue options, "triggers" tied to the race and class of the player, custom reactions to player's behavior (i.e. getting a different dialogue with NPCs according to from what direction you approach them, having someone acknowledge in dialogue if you pickpocketed an important item from them, etc, etc) is at time astonishing.
- At the same time Larian sometimes has a perplexing lack of middle grounds in its narrative scenarios, where you can (for instance) be offered the "murderhobo" and the "submissive pacifist" options without anything in-between.
- the lack of day/night cycle in BG3 remains a giant bummer and it's frankly an embarrassment for a "spiritual successor" that should be able to boast 20+ years of technological advancement on its side.
- Generally speaking, in this genre four-characters-parties suck unwashed ass.

All things considered I'm not sure it's fair to judge BG3 in its entirety before seeing what the final, complete game will have to offer.
So far I can only say that I have some perplexities about some puzzling design choices made up to this point, but I don't have particular doubts the final game will be at least a high profile title in the genre, if not necessarily the all-time favorite it could have the potential to become with some adjustments.

Really hard to say "better or worse" considering that we are 20 years later and that BG3 has taken a very different direction.
But in my opinion the best strenght of BG2 is the worst thing in BG3 : immersion in the world and the story.

There are a lot too much fancy things in BG3 for me to be correctly immersed.
The map is very small, the visual effects and the animations are often over the top, a lot of mechanics are inappropriate even for such a world (dipping, jumping, surfaces,...), the time is frozen and so is the life, the party members never talk together, instant teleportation is suggested at every corner, we are sleeping nowhere on the map,...

If there is a slider between immersion and gameplay, I'd say that Larian has gone a lot too far in the gameplay side for my taste without compromises that tends towards immersion / coherence.

I have no doubt : BG3 will be an awesome game and Larian has done an incredible job on many points. But I'm mostly sure I won't remember BG3 as I remember BG1 and BG2.
And it makes me really sad !

Like others mentioned, it is hard to compare those two, with only knowing a small part of BG3 so far. As long as we don't have the full game, it is hard to compare.
I do think that BG3 will be a good game. I might not be as hyped as with BG2, but I was younger and easier to impress back then.

I only played BG1. To me, BG3 is only mediocre comparing to BG1 due to the poor resources management and poor adventure pacing.

As for Bioware games, DAO is great, Mass Effect 1&2 are great. The rest of DA and the rest of ME are just terrible if not horrible. But it was not the fault of Bioware or any specific manager of Bioware. It was caused by unrestricted capitalism.

The reason why the free-market economy defeated the planned economy in 20c, was because at the production department of a social economy entity, the production decision making strategy was made differently and the free-market one won due to it was more capable to generate more varieties to cover the most consumer types. In either economy model, production decision making means risk and the consequence of such risk. This risk is that there is a chance that the consumer department doesn't like what the production department produced.

For the free-market economy practice, the decision was made by each private company and the consequence of possible loses were carried by every private company depends on each their own investment, just like the indie studios in today's gaming industry.

Meanwhile, for the planned economy practice, decision was made by some bureaucrats while the consequence of possible loses was carried by all citizen of that country, just like big game developer company's CEO and the board.

Will an indie studio develop a survival game with so many hardcore mechanics that would piss off 100% of casual gamers while pleased 50% of survival game fans? Yes, if the owner of that indie studio wants to do it.

Will a big game developer company with spread ownership of its stock shares develop that mentioned type of survival game? No. Because the board will want the final product to please that 100% of casual gamers and because even 1% of casual gamers is still in much greater number than 100% of survival game fans. The board usually don't care about the game itself, and they probably don't play survival game themselves at all. And if the CEO insisted to make that hardcore type of survival game, the board will just fire the CEO and hire a new one that don't. And this, is the fundamental reason why big game companies or legendary game studios lose their original fan base.

Even if ignoring BG3 unfinished state, I found it impossible to compare the two considering they are different games, with different appeals.

I don't expect to enjoy BG3 to the same extend that I enjoyed BG2 or other BioWare and BioWare-like RPGs. It just doesn't focus on stuff I like. And even if I enjoy it a lot, it is unlikely to be in the same ways I enjoyed BG2. For example I don't like jRPGs, but I enjoyed Persona5 a lot - if you ask me how I rate it against BG2, though I would be at a loss.

I have some concerns about BG3 player experience - I find user interface and overall lack of snapness really off putting. I feel I wrestle with the interface more than get things done. But that is my main specific point of concern for now.

To me BG3 is much better! I am sure BG2 was great for its time, but many things feel dated in it now for me. In BG3 I love the cinematic dialogue, map design, full voice acting for npcs, amount of content for companions, pacing, turn-based combat, fast travel, and lack of random encounters.

BG2 was and still is great, not going to lie. At least in what I expected from it. It's easy to look at it through rose-colored glasses, but the strength of Black Isle/Bioware games were the companions and NPCs. The background story was a generic hero journey, that much I realized all those years after, but the companions we took on our adventure made the game diferent each time.

So yes, I believe BG3 will be as good if not better in that regard - one of the few that really matter to me

BG2 multiplayer isn't even comparable to BG3 Multiplayer and frankly the majority of the play I am going to experience is going to be with that.

Bg2 had a vestigial multiplayer that forced players to stay together at all times in the same map. Lots of limitations.

Otherwise I agree with Tuco on a lot of things. I liked that bg2 had a day night cycle, and more "white space" between areas. They found a smart way to make that stuff work. I don't think we will see that in Bg3 probably.

Huh, I always thought random encounters were sort of built-in to the D&D experience? Nearly of the AD&D adventure modules led off with a section on how to handle random encounters. The old BG games did sort of fall into the cookie-cutter style of random encounters, especially in BG II where you ran into the same exact group every single time. That was not so good. I would have preferred some sort of random group generator, exactly the same way a Dungeon Master would roll up a group for a random encounter depending on the local setting ... mountain, coastline, cave, forest, graveyard, hamlet, hippodrome, etc.

Random encounters as we know them have aged poorly.
As someone really waiting for unexpected danger/encounters in such adventures, I can only admit that I'm bored in Solasta / WoTR.

I had the best idea ever for dungeons : a few groups of ennemies tagged as "sentinel". All sentinel groups alive add (let's say) 5 to 10% chance to have an encounter with one of the group when you sleep in the dungeon. Ofc if you kill them they dissapear from the dungeon.

I also had the best idea ever for the main camps : unexpected events. Short events that may trigger randomly when you rest that may lead to combats or not depending the players choices !

To be honest it's so different in so many aspects( 20 years of technology advancement aside -> Ressource management was at least tackled in BG2 for instance even if barely) I don't think there is even any point of saying if it's better or worse.

TLDR: @OP you mentioned you were never fond of Bioware games well.... the bioware game in all of BG3 is still to be found, it's really a Larian game in all possible aspects with D&d on top of it and BG2 in all of this is really an inspiration at best.
At least mechanics wise. Story wise I think here and there Bhaal and the story from BG2 will play a role.


I have to agree too that the writing style in BG2 wasn't necessarily perfect but Bioware back then in that departement did quite good in my opinion while Larian in some situations tends to use companion characters as a tool for exposition scenes way too often. Mostly dialogues with companions while way less present in the game felt a bit more organic as far as i'm concerned. BG3 did get way better in that regard between the 1st EA release and my last playthrough on patch #8 so I remain hopefull.

Worth noting I experienced BG2 for the first time....in polish. And polish voice acting for BG2 is simply a master piece. All actors were on complete crack, they did an insane job. And it helped a lot to create an unforgetable experience for the time. I'm replaying BG2 now with mods in english and I have to say BG3 voice actors are way better than what Bioware did in the english version back then.

In the end BG2 was simply gigantic( physically, like it was more than 100 hours of gameplay) for it's time. BG3 is aiming to be at least that long if not more( they mentioned it's going to be 3 times larger than DOS2 which would point at 150 hours of gameplay if you go relatively slow and don't just pass all dialogues and rush the main quest).

I don't think it's fair for two products separated by 20 years to call one better than the other one.

BG2 , nostalgia aside, earned it's place mostly by being either insanely large content-wise or pretending it's large in some areas( like for instance the size of the map.BG2 really isn't that big at all).
If anything, BG3 is going to be just as big and it has to do something that other games never did before and while for instance swarm AI is a very good example of an improvement we are missing D/N cycle which to some( like me ) feels like a huge drawback even if it's just a detail in the end.

BG3 will no doubt be a decent game in its own right but I can't foresee it carrying the legacy of BG2.

In my humble opinion BG3 can't hold a candle to BG2 in terms of cohesion, immersion and overall tone. It deviates in several ways from what made the predecessor so memorable and Larian's self interest in getting their hands on the IP is very evident.

It's really hard to compare the two, the gulf of differences is so vast.

BG III has much higher production values-and it shows in many ways where it stands head and shoulders above its predecessor, but in others it feels weirdly unpolished and janky. But fundamentally-quality aside, they seem to me like very different games to me. The Pathfinder games are more comparable to BG II than BGIII. BG III feels more like a fusion of DOS2 and NWN2, honestly.

Now do I like BG III more than BG II? It's a difficult question to approach given the above, but I'd have to say....no....and a large part of that just comes down to the foundation of the game, only tangentially related to anything Larian is doing.

BG II was written when 2e was transitioning to 3e-what I have heard many (I'm one of them) folk describe as the 'golden era' of the Forgotten Realms as a setting. BG III is set in the Post-Spellplague era, when WoTC treats the lore of its settings as essentially disposable, where retcons and the advancing timeline have rendered the setting recognizable only on a surface level. Obviously I prefer the former, but I think that even those that prefer the latter would admit that the Forgotten Realms of the old games is a different animal. I have a great amount of nostalgia for this era of the Forgotten Realms, and BG II is a huge part of that.

Now for Larian's part, they are-under their own admission- leveraging that nostalgia. IIRC Swen himself admitted the big reason why they were making a BG sequel in the setting instead of an unrelated game was the name recognition/nostalgia factor. But IMHO Larian was already starting at a mandatory handicap by having to use the inferior 5e iteration of the setting (YMMV), and they have shown several times in EA that they are willing to play fast and loose with the already shaky 5e setting & lore. Since I'm playing this game in no small part because of my love of a setting that cannot and will not be replicated in BG III, I don't think the nostalgia/fanservice/etc hits the same way as intended. If anything, it makes me feel slightly apprehensive and uncomfortable.

There's also the question of if a sequel ever really needed to be made. The original (cancelled) BG III was going to feature a new protagonist and unconnected story because the story of the original saga was considered 'done', but fast-forward to today and we have 'Murder in Baldur's Gate' which brought back Bhaal- a fundamental piece of background for the setting of BG III, since we know Bhaal is going to be a major part of the plot. In doing so, MIBG invalidated the choices of the players of the original saga, both in the ultimate sense (because Bhaal came back and the Bhaalspawn is dead), and by robbing players of the agency to even imagine their own Bhaalspawn in bringing back Abdel Adrian, the infamous protagonist of the novelizations-making him the canon protagonist before killing him off out of hand at the end of it all. The legacy of the protagonist of the old saga is pathetic and forgettable and overshadowed by their companions. I don't know how Larian intends to address that in a game that's a sequel without double underlining the unfortunate legacy (or lack thereof) of the original BG protagonist.

This is aside from the general qualities of BG III itself, which have both its ups and its downs in regard to the original saga IMO.

BG3 will be more popular, no doubt there, it'll sell millions more than BG2 did, but whether or not it's better is subjective. Gaming was very different back when BG2 released. 24 years makes a massive difference. BG2 had a budget of what, something like 5 million? And BG3 is probably going to be 100 million? It's hard to compare those objectively.

I agree that it’s too early to be certain, though I do think BG3 is likely to be a better game to play in 2023. But I also think that, with two decades’ worth of video game development to build on in addition to standing on the shoulders of BG1&2 themselves, it damn well should be.

I played the first two BG games when they came out and have tended to run through them at least every year or so since. And much as I love them, and believe they set a standard that’s hard to beat in many ways, they’re not perfect and there are certainly areas where BG3 could improve on them if it lives up to its promise. Comparing it with BG2 specifically (excluding the ToB expansion):

• The main plot of BG2 is pretty slight and only tangentially related to the character arc of the protagonist. The bulk of the game is spent running around doing unrelated quests until we can give some NPC what they want in order to get us where we need to go. I’m glad that BG3 appears to be focusing more tightly on discovering and dealing with a main threat, more like BG1 whose central storyline I rate more highly though I think BG2 is a better game overall.
• It doesn’t matter that BG2’s main plot is thin when there’s so much other fun stuff, and relatively few tedious fetch-quests. BG3 seems also to be trying to give us a variety of memorable stories, large and small, and while it remains to be seen whether it succeeds, I think the indications aren’t bad. I’m particularly impressed with the way so many potentially generic enemies have different characters and stories. There were some hints of that in BG2 but Larian are going all in on trying to make every character and encounter meaningful.
• BG2 was a huge step forward when it came to richness of companion content and interaction, but it was uneven. Jaheira had way more story, for example, than most other companions. Plus romance options were skewed to heterosexual males of some races. BG3 has the opportunity to have multiple companions with stories as rich as BG2 Jaheira’s, and to have a choice of satisfying romance arcs for any players/characters that want them. So far, I’m finding the BG3 companions mostly engaging, but they’re not as diverse as I’d like (where are the shorter races?), the party dynamic isn’t quite coming off and a lot is going to come down to how they develop in the full game, but I remain hopeful.
• Too often successful combat at normal difficulty in BG2 involved having your party just do their default weapon attack against one enemy at a time, or chucking in a couple of fireballs from just out of sight. And then kiting around with your weaker characters when they attracted aggro. I find BG3 combat far more engaging, with a lot more reason to understand and experiment with different spells, special abilities and tactics.
• BG2 was of course based on D&D, but often kept this under the bonnet. BG3 wears its D&D colours much more openly, I feel, and while this in some ways leads to a more stylised experience that’s not everyone’s cup of tea, I’m totally here for it. And as someone who has only played computer RPGs, BG3 has got me thinking about the experience of PnP D&D and even watching some streamed TTRPG sessions in a way other cRPGs never have.
• While we could choose race and class, we didn’t have any real choice about the pre-game history of our BG1&2 protagonist, and it doesn’t make much story sense to think of them other than as a young adult (and even some races raise questions given the protagonist’s parentage is at least half fixed). BG3 is giving us a lot more options, and though each origin character individually looks as though they’re going to be less flexible than Gorion’s Ward, collectively and when added to the ability to create a pretty much blank slate custom character we have so much more choice. As has been discussed elsewhere, Larian will have their work cut out to bring custom characters in particular convincingly to life, but I for one am glad they’re trying.
• BG3 does way more than BG2 in terms of letting us roleplay our class and background and use our skills in dialogue and as we explore. Then there’s the ability to make use of non-combat spells like Speak with Dead and Disguise Self in BG3 that I’m loving. And the mechanics around stealing/crime and paladin oathbreaking that don’t work anything near perfectly yet, but BG2 didn’t even try to do anything so ambitious.
• BG2 didn’t have a huge amount in the way of meaningful choices that could change the world in different ways (or perhaps I just end up picking the same options too often!). It’s too early to tell, but if we see increasing ripples from what we do in BG3 as we progress through the story that are noticeably different on replaying then that could be an improvement. Given a few characters we meet in EA will potentially be in Baldur’s Gate (or not) and might have different opinions of us based on our actions, it feels as though there’s potential here. (Plus of course BG2 didn’t reflect choices made in BG1 so if BG3 has expansions or a sequel that lets us take our characters through to level 20 there’s a big opportunity for improvement there!)
• Obviously BG3 looks much better, which can help immersion. Though it can also lead to less willingness to use our imagination and increased expectations of realism, so despite the advantage of more advanced technology Larian may need to do more in some ways than BioWare to get the same level of engagement.

There’s also of course a long list of things BG2 does well that the bit of BG3 we’ve seen doesn’t give us the opportunity to compare. For example, getting to explore Athkatla was amazing, and I hope we’ll get a similar feel from Baldur’s Gate once we reach it. There were also some NPCs that we could build ongoing relationships with, and hopefully BG3 will also have this (and do it better). BG3 will also hopefully give us access to some sort of home base later in the game, as BG2 did reasonably successfully.

TL;DR I don’t know yet whether I’m going to think BG3 is better than BG2, but I think I will if it continues to focus on things I see as strengths in areas where I felt BG2 had room for improvement.

I'm going to go against the rules here because I haven't played BG2 nor BG1, the latter came out when I was 3 and only knew of it's existance when BG3 was announced because of Larian.

Now, there is something that usually puzzles me about people here complaining and it's related to the reason why BG3 is being developed by Larian. I'm pretty sure Baldur's Gate IP is not as renown nowadays as some people seem to imply, Larian would probably get more clients by just doing D:OS3, but what it IS really well known today is DnD, specially 5e, and that's what they are doing.

The reason Larian is doing this game is because of their success in D:OS2, so they've been given the keys to manage this "new DnD videogame experience", that happens to be Baldur's Gate.

---

I make this reply because they are not doing, nor trying to do a BG2 successor gameplay wise, they utilize the lore of course, the setting, but the gameplay is half dnd 5e, half Divinity, and that's what WotC probably asked them to do...

So my advice here is, judge this game based on what it strives to be, if you are going to judge it based on your opinion of how a BG2 successor should be, you are probably better off not even trying it.

And whether it is now, of after full release, it's just odd to compare games with a 24 years gap in between, totally different gaming landscapes, tech, user experience and demographics

It's hard for me to compare the combat between the two, they're both janky in their own ways, sometimes that's fun, sometimes frustrating. The story, I can't really comment on BG3's story while stewing in it's expositionary phase for these long years. I think the highs of Baldur's Gate II will be higher, the lows lower; Baldur's Gate 3 will be more consistent, but less interesting. That isn't a bad thing because there will likely be so much more of BG3 that maintaining consistency compared to Baldur's Gate II will be a feat itself.

That depends on what you mean by better/worse...

It will release to great fanfare, and lots of people will have fun playing it. So in that regard it will be a success. By that metric whether it is better or worse has more to do with the interests of the person playing than anything else.

On the other hand, I doubt that we will talking about Baldur's Gate 3 in 20 years, so by that metric BG2 is "better". I could be wrong about that though. Only time will tell.

One of the most common complaints I hear about Bg1 and 2 when people go back to play it is that it "hasn't aged well and it feels like work to play it".

People will say that about BG3 in 20 years... if its lucky. Probably they will just ignore it though. That doesn't mean that I think it will be bad. I have enjoyed my time playing it. Its just that most games don't stick around that long, and I doubt this one will be much different.

Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 still have people going back to them in spite of the fact that they "haven't aged well", and I hear that they also have a sequel in the works.

I miss the days of the curving BG1 arrows and the home brew to “fix” it.

It's a recurring idiocy people say about a lot of older games.

Frankly I feel that the only aspect of BG2 that didn't "age that well" is its technical obsolescence: natively designed around a very low resolution, with an abysmal default frame rate, etc.
And you could make an argument for the inventory system being a bit more cumbersome that it should be. Which ironically enough is a complain that can be applied to BG3 as well.


Then you have slightly modernized takes on the same formula (PoE 2 and both the Pathfinder games) proving almost everything of the core system can still work just fine to this day.

Its hard to judge or review BG2 because there is just SO MUCH CONTENT going for it. TONS and TONS of spells. But yea, lots of junk (some are fun!). TONS of creatures. Some very annoying. LOTS of playable companions, but not all created equally in terms of content. A bazillion interesting magical items...and some annoying inventory management. Still when you look at it as a whole, its just a beast of a game.
So naturally a lot of stuff can be criticized very easily.
Comparing the two games is just not possible anymore...BG2 was amazing for its time (and still is imho...) but its like arguing a CRT tv is better than a new OLED. People who have never lived through gaming with CRTs just cannot begin the understand why gamers would use such displays (when used with classic games). Why would you game with a CRT lol? Like why would you prefer BG2 over BG3`s modern systems and technical advancements.

My view...there is room to have fun with simple ideas and basic systems as much as new complex and technology advanced systems. I listen to my music digitally yet I also have an analogue amp+record system. They offer different experiences.

I think Larians comment about "boring" Player Characters comes into play.
They think you choose Horns because "they look cool" and dont see the grounded player who thinks "no horns, or some townsfolk think im evil".
Larians approach is "cheap" entertainment and every minute without fireworks is a lost minute.
Firework is nice, Highlights have their place but muist be every minute of Game more awesome than the last?

I am playing BG II right now, getting in the spirit for the upcoming BG III release. BG II has aged as well as I have, I guess, and I still enjoy it in a zen kind of way ... pure escapism. It's way better than watching TV. For me, the BG series was the best way to get a D&D experience because I did not have much time for a regular pen-n-paper group. BG works for me, and although I have tried a few others years ago, BG is the only one I want to play. If Larian were just doing another version of their in-house games (Divinity Original Sin, et. al.), I would not be interested at all.

I heard there is actually a market now for CRT displays! Apparently certain vintage console games were optimized for the CRT analog raster scan method, and will actually look better on a CRT than on a digital pixellated display. Sort of like the use of 12AX7 vacuum tubes in guitar amps ... no other way to get that sweet overdrive.

@Argyle

I suspect the same, I just don’t remember it looking that pixilated when first released… Mayhaps it’s just nostalgia kicking in…

I generally try not to compare things, one vs the other.

For me, BG1 and BG2 are among my most beloved games. I have played both of them more times than I care to admit. It is safe to say that I have put more hours into BG series than any other single game, and likely any other franchise. So that is an incredibly high bar.

Thus far, I have thoroughly enjoyed BG3 in early access. I think it has a ton of potential to rank up there in my estimation. I love the graphics, the turn based combat, the companions, the story, the (more or less) open world approach to tackling the map (meaning that you aren't restricted to a single path and can go anywhere you don't get killed. might be a different definition than others' of 'Open World' but it is what I meant here). I love the exploration and the different ways to tackle various challenges. My latest playthrough was with a bard and I am silver tongue talking my way out of most things. So there is definitely versatility.

In the end, I look forward to the full release and thoroughly exploring the entire game before I make any judgements. If the rest of the game lives up to Chapter 1, it is likely to make it into my top 10 list. I guess we will see with time.

Overall, I agree. I never have any problems playing BG2 over and over. It does have to be said that one aspect you don't mention is the problematic pathing in both BG1 and BG2. I can't tell you how many 'accidental deaths' resulted from the pathing taking my party members places that they shouldn't have gone. "Imoen, why are you going the LONG way around?????"

😂

https://8bitpickle.com/video-games/best-crt-tv-for-retro-gaming/
https://geekflare.com/crt-instead-of-leds-for-retro-gamers/

Yeah, believe it or not, this is a thing.

Now if only I could convince a modern car manufacturer to make car which looks like a '57 Ford Thunderbird on the outside, but is really no more than a Honda Civic on the inside. I gotta have the air conditioning and good mileage.

If walls-of-text were subject to gravity (or Larian environmental shenanigans), this thread would be deemed a hazard zone lol. So let me be short and sweet.

Of course it will be better. Not even a contest!

Mini wall-of-text: Will it be as good relative to its contemporaries though? Probably not so much considering BG pioneered the cRPG genre and overdelivered besides. Storywise it's hard to tell, the original BG-series was a pretty stereotypical rags to riches story. You started out hunting rats in a warehouse, and ended up akin to a god chasing demons in hell. Part of the secret sauce was developing a relationship over several games over several years - much like in the Mass Effect series and it would be unfair to compare BG3 after just one game. Especially with the rose-tinted glasses of old fans who just as much miss the naivete of youth. BG3 is akin to Bioware of old though: Great focus on roleplaying and party interactions, just taken to the next level and then some. If you hate Bioware - you're likely not to love this.

Oh gosh I really do. I honestly really do.

I tried liking Dragon Age Origins and Baldurs Gate 2. I hated them both. I honestly don't like games with an immense level of complexity. If that's what I want, I'd play Civilizations just like everyone else. To give you an idea of my threshold for too-complex games... Elder Scrolls 4 Oblivion is about as much as I can take. That's it.

Divinity 2 DKS was a very simple game and I loved it. I also love Horizon Zero Dawn for the same reason.

Gameplaywise, RTWP was never all that great – but there’s some fan-made combat mod for Icewind Dale 2 that I installed way back, and the intensity and perfect level of difficulty it added to every encounter was a stroke of genius.

I installed combat mods for BG2 ‘way back’ that likewise made it interesting, but nowhere near as perfectly balanced as that combat mod for ID2.

I’ve no interest in multiplayer – don’t have time for it, never will, so it could be a proper pile of shite and it wouldn’t bother me in the least.

Storywise, Larian is all over the gaff with BG3. The latest trailer exposed how insecure they are in their vision – it’s everything but the kitchen sink in terms of ‘tone’. A hobbling, yabbering narratively-inbred thing that doesn’t know if it should be campy/goofy – Larian’s trademark style – or all ‘serious’, with it’s sombre ‘My life was dismantled piece by piece’ opening.

‘Show don’t tell’ is a cliché in fiction, when a lot of the best literary writers paid this no heed, to astounding effect.

But here Larian should heed that advice as we’re being bashed over the head with the drama they’re trying to set up.

Of course it’ll be a playable game. Their artists are talented, if only they could go back to the solid ‘chiaroscuro’ style from earlier patches over the horrid ‘make everything bright’ style. The blacker, starker graphics work great in particular for video games, which still cannot match the visual punch of reality. Yet they erased this darker style in later patches – there are many threads on the topic. It’s amazing how bad that decision is, art-wise.

As someone who used to dabble in painting/sketching and even won a few awards for it ‘back in the day’, I happen to have strong opinions on the visual art side.

This is the only place I can truly complement Larian. They have genuinely talented artists – there are many places in the game where the graphical work is exceptional. More so in the later parts of the act, such as the unfortunately named ‘Grymforge’ (did you get that it’s a grim forge???).
But despite their artistic talent, BG2 had, as others mentioned, a more evocatively lowkey aesthetic, that knew when to dial things up and when to tone things down. It matters not a damn that it’s an old game, because the art was hand-drawn. That will never age. 10 years from now, though, BG3’s 3D graphics will look potato-esque.

The drow city in BG2 had a sinister, spidery menace. Likewise, the cerebral geometric shapes within the illithid city were far more imaginative and alien than Larian’s Hollywood blockbuster take on the ship of these creatures, with the silly flashy floor lights etc.

Character-wise, as others have mentioned here, BG2 knocked it out of the park. Someone here once chastised me for saying BG2’s devs weren’t ‘having a laugh’. Yeah, they clearly were in all aspects of the characterisation. Where BG3 tries too hard to please with its overly special posse of dry-shites, BG2’s characters were rough-hewn, made for the craic rather than the memes.

There is no story on earth that is a masterpiece that will appeal to everyone, flawlessly, and not have some aspects people view as naff, dated, derivate, or what-have-you.

But you have to look at the overall thing and what it achieves. Does it have the ‘magic’, in its rough, imperfect way? BG2 did. BG3 does not.

It will be a competent, big-budget game, with good gameplay, possibly great artwork and a truly forgettable story.

Not sure what part of it you think it's funny.
In a lot of ways some high end CRT panels are still virtually unmatched in terms of response time/ghosting/color quality.

The downsides are that if you want a screen of a decent size you better be ready to have a 90Kg beast on your desk... Plus the whole "radiations in your face" thing.

I recently did a rerun of the BG2 with some balance-tweaking mods installed, and definitely disagree that it ‘hadn’t aged well’. The core mechanics are identical to the likes of WOTR and other similar ‘modern’ games such as POE etc. The only difference is it’s hand-drawn, rather than 3D – and I happen to prefer the hand-drawn assets over pillars and WOTR.

I’d agree that what BG3 is mostly missing is what you might call a ‘soul’. Athkatla was immersive from the get-go – the clang of the blacksmith’s hammer, the rumble of the medieval crowd. It’s amazing how effective simple sound effects are in luring you into the world they created.

I don’t even hear anything authentic in BG3’s overly elaborate villages, such as the Druid Grove, which looks almost comically implausible in its setup. This place seems to rely more on special effects, such as the swirly glowing effects at the centre. It would be more interesting if it was less in-your-face about the fantasy aspect and more grounded in the art. Then let the sound effects carry the rest: the bustle of the place and these druids murmuring and conversing in the background. We seem to be missing all of these ‘little touches’.

Likewise, the ambience of the world outside the villages seems quite dead compared to BG2. There doesn’t appear to be any life going on in the place.

In general, the whole thing seems very plastic and shallow, over-workshopped and more than a little fake.

I don’t like any of the OTT characters.

The gameplay is well-designed – I haven’t had any issues with this. But the story is so weak that I don’t know if I could bring myself to commit to the inevitable 200 hours (or whatever it will be in the end) to see it through. I had this same problem with DOS2.

I would have preferred a proper indie company to have made BG3. A company less eager to please. But too late now, I guess. We’re stuck with what we’ve got.

Once again impressed by the quality of the responses in this forum. Find myself enthusiastically agreeing with nearly everything @Tuco said and mostly agreeing with @Leucrotta.

First with @Leucrotta's comments on 2e Faerun



I agree, the BG2 era when the setting felt like the setting. At first, I was very happy with the launch of 5e because it was undoing the damage of 4e but my enthusiasm since has dampened. Initially I was trilled with 5e's decision to return to the DIY, 1e spirit - "this is a DIY game, the rules are just guides, change them if you want to" - but since start of the 6e revisions I think that WotC has veered too far in the "do whatever you want" direction. Ideally everyone wants the freedom to do what every they want at their own table but you also want the setting to maintain its integrity. I think 2e was able to steer the ship between a rock and hard place - never straying too far towards the rock of complete freedom or the hard place of feeling like the rules were too restrictive to be fun. I think 6e is steering course towards the rocks and doing so at the expense of setting integrity. The rules all boil down to "do what you want" why do you need a setting at all?

Things like "in Faerun everyone worships a god" make Faerun, Faerun; unfortunately the decision to remove the wall of the faithless undoes that - instead of saying "if you don't like the wall just eliminate it from your table" the devs chose to remove the bit of lore that ensured that everyone had to chose a god. And they did in errata! Eratta! Not that I'm bitter. They the changes to player species also make Faerun seem less like Faerun. Instead saying "if your DM says you can play half gnome go for it, have fun" the devs have removed the rules that only allowed half elves and half orcs as playable races. This changes the setting quite a bit - yes, changes it a fun way - you can be anything at all but "anything goes" changes the feel of the setting. Now the cities of the Forgotten Realms feel more like Sigil than BG2 era Baldur's Gate.

And all of this before Larian gets its hands on the lore - lore that the Larian ceo doesn't appear to know or to value. (although I think he, unlike WotC understands that people like alignment)

So it will be a fun game - it just won't be a sequel to BG2 because the setting that produced BG2 is gone and the developers of this game aren't great lovers of the lore.



Again enthusiastic with nearly everything Tuco said. Especially the bit about the amusement park maps, hate them. I but do have minor disagreement with the quoted section. While BG3 is indeed more reactive it's ground trigger based banter system is it inferior to BG2's timer based banter system. In BG3 you can hear nearly all of you companions lines while running over the triggers outside of the blighted village but your party members go strangely quiet in the underdark - in BG2 you never knew when a conversation was going to happen and that gave the interactions an organic feel. (and sometimes provided unintended comic relief -" uh, yeah, I also like the cut of your gib. Let's talk once the dragon stops trying to kill us, okay?)

Also with the flaw with range of option is a symptom of a larger problem. In BG2 the conversations had two paths - a) walk the path that daddy Bhaal wants you walk down or b) restrain your rage and disarm the trap your father set for you. In that game choosing the path of peace didn't feel "submissive" it felt like a victory against fate itself. Why in BG3 I would choose the pacifist path? To win points with Shadowheart I guess?

Didn't find myself agreeing with anything that The Red Queen said except this:


The BG3 companions do have more layers than the BG2 companions but there just aren't many of them. One of the reasons BG2 has such high replay value is the number of companions - there are some dialogues that only come up if you have Yoshimo, Viconia and Haer Dalis in your party . . .

No, they do not.

They have trinkets and gimmicks galore, but it takes a very ‘special’ person to think that = ‘layers of depth’. Lol to that, lol and lol again.

BG3, I would say, have the worst possible writers going at the moment. They’re even banking on a former Gamespot critic to deliver. A ‘game critic’ is writing the characters – says everything you need to know.

The latest trailers expose how lacklustre and tame and limp and very small the whole thing is – it’s the narrative equivalent of dandruff.

It’s mind-boggling (IMO) how anyone can buy into these side-shows over the simply brilliant BG2 equivalents.

This game will be forgotten for sure. They haven’t a clue what they want to do with the thing. Outside of the cult, pretty much everyone sees this thing for the dud that it is.

Anyway, ‘let them off’. Let them spend their millions on ‘live capture’ for their horrible lines…

It could not be worse, really.

This is just how I feel about it. You can't have Sigil without establishing all the rules and tropes it subverts first. The commitment to authenticity, and use of fantasy's long canon is sorely lacking from all the world-building I see from the powers that be.
With that in mind though, I think that Larian can't really be authentic to the setting, because they're receiving a compromised work of art. Continuity has been rebooted twice, and currently doesn't really want make up its mind over what is still canon, with everything being made less precise (haphazardly, re:Errata!) to cater to the 'anything goes' mentality that should be implicit within the medium. For that reason, I think if I had been in Swen's position I wouldn't feel terribly bothered to conform to the setting either, in fact, I'd probably feel like another Baldur's Gate game would be a good opportunity to revise and correct a lot of the errors and mistakes of what I'd been given. Adaptations between mediums offer a great opportunity to clean up such messes.

Well said! Agreed

Well lol to infinitity then I win :p

Also, lol

😂[/quote]
I chuckled at this. Ignorance is bliss I guess?
You do realize that older 90s games were designed with CRT scanlines in mind? Not to mention the nearly zero input lag of these displays puts lcds to shame.
Modern displays are great for modern games, but look like shit for older games.
Most people who played BG2 here probably did so with the awful <<enhanced>> (compressed graphics, laggy, redesigned awful UI...) edition and on an LCD. That right away makes the game already pretty bad compared to what it looked like.

If you hate BioWare games, you might actually have a good time with BG3, as this game should be compared to D:OS 1 & 2, not BG 1 & 2.

It is a completely different kind of RPG, with different writing (both general story and dialogue), philosophy, world/character-building/design, combat, all-around vibe and just about everything else.

As a fan of the originals, that is my main gripe with the game: Larian made yet another D:OS-like RPG and just paid for the Forgotten Realms license and slapped a Baldur's Gate name on it. And yeah, added some characters from the originals as cheap fanservice, I guess... Might still end up being a decent RPG, but the whole "Baldur's Gate" thing is just a cashgrab. There are non-D&D games out there that are closer to being an actual sequel than BG3.

I think it's a generational thing. Those old enough to remember scanlines and the golden era of CRT before its gradual demise know about it. If you were born in the mid-90s you likely would have only limited memory of CRTs. Let's remember that people born in 1993 are 30 now. And the CRT began to be gradually phased out in the late 90s.

Yep, old games look better on older equipment. I have heard about how emulator stuff these days try to replicate those CRT effects, and for good reason. You see all the jaggies if you run it on modern equipment instead of the equipment it was designed to work with. (as the above comparison shows)

Anyways, yeah. Larian has a couple of plates spinning here at the same time. By their own admission they are chasing the name recognition and nostalgia that the association the original saga evokes, but that's from an era of the Forgotten Realms that neither 5e nor Larian, really seems to want to....if they even can....bring back (and WOTC seems to actively shun). Same with the gameplay. the Pathfinder games are much closer in style and prove that there's still life in the modern world for old-style isometric crpgs, but Larian very clearly wants to make DOS3, which admittedly they are doing an amazing job at. I love the DOS series but that's not necessarily the same thing I'm looking for in the Forgotten Realms, or indeed-in Baldur's Gate. How much of that translates into something I'll enjoy remains to be seen, but it does feel a lot like 'square pegd, round hole'.

The development hasn't been without hurdles either-and while this is true of the Original Saga too (the end of SoA and basically the entirety of ToB feel very rushed, railroady and generally unfinished IMO), there is a *lot* of jank in EA, weird little choices, odd narrative paths and design quirks. I honestly do not know how the game is going to turn out at this point.

The appallingly bad UI (particularly party movement - see the endless discussions of the BG3 "toilet chain" vs. BG1/2-style intuitive party selection/movement - but also inventory management), over-the-top cartoonish tone, claustrophobic/cramped map/game world design, and overall lack of immersion (no day/night cycle, ludicrously exploitable stealth "mechanics", etc.) make BG3 an extremely pale imitation of BG2 in my opinion. I'm sure I'll eventually play through it, but I'll be very (pleasantly) surprised if I find it to be anything other than slightly better than mediocre.

Since we’re on the subject of modernising old classics, I’d like to invite people to check out a true success story here: https://www.gameinformer.com/2023/0...-the-five-regions-of-diablo-4s-sanctuary

Diablo 4 from – yes – Blizzard Entertainment, of all companies.

Check out the videos there of each of the regions created by their bafflingly talented artists.

This is just exceptional stuff – I have never seen anything as good as the environments created here, and many of the shots, if paused, are beyond even greatest works of painterly art, in terms of the sheer god-damned passion they put into the work.

I paid for the ‘pre-order’ on the back of these videos – I don’t care if this ‘game’ even has gameplay: it’s completely irrelevant to me after seeing this. It’s the video game equivalent of an art gallery. I want to walk around in this amazing game, checking out the genius of the detail, just that and nothing else, thanks.

The brilliance of it is in how restrained the whole thing is. The visuals are so perfectly ‘reigned in’: they’ve really nailed the raw, dusty, crumbling aesthetic. I’ve personally never seen any video game look as good as this.

I’ve huge respect for them. It looks better than D1 and D2, which were both arresting in their gothic, gritty grounded-ness.

I think this is going to be the best game released in 2023. You can feel the powerful underdog energy of the effort – they want to go against expectations, they want to surprise people who’ve written them off as evil corporate Blizzard, cynics and sleaze-balls. I can see it a million miles away that this will shock people.

I’ve a very high respect for visual artists who put in the work. Even the nudity is tastefully done, retrained and beautiful and surprising, if you look at the videos on the main site: https://diablo4.blizzard.com/en-us/

Blizzard, of all places, has the right attitude. Who would have ever thought this possible? There’s a fearlessness going on here that’s the sign of high art at work – these people want to make a mark, and they’re not out to impress: they’re dialling back the pyrotechnics, they’re keeping it chill and subtle.

Larian, I feel, is insecure by comparison. Instead of ‘being themselves’ and putting their own mark on the BG franchise, they are looking toward Marvel and pop culture and ‘trends’ for guidance.

They should take a few notes from modern Blizzard, and grow some balls.

Out of all the companies out there I wouldn't really say Blizzard is a point of reference for anything.
They murdered poor overwatch. I'm not even sure how they managed to do that considering how popular the 1st one was(Millions of copies sold ). The amount of bullshit going on inside that company must be insane.

Yeah, exactly. There is no way you’d expect this level of talent from a company that has gotten such a bad rep.

Watch the videos in the article I linked though.

Whatever about anything else, their artists are true gods of their craft. It’s an amazing looking piece of art – you couldn’t not see this (especially the 5th video with those steaming pools). Brilliant.

Honestly I'd like a mod that remakes all of BG2 in the BG3 engine. Not sure how that would work legally, but you could just take all the voice files and transfer them and do stuff like this:

To get full voice-acting for all characters. Add cinematics and animations. Keep the same combat encounters but make them turn-based. Make Athkatla one big walkable zone with enterable buildings rather than several separate zones. I know it would never happen, but it sounds fun. Keep the spirit of the original game while cutting out a lot of the chore-like micromanagement. I would argue that the game has aged well outside of traversal and combat. And even then, traversal and combat aren't THAT bad.

I don't really get this, Blizzard has always been known for their art high standards, the only time I remember that it was put in doubt was in Diablo 3, but it looked really good anyway.

Now, Diablo depends on art and gameplay, everything else is pretty bad, I could give a pass for the story but so far only Diablo 2 had a somewhat solid story, in Diablo 1 is almost non existent and 3 is kinda bad.

If your game depends in two aspect, you better knock one out of the park.


Why this should be important to Larian? I don't think anyone that likes games like BG3 gives such high regard to graphics... The strengths of this games are other:

• thousands dialogue lines we get to choose and enjoy. Just in Early Access we probably have more than all diablo games combined.
• Choices, the things we choose change the story and give us a lot of possiblities.
• Diversity in the approach we get to play, we have a party, each member can have it's own build and synergize with others. Diablo is a game with multiplayer that has all characters just doing damage, no synergy whatsoever.

You could go on listing differences that amount to crazy numbers in man hours, but it just doesn't make senses because those two games have almost nothing in common.


And, what is wrong with you that you assume they take inspiration in Marvel and other trends? If they did, they would be making action games, like God of War, Diablo, Overwatch...

Also, wtf. You haven't even played Diablo 4....

BG4 opening: dragons, demons, fantasy-aliens, crumbling cities, massive alien ship blasting said cities, portals to hell, dragons again, demons. Then you’re on a ship with dragons, demons, imps, aliens, flame-swords…

The OTT nature of it is Marvel to me.

LOL at ‘wtf you never even plated D4’ – eh, never said I did. I linked I video praising the artists for their exceptional work.

You don’t need to play the game to use your eyes skip.

THEY PUT DRAGONS IN MY DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS VIDEOGAME ARRRRGHHHHHHH!!!!

Stop paying so much attention to a fucking cinematic. It's a bit over the top? Yes, but it's a minute and it's all, you play the game.

Literaly you want Larian to be Larian, and in D:OS2 you played someone that could syphon the gods and became basically all powerful.


Go congratulate the art team in the Diablo 4 forum for their amazing art. What the fuck does it has to do with BG3?

Dude, it's literally a konmehn alt. He's just trolling. So was:
-Konmehn
-HydraulicHydra
-Phoenix376
-jeshep
-thorhammer
-shazamshaza

It's getting a little sad now.

Oh damnit, sorry everyone.

Just because it's you ZeruGod, i feel like:

That's interesting, and probably a reason why I remember so many games looking much better than they do now.

Same. You'd think there'd be some sort of shader for that; while I'm not so keen on CRT Smudge-o-Vision for text, it often works well for graphics and I'm not sure there's anything that does stuff like the weird NTSC colour-blending unless specific emulation software handles it directly.

Well, yes and no.
While it may be part of the equation, I can promise you that even using the most "faithful" equipment out there a lot of these old beloved games would still look way less impressive to you today.
Our memory usually has that funny tendency to fill the gaps.

You remember that old gorgeous animated background scenario in pixel art from your childhood, then you back to it and you realize there were barely a couple of details actually moving, they had two frames of animations each and the whole thing was in 16 colors with pixels the size of a peanut.

I'd like to know how Vanilla WoW holds up so well - not even the updated WoW classic but the original played still on private servers across the world. It's like being inside a painting and that game came out in 2004.

My use of "a reason" rather than "the reason" has been very deliberate. I must mentione, that even as a youngster I did a lot of retroplaying. It is very recent development that I have access to fancy gaming rig, and a lot of my teen years have been spent retroplaying DOS games from 90s, while a lot of my peers where enjoying sevenths generation. In other words, when I played games like UFO defence or Sid Maier's Pirates! for the first time, they were very dated already - but soft edges of pixelated CTV could explain why they didn't feel so rough.


I feel that as long as one can keep the resolution up, an old 3d game with cartoon artstyle can hold up very well.

Nostalgia is undeniably a part, but I think there's more to it than that. Sure, early 3d can be particularly unimpressive (even worse without a crt to smooth out those polygons!) but a lot of sprite art holds up really well even today-there's a certain charm to handdrawn stuff that is just timeless, like that portrait shown earlier (with the crt effect)-looks better than what you'd see for a 3d portrait in say, NWN2, despite the gap in technology. In particular, earlier art styles often worked better with stylized art designs, like Fire Emblem or Advance Wars or when handling mediums that lean more on interpretation and abstraction. When graphical quality is slim, game design tends to be a bit different. You might get a narrative description of an npc you meet in an rpg rather than a cinematic for instance.

"CRT Smudge-o-Vision" - ha, that is a good word for it. CRT spots have a nice Gaussian bell-curve intensity profile, and when you overlap the raster lines slightly, it is a nice smoothing effect. Discrete pixels, on the other hand, will have aliasing artifacts which need filtering.

For BG III, I am more worried about my computer's graphics system which uses the internal main processor ... I do not have an external graphics card. Man, some of those new graphics cards have such big fans on them, I think you could probably tape a battery on there and fly them around as drones. I don't really care about Forgotten Realms lore, or the official Gorion's Ward story, or anything like that. I just want coin-on-edge, single-player D&D. And the City of Brass (expansion).

Example of a 1993 cart game, Spinmaster, playing on 1991 hardware (Neogeo). On a 1999 pro spec crt.
Pretty fabulous animations, super smooth, and sharp. Equivilent to 60fps if you played on a modern TV. Just as bright, blacks close to an OLED.

Just saying people have stranger idea of crts...I think because of 2005 and later is what is influencing everyone. Game content became smaller like text and crts just could not get any hire in resolution...and lcds arrived, destroying everything up to now in terms of weight and convenience...at the cost of incredible input lag, sup par-colors and making old games look incredibly bad (hence why now people are puzzled why older 90s games look worst they they had imagined...its not just nostalgia).

Sorry for rambling off topic I'm a big original hardware retro gamer nerd.
My current goal right now is to get a 17 inch crt Sony computer monitor to play classic DOS games, and of course BG2

Been around since before the ATARI 2600 days. Ive played EVERY ITERATION of a D&D game... Yes even ALL the gold box SSI games. Commodore 64, 128 and Amiga formats.

So I will go on the record and state the success of this game as a BG product comes down to one aspect, the quality of the NPCs.

If they don't create new Minsc and Boo type legendary... this game will be deemed a generic failure by many diehard D&D fans.

I hope they took the RIGHT LESSONS from BG 1 and 2 and did this right.



Pool of Radiance on a COMMODORE AMIGA 500 - OLD SCHOOL BABY!